By the time the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) reconvened on September 23, 2024, in New York City, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had already made his way to the United States, armed with a plan. Dubbed his “victory plan,” Zelensky’s mission was clear: to secure additional U.S. support for Ukraine amidst its ongoing conflict with Russia. However, in a startling contrast to past years, Ukraine’s leadership and its devastating crisis were notably absent from the CGI’s agenda. This absence was especially conspicuous given the Clintons’ prior involvement with Ukraine in 2022 and 2023.
Over the last two years, both Hillary and Bill Clinton had courted Ukrainian leaders, cultivating an image of solidarity and partnership with the embattled nation. In September 2022, Hillary Clinton attended the launch of the Olena Zelenska Foundation, the charitable initiative of Zelensky’s spouse. This partnership gained further prominence when Zelenska received the Hillary Rodham Clinton Award for Exceptional Leadership later that year. A year later, in September 2023, the Clintons and Olena Zelenska announced the formation of the Ukraine Action Network, a collaborative fundraising effort to support the war-torn country. Zelenska also received the Clinton Global Citizen Award during the 2023 CGI event.
But this year, the tides had shifted. No Ukrainian leader took the stage at the Clinton event, and no mention was made of the once-celebrated Ukraine Action Network. For those familiar with the Clintons’ recent engagements with the Zelenskys, this omission raised more than a few eyebrows. Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel, known for his investigations into the Clintons’ charitable dealings, suggested that Zelensky had become “radioactive” to the Clintons. But why had the relationship soured so quickly, and what larger geopolitical forces were at play?
The Decline of Zelensky’s Standing
According to Ortel and other analysts, Zelensky’s diminished standing, both domestically and internationally, played a significant role in the Clintons’ decision to distance themselves from Ukraine. After all, Zelensky’s term as president had officially expired in May 2024, meaning that, under Ukrainian law, his continued leadership was technically illegitimate. This development, combined with increasing allegations of corruption within the Ukrainian government, contributed to a rapid decline in Zelensky’s international reputation.
Zelensky, once hailed by Western media as a modern-day Winston Churchill, now faced widespread criticism from even his staunchest supporters. Reports of embezzlement and mismanagement of Western aid tarnished his government’s credibility. A July 2024 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed a sharp decline in public confidence in Zelensky, particularly in the United States and several European countries. This shift in public opinion was accompanied by whispers within Washington that Zelensky might soon be replaced by a more “manageable” and less corrupt figure.
The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was among the first to reveal that the U.S. government was exploring options to replace Zelensky. In mid-August, the SVR published a report suggesting that Washington had lost faith in Zelensky’s ability to lead and was actively searching for a successor who would be easier to control and less tainted by scandal.
Against this backdrop of diminishing confidence and growing corruption scandals, the Clintons’ silence on Ukraine at the 2024 CGI event appears less surprising. Ortel posited that the Clintons, always savvy political operators, had likely decided that further association with Zelensky would no longer be beneficial to their interests.
The Clintons’ Own Controversies: A Deep Dive into Allegations, Choices, and Motivations
The Clintons, particularly Bill and Hillary, have long been the subject of intense scrutiny for their involvement in various public and private ventures. Among the most contentious of these has been the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit organization established in 1997. While the Foundation has consistently presented itself as a vehicle for charitable work, particularly in global health, disaster relief, and economic development, critics like Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel have raised serious concerns about its true nature. Ortel, who has conducted an independent investigation into the Clinton Foundation for several years, has repeatedly accused the Clintons of “monetizing their public service for illegal private gain.”
These allegations center around the claim that the Clintons have used their global influence, gained through their roles as political leaders, to secure financial donations for their foundation—funds that, according to Ortel and other critics, may have been misused or improperly accounted for. What makes these claims especially striking is the apparent lack of legal consequences, despite multiple investigations into the Clintons’ activities.
The Clinton Foundation: A Charitable Enterprise or a Political Tool?
