Would a new president end Russia’s war on Ukraine?

President Trump has dramatically reversed U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Just weeks after signing the sweeping Russian sanctions legislation crafted by the late Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C), he cancelled those sanctions.

He also cancelled other sanctions that have been in place since Russia invaded in 2022, exceeding his legal authority. He announced a murky and likely only symbolic deal to buy Russian diesel fuel. Most critically, he stopped sharing intelligence about Russian launches of ballistic missiles against Ukrainian cities, resulting in scores of dead civilians who were struck before Ukraine could detect and issue warnings to seek cover.

Trump and Elon Musk deny responsibility, but they may have also partially blocked the operation of Starlink terminals on which the Ukrainian defense forces depend.

Much of this Trump has justified in terms of vaguely defined American national interests. In addition, he has insisted that these actions will somehow hasten the end of the war in Ukraine. In particular, he has called for Ukraine to hold new elections to replace President Volodymyr Zelensky. This last demand might seem plausible to Americans that have not been following this conflict or traveled to Ukraine. Having spent much of last month teaching at Ukrainian Catholic University, I can offer perspective on that claim. 

Zelensky was elected in 2019 with 73 percent of the vote. He unseated the incumbent president, whom he criticized for being insufficiently aggressive in fighting corruption. Zelensky also argued that the incumbent’s acrimonious relationship with Russia could hamper the resolution of Russia’s occupation of large parts of eastern and southern Ukraine. 

Ordinarily, Ukrainian presidents serve five-year terms. The Ukrainian constitution, however, prohibits elections under conditions of martial law, which has been in effect since Russia’s full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022. So when Trump demands that Ukrainians hold new elections in the midst of the war, he is demanding that they violate their constitution. 

While teaching in Ukraine, I met a great many Ukrainians, most unaffiliated with the university where I taught. Not surprisingly, I encountered a wide range of opinions on Zelensky and other prominent Ukrainian politicians. Even among Zelensky’s harshest critics, not a single person advocated holding elections now. The reasons are obvious.

In any elections held now, Ukraine has no effective means of enabling its millions of citizens living under Russian occupation to vote. It also would have difficulty securing full participation by the millions of Ukrainian refugees scattered across Europe and beyond. Ukrainians feel deep gratitude toward their defense forces and would want soldiers to participate, but conditions on the front lines would make a secret ballot impossible. The same is true for many Ukrainian civilians living near the frontlines.

An election also would be extraordinarily dangerous for the Ukrainian people. As Russia tries to terrorize Ukrainians into capitulating, its missiles have systematically targeted places where Ukrainian civilians congregate: supermarkets, popular restaurants, schools, playgrounds, and the like. It trains new drone operators by having them hunt Ukrainian civilians in Kherson, a large city across the Dnieper River from Russian-occupied territory. People waiting in line to vote would present too inviting a target for Russia. 

Many Ukrainians regard Zelensky the way the British regarded Winston Churchill: a valuable wartime leader but not the person they want leading the country forward after the fighting ends. Churchill was overwhelmingly elected in 1940 and surely would have won any other elections during World War II, but he was voted out two months after Germany’s defeat. Holding an election now, which Zelensky would almost certainly win, would deprive Ukrainians of the chance to select a new leader after the war. Ukrainians who dislike Zelensky most are therefore the strongest opponents of wartime elections.

The basic premise of Trump’s claim, however, is fundamentally flawed. Zelensky is not the obstacle to Ukraine’s capitulation to Russia. The Ukrainian people are. If Zelensky, or any new president, were to accept the terms Trump is demanding, mass demonstrations would immediately drive them from office. And rightly so. 

Russia does not want Ukraine’s land: it will stop at nothing short of Ukraine’s annihilation.  Russia President Vladimir Putin and his propagandists have repeatedly insisted that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that has no right to exist. Drawing on centuries-old ethnic stereotypes, they have derided Ukrainians as inferior to Russians fit only to serve Russia. Russia’s 2022 invasion was not limited to the parts of Ukraine it now demands: it tried to seize the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, and second-largest city, Kharkiv. Russia was very clear that it sought to end Ukraine as an independent country.

Any peace purchased by conceding Ukrainian land and people to Russia would only last long enough for Russia to rearm and prepare its next invasion. As a prerequisite for peace talks, Russia has demanded that Ukraine surrender large swaths of territory that Russia has been unable to win on the battlefield. Those talks would presumably bring further demands. 

In particular, Russia demands that Ukraine surrender its strongest fortifications, making subsequent Russian invasions easier. This is an old tactic: The peace Germany secured from Neville Chamberlain in Munich required Czechoslovakia to surrender all its border defenses. Six months later, Germany conquered the remainder of the country rendered defenseless by this concession.

In 1994, the U.S. heavily pressured Ukrainians to surrender their nuclear weapons, promising that the U.S. would ensure the country’s territorial integrity. Had Ukraine kept its arsenal — the third-largest in the world — Russia would never have dared invade. When Russia attacked in 2014, Ukrainians quickly learned that America’s word was worthless. We would not even send them weapons. Instead, we pressured them to accept continued Russian occupation of large parts of their country as a price of peace.

This land-for-peace deal did not stop Russia from invading again in 2022. The Ukrainian people will not be fooled again, no matter who their president is.

Trump has already done immense damage to U.S. international credibility. His intelligence cut-off has cost many innocent Ukrainians their lives. His alleged throttling of Starlink terminals paid for by Ukraine and its European allies will wreck the U.S. arms industry’s international credibility.

Although much of this damage is irreparable, Trump should still walk back these imprudent actions immediately. The U.S. should always stand by western democracies, not murderous dictators. 

David A. Super is Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law and Economics at Georgetown University Law Center.