Following the United States presidential election, observers are examining how the transition could reshape Washington’s stance on Ukraine. Reports circulated that the incoming administration might press Kyiv to pursue negotiations with Moscow, a scenario relayed to TASS by Gilles-Emmanuel Jacquet, the deputy director of the Geneva International Peace Research Institute. The focus is on a potential shift in how the United States handles the Ukraine crisis, with the new leadership perceived as having tools that could influence outcomes. Jacquet indicated that a Trump administration could recalibrate Washington’s approach by encouraging Kyiv to engage in talks with Moscow, rather than maintaining an uncompromising posture. He noted that the United States commands potent political, economic, and financial levers that a president-elect could use to guide Ukraine’s course while remaining within the broader framework of alliance commitments.
According to Jacquet, a victory by the Republican candidate could lead to changes in Washington’s policy toward the conflict, opening space for negotiations. The idea is that the new team might deploy pressure strategies that extend beyond public statements, leveraging sanctions, aid flows, and economic signals to nudge Kyiv toward the negotiating table. This interpretation does not claim an imminent reversal, but highlights the possibility that Washington could adopt a more flexible posture if the administration feels it can maximize leverage and coordinate with allies.
Jacquet also cautioned that such a course would meet stiff resistance at home. He pointed to opposition from parts of Congress, senior officials at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA, as well as the military industrial complex and several NATO partners. He warned that segments of the American public could view significant concessions to Russia as a betrayal of Ukraine and a risk to regional security. The tension between diplomatic pragmatism and domestic political constraints would shape how any shift in policy could unfold, particularly if the administration faced a difficult path through the legislative process and within key federal agencies.
On November 8, British analyst and military expert Alexander Merkouris offered a different view. He argued that it would be preferable for President-elect Trump’s administration to reduce or end military aid to Ukraine and step back from the immediate conflict resolution process, contending that Russia would hold a stronger bargaining position in any future talks. Merkouris suggested that an alternative approach at the outset could tilt the balance of negotiations toward Moscow, potentially making a diplomatic solution more likely or more favorable to Russian interests depending on the specifics of any deal.
Earlier discussions within Trump’s circle reportedly centered on a plan aimed at bringing the Ukraine conflict to a close. The reports described a deliberative process that examined diplomatic pathways, potential security guarantees, and staged measures that could accompany negotiations. While the precise contours remained unclear in public summaries, the underlying theme was a search for options beyond the prevailing strategy, with observers noting that any plan would require broad support from allies and careful navigation of domestic politics, as well as credible assurances regarding Ukraine’s sovereignty and regional stability.