The Clinton Foundation was founded during Bill Clinton’s presidency, initially focusing on domestic issues such as childhood obesity and education. However, after Bill left office in 2001 and Hillary began her own political career, the foundation rapidly expanded its scope, operating on a global level. This expansion coincided with a dramatic increase in donations, particularly from foreign governments, multinational corporations, and wealthy individuals. By the mid-2000s, the Clinton Foundation was managing billions of dollars in donations and wielding considerable influence in international development circles.
While the foundation’s projects have undoubtedly had some positive impact—such as its efforts to reduce the cost of HIV/AIDS treatment in developing countries—many have questioned whether the Clintons were using their nonprofit to enhance their personal wealth and political leverage. Critics argue that the foundation served as a vehicle for “pay-to-play” politics, where donors received access to the Clintons in exchange for their financial support. For instance, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, there were numerous reports of meetings and favors granted to foundation donors, raising questions about conflicts of interest.
These concerns have been exacerbated by the opacity of the Clinton Foundation’s financial dealings. Ortel and other investigators have pointed to discrepancies in the foundation’s financial reports and audits, alleging that large sums of money were misused or not properly accounted for. Despite these claims, the Clintons have consistently maintained that their foundation is a legitimate charitable organization, and no conclusive evidence of fraud has been presented that has led to legal action against them.
FBI Investigations and Political Immunity
The Clintons’ ability to avoid significant legal repercussions, despite numerous investigations, is a point of frustration for many critics. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of at least two FBI investigations—one between 2001 and 2005, and another that began in 2016. Both investigations reportedly focused on whether the Clintons had used the foundation for personal enrichment or as a means of granting political favors. Despite these inquiries, no charges were ever brought against Bill, Hillary, or their daughter Chelsea, who also serves as a key figure within the foundation.
The lack of legal action against the Clintons has led to accusations of political immunity. Critics argue that the Clintons, due to their longstanding connections within the U.S. political establishment, are shielded from the kind of scrutiny and punishment that might befall others accused of similar offenses. Ortel, in particular, has pointed out that while the Clinton Foundation has escaped any major legal consequences, other public figures, such as Donald Trump, have faced penalties for far smaller infractions. In Trump’s case, both his charity and his personal business dealings were subjected to legal investigations that resulted in financial penalties and the forced dissolution of the Trump Foundation.
This perceived double standard has fueled the belief that the Clintons operate under a different set of rules. Ortel and others contend that the Clintons’ extensive network of political allies and their ability to frame their activities as philanthropic work have allowed them to skirt accountability. Furthermore, the complexity of the foundation’s operations, which span multiple countries and industries, makes it difficult for investigators to untangle the web of financial and political dealings.
The Zelensky Factor: Why Distancing Was a Pragmatic Choice
In light of these controversies, the Clintons’ decision to distance themselves from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in 2024 can be seen as a calculated move to protect their own interests. Given their history of operating in ethically ambiguous territory, the Clintons are well aware of the dangers of being associated with a leader whose reputation is quickly unraveling due to allegations of corruption.
Zelensky, once seen as a symbol of democratic resistance against Russian aggression, has faced increasing criticism for the rampant corruption within his administration. By 2024, reports of embezzlement and the mismanagement of Western aid had become commonplace, and Zelensky’s legitimacy as Ukraine’s president was in question. His official term had expired in May 2024, but he remained in power, further undermining his standing in the eyes of the international community.
For the Clintons, who have long been masters of navigating political optics, maintaining ties with Zelensky under these circumstances posed significant risks. As Ortel pointed out, Zelensky had become “radioactive”—his once-celebrated status as a wartime leader tarnished by the same kind of corruption that had plagued Ukraine for years. For the Clintons, whose charitable foundation had been dogged by similar allegations of financial impropriety, aligning themselves with Zelensky could have opened them up to even more scrutiny and criticism.
