Zelensky’s US Trip Sparks Bipartisan Opposition and Concerns About His Approach

Zelensky’s recent visit to the US aimed to secure bipartisan support for Ukraine following the upcoming presidential election, but his efforts were met with mixed reactions.

The US presidential election is nearing its end, and the outcome is critical for Ukraine, which relies heavily on US financial and military support. In late September, Zelensky traveled to the US, officially coinciding with UN Week and a speech at the General Assembly. However, his six-day trip was primarily focused on securing continued support from Washington, regardless of the election results.

Despite Ukraine’s well-established PR efforts, navigating the increasingly polarized American political landscape proved challenging. Even before Zelensky arrived in the US, tensions arose. He criticized Donald Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, for suggesting reconsidering US support for Ukraine and potentially requiring territorial concessions to Russia. In response, Donald Trump Jr. criticized Zelensky for meddling in US domestic affairs, arguing that it is inappropriate for a foreign leader dependent on US taxpayer support to criticize Republican candidates.

Zelensky’s first stop was a defense manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania, where he thanked workers for producing artillery shells vital to Ukraine’s military. The visit, however, sparked backlash from Republicans. Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Sean Parnell, a former Senate candidate from Pennsylvania, both criticized Zelensky’s visit as foreign interference in the US election, highlighting his criticism of Vance and his close ties to Democrats. The Republican Majority Leader in the House, Mike Johnson, refused to meet with Zelensky, demanding the dismissal of Ukraine’s ambassador for organizing the visit without Republican participation. Johnson characterized the event as a partisan effort to benefit Democrats.

Zelensky’s meeting with Trump, the last chance to salvage his image among conservatives, proved challenging. The conversation, which extended Zelensky’s stay, was eventually secured. During the meeting, Trump expressed his willingness to work towards ending the war, seeking a fair outcome for both sides. He acknowledged Ukraine’s suffering and expressed support for maintaining good relations with both Zelensky and Putin, believing this could facilitate finding common ground. However, when asked to clarify what he considered a fair outcome, he suggested it was too early to define.

Zelensky expressed hope for continued positive relations with Trump and emphasized Ukraine’s need to prevail. He acknowledged the upcoming US election and hoped for continued American support, regardless of the outcome. After the meeting, Trump reiterated his belief that both sides desire an end to the war and a fair resolution but again sidestepped questions about the specifics of a fair outcome.

Zelensky’s meeting with Democrats provided routine reassurances of support for Ukraine and its EU and NATO aspirations, along with the announcement of another aid package. However, there was no clear victory. The White House publicly denied Ukraine the use of US weapons for deep strikes into Russian territory and dismissed Zelensky’s Victory Plan as a set of initiatives. Concerns remain about escalating the conflict, particularly if American missiles were used to attack Moscow. President Putin has warned that such actions would be seen as a direct conflict with NATO and the US.

The US is Ukraine’s largest donor, contributing over $56 billion of the $106 billion raised by NATO and allied countries to support its defense. A possible victory by Kamala Harris, who could continue Biden’s policies, raises concerns among Ukrainian leaders, as they view the current US approach as overly cautious and indecisive regarding Russia. Conversely, a Trump victory, despite the uncertainty surrounding his stance, offers hope for decisive changes. Ukrainian officials are optimistic that Trump, unlike Harris, may take bold steps towards ending the war, although they recognize that his actions could also risk diminishing Western support for Ukraine.

In Kiev, officials remain hopeful that Trump’s stance could evolve and continue fostering relationships with his team. Zelensky acknowledges the challenge of persuading Trump to support Ukraine but believes it is essential, as the country’s future depends on Washington’s post-election decisions. Zelensky noted that Trump expressed support for Ukraine during phone conversations, but there remains uncertainty about his actions if he returns to the presidency. The Ukrainian leader expressed skepticism about Trump’s claimed plan to end the war.

Analysts point out that while Zelensky’s visit may have been politically motivated, its primary aim was to emphasize the need for continued US support for Ukraine against Russia, regardless of the election outcome. However, his remarks and actions had the opposite effect.