Trump VS Harris: Who Has A More Pro-Ukrainian Stance?

• 11.09.2024, 15:59

The political scientist pointed out interesting points.

The first debate of presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump took place in the United States. The former president and the current vice president of the United States discussed a number of domestic political issues, but they also discussed foreign policy, including the war in Ukraine.

Ukrainian political scientist, professor of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv Petro Oleshchuk told Charter97.org about the most important points of discussion between candidates for the US presidency:

— In general, the debate was surprisingly smooth and calm. In addition to Trump's impressive passage about emigrants who eat cats and dogs, nothing else will probably be remembered. That is, the debate was much more boring from the point of view of the average viewer than many expected, especially given the presence of Trump in the debate.

It is obvious that Trump has not fully rebuilt himself with a new opponent in the person of Kamala Harris. She doesn't seem to be as impressive an irritant to him as Biden is to show, let's say, the maximum of his abilities in the context of a political show.

The debate hardly surprised anyone, in general, the candidates repeated the theses voiced earlier, that is, no breakthroughs were observed here. At the same time, the fact that the pace of the debate itself was, let's say, not as high as one might expect, but in general it was convenient for Harris, who, apparently, simply worked out the theses prepared in advance together with political consultants. Therefore, in general, many perceived this debate as a victory for Harris, simply because she looked quite confident.

In this situation, the fact that she looked confident and calm was indeed perceived by many as a manifestation of victory, while Trump in many ways behaved more restlessly.

— Will the result of the debate affect the presidential race?

— We must understand that the role of this debate in modern American politics should not be overestimated. After all, the days when television debates decided the outcome of the election are over. Now the voter has the opportunity to observe literally online the activity of candidates on a daily basis. The electoral basis of both candidates has already been formed, no special spillovers are expected.

This debate is used primarily to show confidence to their voters that the candidate is calm and confident in thier victory, and thus mobilize voters to come and vote. At the same time, the outcome of the elections will be decided in several states, of which Pennsylvania is currently the key.

In fact, one should not expect that the declared victory of Harris during the debate guarantees victory in the presidential election. No one can guarantee anything in this situation. For Trump's “nuclear” voter, this debate ended with his victory, and they do not refuse it.

But in general, it seems to me that Trump is conducting a rather chaotic campaign after replacing the Democratic candidate, rushing from one extreme to the other. This passage about migrants who eat dogs and cats, it, in my opinion, reflects a certain ideological crisis in the Trump headquarters.

— What did the debate on the attitude of candidates to the war in Ukraine show?

— Foreign policy is a separate topic. Both candidates declared their support for Israel. On the issue of Ukraine, Trump avoided specific answers, saying that if he were president, there would be no full-scale war. At the same time, he said that Ukraine minimizes the losses, that they are very high actually, and refused to answer the question whether he supports the victory of Ukraine.

Harris declared the usual theses, which were previously voiced by representatives of the Biden administration, about the need to support Ukraine, that it was necessary to rebuff Putin. Here, again, nothing new, in general, the candidates confirmed the previously repeatedly voiced theses.

As a kind of conclusion, I could say that we may be waiting for a more interesting debate of candidates for the vice-presidential post, since there are quite interesting personalities there. JD Vance (Trump's candidate) has already said a lot of different things, so everyone is waiting for him to say something that goes beyond the usual norms during this debate. It is possible that the potential debates of the vice presidential candidates will be much more interesting than the debates of Harris and Trump.

We know that during his time in the Senate, Vance repeatedly made statements that support for Ukraine does not make sense, that it is just a waste of funds, that the United States does not have the resources for this support. During the congressional vote on the decision to allocate aid to Ukraine for this year, he was among those senators who opposed this decision, and even blocked it, reading a children's book from the rostrum to gain time. In general, he is not considered a friend of Ukraine, and this is not unreasonable.

Tim Waltz, the Democratic candidate, is generally much more pro-Ukrainian, he supports the line of the Democrats, he did not depart from it. That is, he stands for support for Ukraine and against Putin, and Vance said a lot of anti-Ukrainian things in this regard.