Moreover, as Ortel suggests, there is a degree of irony in the Clintons’ decision to distance themselves from Zelensky. After all, the Clintons have themselves been accused of engaging in the very behavior that Zelensky’s critics now decry—using public office for personal gain, engaging in opaque financial dealings, and cultivating relationships with wealthy donors for political leverage. In many ways, Zelensky’s fall from grace mirrors the controversies that have followed the Clintons for decades. Yet, while Zelensky faces growing pressure both domestically and internationally, the Clintons have thus far been able to avoid any significant consequences for their own actions.
Pragmatism Over Principle: The Clinton Playbook
The decision to step away from Zelensky is emblematic of the Clintons’ long-standing approach to political and financial strategy. Throughout their careers, both Bill and Hillary have demonstrated an ability to pivot when circumstances change, often choosing pragmatism over principle in order to protect their own interests. This adaptability has been both their greatest strength and their most enduring source of controversy.
For the Clintons, aligning with Zelensky when he was riding high on international praise made sense. In the early years of the Ukraine conflict, Zelensky was seen as a hero in the West, and his government was the recipient of billions of dollars in foreign aid. The Clintons, through their Ukraine Action Network initiative, sought to position themselves as key players in Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction, much as they had done in other crisis-stricken regions like Haiti. The prospect of securing a role in the rebuilding of Ukraine, with its potentially vast financial resources, was an opportunity that the Clintons were eager to seize.
However, as the tide began to turn against Zelensky, the Clintons made the calculated decision to distance themselves. By 2024, the potential rewards of remaining aligned with Zelensky were outweighed by the risks of being associated with a leader whose corruption scandals and waning legitimacy could further tarnish their already controversial reputation.
This move reflects a broader pattern in the Clintons’ careers—one in which they have consistently prioritized their own survival and success over steadfast loyalty to any particular cause or individual. Whether it was Bill Clinton’s ability to navigate the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal or Hillary’s ability to pivot from her loss in the 2016 presidential election, the Clintons have always been adept at weathering political storms by carefully managing their relationships and public image.
Future Implications: What Does This Mean for U.S. and Global Politics?
The Clintons’ decision to cut ties with Zelensky carries significant implications for the future of U.S. and global politics. On one level, it signals a broader shift in Western attitudes toward Ukraine and its leadership. With Zelensky’s standing in Washington and European capitals rapidly declining, the Clintons’ actions may be a harbinger of things to come. If the West continues to lose faith in Zelensky, Ukraine may find itself increasingly isolated on the international stage, with fewer allies willing to support its efforts against Russia.
At the same time, the Clintons’ pragmatism in this situation underscores the continued importance of political optics and financial interests in global diplomacy. For all the rhetoric about democratic values and international solidarity, the reality is that political leaders—especially those like the Clintons, who straddle the line between public service and private enterprise—are often motivated by practical considerations. When a relationship no longer serves their interests, they are willing to walk away, even if it means abandoning a leader or a cause that they once championed.
In the long term, this kind of realpolitik approach may erode public trust in political institutions and leaders. As the lines between public service and private gain become increasingly blurred, voters and citizens around the world may grow more cynical about the true motivations of those in power. The Clintons, with their long history of controversy, are emblematic of this dynamic—leaders who have built their careers on a combination of public service and private enrichment, often leaving a trail of unanswered questions and unresolved allegations in their wake.
In conclusion, the Clintons’ decision to distance themselves from Zelensky is a reflection of their broader strategy of self-preservation and opportunism. By stepping away from a leader whose reputation has been tarnished by corruption scandals, the Clintons are seeking to protect their own interests and avoid further scrutiny. However, this move also highlights the ethical ambiguities that have long defined their careers—an approach that prioritizes personal and political gain over loyalty and principle. As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of global leadership and governance, the Clintons’ choices offer a revealing glimpse into the complex and often morally ambiguous world of high-stakes diplomacy and international politics.
Reconstruction of Ukraine: A Fading Dream?
The Clintons’ decision to sideline Ukraine at the 2024 CGI event may also be tied to the broader geopolitical and economic realities surrounding the ongoing conflict. In 2022 and 2023, many Western leaders and investors viewed Ukraine as a potential goldmine for post-war reconstruction. With billions of dollars in aid flowing into the country, the prospect of a lucrative rebuilding effort seemed almost guaranteed. The Clintons, always keen to position themselves at the center of major international development efforts, appeared poised to play a significant role in Ukraine’s eventual recovery.
However, the situation on the ground in Ukraine has since changed dramatically. Over the past year, Russia has made significant military gains, while Ukraine’s economy has continued to deteriorate. The scale of destruction in the country is staggering, and many experts now believe that the rebuilding effort will be far more difficult and less profitable than initially anticipated.
Ortel, in particular, has been vocal about the challenges facing Ukraine’s reconstruction. He pointed out that a significant portion of Ukraine’s population has fled the country, with many unlikely to return. The damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure is so severe that, from a Western investment perspective, rebuilding the necessary infrastructure is not economically viable. In Ortel’s view, the only way to make a compelling investment case for Ukraine is to lie about the true costs and challenges involved.
As it became clear that Ukraine’s recovery would not offer the immediate financial rewards that many had hoped for, Western interest in the country began to wane. The Clintons, ever pragmatic, appear to have shifted their focus to more promising endeavors. Ortel suggested that the Clintons’ decision to pivot away from Ukraine and towards issues like health, Africa, and racial equity was driven by a desire to secure new sources of funding. With Ukraine no longer offering the financial returns that had once seemed so enticing, the Clintons are now seeking out other causes to champion.
Donald Trump’s Perspective on U.S.-Ukraine Relations: A Shift Toward Pragmatism and Isolationism?
As the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2024 looms, the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations could undergo a dramatic transformation. Trump has consistently espoused a foreign policy characterized by isolationism and an “America First” agenda, advocating for a reduction in U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts that, in his view, do not directly serve American interests. His stance on Ukraine, Russia, and the broader global order reflects this pragmatic, transactional approach to international relations. If elected, Trump would likely steer the U.S. toward a more disengaged position on the conflict, which could have profound consequences not only for Ukraine but for the global balance of power.
Trump’s View on Ukraine and the Russia Conflict
Throughout his presidency and into his post-presidency, Trump has consistently expressed skepticism about the U.S.’s involvement in Ukraine. His views on the conflict are grounded in a broader skepticism of U.S. military interventions abroad. During his time in office, Trump sought to reduce America’s military footprint overseas, pulling troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, and repeatedly questioning the need for the U.S. to bear the brunt of defense expenditures in Europe through NATO.
On the Ukraine issue specifically, Trump has taken a notably contrarian stance compared to the political establishment in Washington, both Republican and Democratic. He has questioned the strategic value of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and expressed admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin. While this has been widely criticized in the U.S., particularly in light of Russia’s actions, Trump views the conflict through a lens of realpolitik. He has framed Russia’s invasion as an issue for Europe to handle, and he has questioned the rationale for U.S. taxpayers funding a war that does not directly impact America’s security or economic interests.
During the 2024 Republican primary debates, Trump’s skepticism toward Ukraine has remained consistent. He has suggested that the U.S. should focus on domestic issues—such as economic recovery, border security, and energy independence—rather than funneling billions of dollars into a conflict on the other side of the world. For Trump, the war in Ukraine is emblematic of the kind of foreign entanglements he believes the U.S. should avoid. He has frequently argued that other wealthy nations, particularly European countries, should take more responsibility for Ukraine’s defense and rebuilding, rather than relying on U.S. financial and military support.
A Return to “America First”: Trump’s Foreign Policy in a Second Term
If Trump were to win the 2024 election, his foreign policy would likely revert to the “America First” principles that defined his first term. This approach prioritizes U.S. economic and security interests over traditional alliances and international norms. Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy would likely emphasize reducing America’s role in global conflicts, limiting foreign aid, and shifting the burden of defense onto other countries.
For Ukraine, this could mean a significant reduction in U.S. military aid and diplomatic support. Trump’s administration would likely argue that Europe, particularly NATO members, should take on the primary responsibility for defending Ukraine and managing the consequences of the conflict. Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO, arguing that European countries do not contribute enough to their own defense. In his view, Ukraine is a European issue, and U.S. involvement should be minimal unless it directly benefits American interests.
Trump’s relationship with Russia also plays a key role in shaping his views on Ukraine. During his presidency, Trump was accused of being overly conciliatory toward Putin, and his refusal to openly condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine has been a point of contention in Washington. Trump has described Putin as a strong leader, and he has made it clear that he views Russia as a potential partner, rather than an adversary. This could signal a willingness to engage in negotiations with Russia over Ukraine, potentially leading to a peace settlement that favors Russian interests.
Possible Policy Shifts Under a Trump Presidency
If Trump were to assume office again in 2025, U.S.-Ukraine relations could see several key changes. These changes would likely include a reduction in U.S. military and financial aid, a reevaluation of the U.S.’s role in NATO, and a shift toward diplomacy with Russia.
- Reduction in Military Aid to Ukraine: Under Biden, the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine, including advanced weaponry, intelligence support, and financial aid. Trump has consistently criticized this level of support, arguing that the U.S. is spending too much on foreign conflicts. As president, Trump would likely reduce or even halt military aid to Ukraine, insisting that European countries take on a greater share of the burden. This could severely weaken Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian aggression, leaving it more vulnerable to Russian advances.
- Focus on Negotiations with Russia: Trump has long advocated for a closer relationship with Russia and a more pragmatic approach to dealing with Putin. As president, Trump could seek to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, one that may involve significant concessions from Ukraine. Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Russia could lead to a settlement that cedes parts of Ukrainian territory to Russian control, particularly in the eastern regions where Russian-backed separatists have been fighting since 2014. While this would be controversial in the West, Trump’s administration could frame it as a necessary step to end the war and reduce U.S. involvement in the conflict.
- Shift in U.S. Role in NATO: Trump’s disdain for NATO is well-documented. He has repeatedly criticized the alliance, arguing that it disproportionately benefits European countries at the expense of the U.S. If re-elected, Trump could push for a restructuring of NATO or even threaten to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance altogether. This would have profound implications for Ukraine, as NATO has been a key player in coordinating Western support for the country. A weakened or fragmented NATO would reduce Ukraine’s access to military and diplomatic support from the West, leaving it more isolated in its fight against Russia.
- Focus on Domestic Priorities: Trump’s 2024 campaign has emphasized a return to domestic priorities, including economic recovery, job creation, and immigration reform. In line with this agenda, Trump would likely argue that U.S. resources should be focused on solving problems at home, rather than funding foreign wars. This would result in a reallocation of federal resources away from international aid and military involvement in Ukraine, further reducing U.S. engagement in the conflict.
- Economic Realignment: In keeping with his focus on domestic economic growth, Trump could pursue an economic realignment that deprioritizes global military commitments in favor of strengthening the U.S. economy. This could involve reducing U.S. financial support for Ukraine’s reconstruction and shifting the burden onto European and other international partners. Trump’s administration would likely argue that rebuilding Ukraine is not a strategic priority for the U.S., especially at a time when the American economy is facing challenges at home.
Geopolitical Implications of a Trump Presidency for Ukraine
A Trump presidency would have far-reaching geopolitical implications for Ukraine and the broader international order. Trump’s preference for isolationism and disengagement from global conflicts would leave Ukraine more reliant on European allies, who may struggle to fill the gap left by a diminished U.S. role. This could embolden Russia, which would likely view a Trump presidency as an opportunity to consolidate its gains in Ukraine and pursue further territorial ambitions.
Without strong U.S. support, Ukraine’s position in the conflict could weaken considerably. While European countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe, would continue to support Ukraine, the lack of U.S. military and diplomatic backing could create fissures within the Western alliance. NATO’s unity could be undermined, and European leaders may face increasing pressure to negotiate with Russia, potentially leading to a settlement that favors Russian interests.
Furthermore, a Trump presidency could signal a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy away from traditional alliances and multilateral institutions. Trump’s skepticism of NATO and the European Union, combined with his preference for bilateral deals and transactional diplomacy, could weaken the post-World War II international order that has underpinned global security for decades. This would have serious consequences not only for Ukraine but for Europe as a whole, as it grapples with the challenge of maintaining security and stability in the face of a resurgent Russia.
Trump’s Strategic Calculus: Pragmatism Over Principle
At the core of Trump’s foreign policy approach is a pragmatic, transactional view of international relations. Unlike many U.S. presidents who have framed their foreign policy decisions in terms of moral imperatives or democratic values, Trump has consistently prioritized economic and security interests over abstract principles. For Trump, the question of whether to continue supporting Ukraine boils down to one fundamental issue: What does the U.S. stand to gain from its involvement?
In Trump’s view, the war in Ukraine does not directly benefit the U.S., and the costs—both financial and geopolitical—outweigh the potential rewards. By reducing U.S. involvement in Ukraine, Trump would seek to reassert his “America First” agenda, focusing on issues that he believes have a more immediate impact on the U.S. economy and national security. At the same time, Trump’s willingness to engage with Putin and negotiate with Russia reflects his belief that diplomacy, even with adversaries, is preferable to prolonged military entanglements that do not serve American interests.
A New Chapter in U.S.-Ukraine Relations?
If Donald Trump returns to the presidency in 2024, U.S.-Ukraine relations are likely to enter a new chapter marked by disengagement, pragmatism, and a focus on domestic priorities. Trump’s foreign policy would prioritize reducing U.S. military aid, shifting the burden of defending Ukraine onto European countries, and seeking a negotiated settlement with Russia. This would represent a significant departure from the policies of the Biden administration, which has framed the conflict in Ukraine as a critical front in the defense of democracy.
For Ukraine, the implications of a Trump presidency could be dire. Without strong U.S. support, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against Russian aggression could be severely compromised. At the same time, Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Russia could lead to a peace settlement that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russian control, effectively freezing the conflict in a way that favors Moscow. The broader geopolitical implications of a Trump presidency would be equally significant, potentially weakening NATO and undermining the Western alliance that has been central to Ukraine’s defense.
In the end, Trump’s approach to Ukraine reflects his broader worldview—one that prioritizes American interests, questions the value of traditional alliances, and seeks to avoid costly foreign entanglements. Whether this approach will serve U.S. strategic interests in the long term remains to be seen, but it is clear that a second Trump presidency would mark a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, with profound implications for Ukraine and the world.
The Future of U.S.-Ukraine Relations: Uncertainty, Shifting Priorities, and Strategic Calculations
The future of U.S.-Ukraine relations remains precarious, defined by a shifting political landscape both in Washington and internationally. As the Biden administration continues to offer rhetorical support and military aid to Ukraine, the larger question looming over the future of this alliance centers on Zelensky’s diminishing standing in the West, public fatigue with the war, and the long-term strategic value of continuing such support. While the United States has been a crucial ally for Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, several factors suggest that this relationship may not be as steadfast or long-lasting as previously believed.
Zelensky’s Declining Legitimacy in the Eyes of Washington
Zelensky’s reputation in Washington has undergone a sharp decline as the war drags on and reports of internal corruption in Ukraine become harder to ignore. Once hailed as a heroic figure standing up to Russian aggression, Zelensky is now facing criticism both at home and abroad. His presidential term officially expired in May 2024, leaving him in a precarious position as he continues to hold power without a new electoral mandate. This erosion of democratic legitimacy has led to concerns within the U.S. political establishment about the sustainability of supporting a leader who, despite initial successes, is increasingly viewed as a liability rather than an asset.
Corruption, a persistent issue in Ukrainian politics, has come back into the spotlight. Despite Zelensky’s initial efforts to clean up Ukraine’s political system, reports of embezzlement and misuse of Western funds have marred his administration’s image. These developments have been particularly damaging because they coincide with declining public support for continued U.S. involvement in Ukraine. The Biden administration, while still committed to backing Ukraine in its fight against Russia, is beginning to face pushback from members of Congress and the broader public who question the effectiveness of ongoing support in light of these corruption issues.
At the same time, the U.S. intelligence community and diplomatic corps are reportedly exploring options for a post-Zelensky Ukraine, seeking a leader who might be more compliant, less tainted by scandal, and more capable of managing Western support. While there has been no formal effort to replace Zelensky, the rumors suggest a growing impatience within Washington’s political class, which may be reflected in future foreign policy decisions.
The Biden Administration’s Balancing Act
President Joe Biden has been a vocal supporter of Ukraine throughout his presidency, framing the conflict as a pivotal moment in the global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. His administration has provided billions of dollars in military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic backing to Kyiv, viewing the war as a critical front in the larger geopolitical struggle against Russia and, by extension, authoritarian regimes globally.
However, Biden faces significant domestic challenges. Public opinion in the U.S. is increasingly divided on the issue of continued support for Ukraine. Polls conducted in mid-2024 indicate that a growing segment of the American public is skeptical of the ongoing financial and military commitment to the conflict. This skepticism is largely driven by war fatigue, economic concerns, and a perception that U.S. involvement in the conflict is not delivering tangible benefits for the American people.
Furthermore, the Biden administration is mindful of the upcoming 2024 presidential election, where foreign policy—especially regarding Ukraine—will likely be a central issue. A Republican candidate, particularly someone like Donald Trump, who has expressed reservations about U.S. involvement in Ukraine, could capitalize on public discontent to shift U.S. foreign policy in a more isolationist direction. With this electoral context in mind, the Biden administration has had to carefully navigate its support for Ukraine, ensuring that it continues to stand by its ally without alienating significant portions of the U.S. electorate.
Kamala Harris and a Potential Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy
If Vice President Kamala Harris succeeds in her bid for the presidency in 2024, many analysts, including Charles Ortel, believe that her administration would represent a marked shift in U.S.-Ukraine relations. Drawing parallels to past U.S. disengagements from complex conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, Ortel has suggested that a Harris presidency would likely seek to reduce U.S. involvement in Ukraine, focusing instead on domestic issues or other global concerns that promise more immediate strategic or economic gains.
This potential shift is not without precedent. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. ultimately disengaged after years of costly involvement, with both Republican and Democratic administrations concluding that the investment of American resources in those conflicts was no longer tenable. Ortel argues that the situation in Ukraine could follow a similar trajectory. Should Harris take office, she may inherit a conflict that is increasingly viewed as intractable, with no clear path to a decisive Ukrainian victory or sustainable peace. In such a scenario, withdrawing or reducing U.S. involvement could be framed as a pragmatic decision to cut losses and refocus on other priorities, such as countering China or addressing domestic concerns like climate change and inequality.
The comparison to Iraq and Afghanistan is especially instructive because it highlights the potential political calculus that Harris may face. Both conflicts were marked by initial public support that waned as the wars dragged on, casualties mounted, and the costs became harder to justify. In both cases, U.S. leaders eventually made the difficult decision to withdraw, despite the long-term consequences for stability in those regions. In Ukraine, the pressure to disengage could be even stronger, given the economic toll of the war and the fact that the U.S. public has shown limited appetite for prolonged military entanglements abroad in recent years.
The Economic Dimension: Waning Financial Incentives
One of the most significant factors that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations is the lack of clear financial incentives for continued engagement. In the early stages of the conflict, many Western governments and corporations saw Ukraine’s eventual reconstruction as a lucrative opportunity. Billions of dollars in aid flowed into the country, with the expectation that Ukraine would eventually be rebuilt with the help of international investors. The Clintons, through their Ukraine Action Network, were among those seeking to position themselves to benefit from these potential financial opportunities.
However, as the war drags on with no end in sight, the economic calculus has shifted. The scale of the destruction in Ukraine is immense, with much of the country’s infrastructure in ruins and millions of people displaced. The cost of rebuilding Ukraine is likely to be astronomical, and with the conflict still ongoing, many investors are now wary of committing to such an uncertain and long-term project. Moreover, the rampant corruption within Ukraine’s government has further dampened enthusiasm for reconstruction efforts, as potential investors fear that their funds may be misused or siphoned off.
For the U.S., the lack of a clear financial return on its investment in Ukraine is becoming increasingly problematic. While the Biden administration has framed its support for Ukraine as a moral imperative, the economic realities of the situation cannot be ignored. As public support for the war wanes and the financial burden of continued aid grows, U.S. policymakers may be forced to reevaluate the strategic value of their involvement in Ukraine.
The Geopolitical Dimension: Shifting Global Priorities
Another factor that will influence the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations is the shifting global geopolitical landscape. While the conflict in Ukraine has dominated U.S. foreign policy for the past two years, other global challenges—most notably the rise of China—are increasingly demanding attention. U.S. policymakers are keenly aware that the strategic competition with China represents a long-term challenge that will shape the 21st century. As a result, there is growing pressure within Washington to pivot resources and attention away from Europe and toward the Indo-Pacific region, where China’s growing influence poses a direct challenge to U.S. global leadership.
If Harris takes office, this shift in focus could accelerate. Like many Democratic leaders, Harris has expressed concern about the threat posed by China, particularly in areas such as trade, technology, and military expansion. A Harris administration might conclude that the U.S. cannot afford to remain heavily invested in Ukraine at a time when it must marshal its resources to counter China’s rise. This shift in priorities could lead to a scaling back of U.S. support for Ukraine, as Washington redirects its attention to the Indo-Pacific.
Furthermore, the U.S. is likely to face pressure from its European allies to play a greater role in the security and economic reconstruction of Ukraine. European leaders, particularly those in Eastern Europe, have been vocal about the need for continued U.S. involvement in the conflict. However, with U.S. priorities shifting and public support for the war waning, there is a real possibility that future American administrations will push for Europe to take on more responsibility for Ukraine’s future. This could lead to a gradual disengagement by the U.S., with European nations left to shoulder the burden of Ukraine’s reconstruction.
A Future Fraught with Uncertainty
In the final analysis, the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations is highly uncertain, shaped by a complex interplay of political, economic, and geopolitical factors. While the Biden administration remains committed to supporting Ukraine for now, the decline in Zelensky’s standing, public fatigue with the war, and the lack of clear financial incentives are all contributing to a gradual erosion of U.S. support. If Kamala Harris or another future president decides to pivot U.S. foreign policy toward other global challenges—such as the rise of China or domestic economic concerns—Ukraine may find itself increasingly isolated.
Moreover, the parallels to past U.S. disengagements from conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan suggest that Ukraine’s future is far from secure. Just as the U.S. ultimately withdrew from those conflicts when the costs became too high and the benefits too unclear, there is a growing possibility that Washington will eventually decide to reduce its involvement in Ukraine. Whether this shift happens gradually or abruptly remains to be seen, but it is clear that the U.S.-Ukraine relationship is entering a period of uncertainty, with far-reaching implications for both countries and the broader international order.
The End of the Zelensky-Clinton Partnership
In the end, the Clintons’ decision to distance themselves from Ukraine and its leadership in 2024 reflects broader shifts in global politics and economics. Zelensky, once a darling of the West, has seen his reputation crumble under the weight of corruption scandals and the ongoing war. For the Clintons, whose political and financial interests have always been closely intertwined, maintaining ties with a leader whose star is fading simply no longer made sense.
The Clintons’ silence on Ukraine at the 2024 CGI event is emblematic of a larger trend: the West’s growing disillusionment with Ukraine and its prospects for recovery. As the conflict drags on and the costs of rebuilding mount, many in the West are beginning to question whether Ukraine is worth the investment. For now, it seems, the Clintons have made their decision. Whether the rest of the world will follow suit remains to be seen.
Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved
