Conservative 
Search
Trending
Current News
We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.
The 2024 American election coincided with the latest grim and bloody period of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
According to Bloomberg, as of Nov. 1, Russia had captured 442 square miles in Ukraine since August 6, about a quarter more than in the first seven months of the year.
As Ukrainians in the homeland and scattered across the globe watched their armed forces’ accelerating retreat on the eastern front, they also passionately followed the intricacies of the opposing U.S. electoral campaigns.
In the widespread consensus, global Ukrainians regard the U.S. as the only power that can turn the tide of the devastating and protracted war. However, this is where the consensus ends. The difference between the opposing Ukrainian camps is in the opinion as to where Donald Trump’s victory will turn the tide — to Ukraine’s demise or to her good.
A Spectrum of Perspectives
The spectrum of Ukrainian-Americans’ views spans a wide range, centered around two polar viewpoints: whether to support Ukraine in continuing the fight to secure victory or to push for an immediate end to the war.
Early Sunday morning, after the abrupt end of the Syrian regime, Trump issued a statement saying, “Zelenskyy and Ukraine would like to make a deal and stop the madness.” He added, “There should be an immediate ceasefire and negotiations should begin.”
This statement, from President Trump’s Truth Social account, which was later reposted on X, leaves room for varying reactions and interpretations within the Ukrainian-American community. However, these responses will likely remain anchored in the same enduring divide—shaped by deeply held beliefs and expectations that have withstood the tests of time and shifting circumstances.
A Call for Victory
The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America’s (UCCA) Call to Action, issued after the Russian attack on Ukraine with an Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile on November 21, very characteristically summarized the opinions of those who believe the U.S. should help Ukraine continue fighting until the decisive victory. The attack, which came after President Joe Biden had given the green light for Ukraine to use US-supplied missiles to strike Russia, hit the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro with several warheads.
Video screen shot on X purports to show IRBM re-entry vehicles hitting Ukraine, as seen on www.express.co.uk and Zhao DaShuai X accounts
UCCA, the diaspora umbrella organization, spoke about Russia’s “failures … on the battlefield” and “the kremlin’s deepening desperation” among the reasons behind the aggressor state’s decision for the first-ever combat use of an IRBM missile. (Note: UCCA spells ‘Kremlin’ and ‘Russia’ without capitalizations in its releases -ed.)
UCCA’s address included the essence of the opposition to the idea of Ukraine’s urgent negotiations with Russia: it underscored “the urgency of delivering a decisive defeat to the kremlin.” “The only way to stop [Russia’s] campaign of terror and intimidation is to ensure Ukraine’s full victory,” continued the address.
To ensure the victory, UCCA called on the U.S. and its allies to strengthen military support for Ukraine and “provide it with the advanced weapons needed to counter russian missile threats”. UCCA believes that “A clear and resounding Ukrainian victory is essential to deterring future russian adventurism and preserving global stability.”
A Call for Ceasefire
Ukrainians on the other end of the debate echo the report America First, Russia and Ukraine by Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, published in April 2024, in that it’s time to stop the killing.
Trump’s reaction following the toppling of Assad’s regime, along with statements from his inner circle regarding Ukraine in the past month, aligns closely with the report’s main themes.
In our interviews, several Americans of Ukrainian descent agreed with the report’s sentiment that “The United States would continue to arm Ukraine and strengthen its defenses to ensure Russia will make no further advances and will not attack again after a ceasefire or peace agreement. Future American military aid, however, will require Ukraine to participate in peace talks with Russia.”
Returning the territory taken by Russia is the most painful issue for most Ukrainians. The report agrees that “Ukraine would not be asked to relinquish the goal of regaining all its territory, but it would agree to use diplomacy, not force.”
Kellogg and Fleitz admit that “the Ukrainian people will have trouble accepting a negotiated peace that does not give them back all of their territory or, at least for now, hold Russia responsible for the carnage it inflicted on Ukraine. But as Donald Trump said at the CNN town hall in 2023, ‘I want everyone to stop dying.’”
Several Ukrainian Americans who agreed to talk to us shared that view.
Voices from the Diaspora: Pro-Trump
Maria
Maria, a health insurance professional from New Jersey born in the Ternopil region of western Ukraine, said, “A horrific end is better than a never-ending horror. I did not vote, but I would have voted for Trump because there is no end in sight for this war under this administration. It’s been almost three years, and Ukraine is getting destroyed.”
Oksana
Oksana Holovko, from New Jersey and originally from the Lviv region of western Ukraine, a financial manager with a logistics company, voted for Trump because “President Biden has supported Ukraine mainly in words but not in deeds.” She said: “I don’t know where all that U.S. assistance has gone—I know people who are on the front lines, and they don’t have enough weapons. If Kamala Harris became president, I think the war would protract for four more years. I don’t want that for Ukraine; all my relatives are there, including my mom.”
Oksana liked Donald Trump’s compassion for people caught up in the war and his intent to stop the killings. She wasn’t sure how long would the Ukrainian army last due to the shortage of personnel and despite the draconian mobilization efforts: “I visited Ukraine in October and witnessed how the authorities stopped a transit bus and extracted several men.” “A longer war would exterminate most of the Ukrainian men, I want this to stop,” she said.
Olena
Olena, a shipping company employee from New Jersey, originally from the easternmost Ukrainian region of Luhansk, voted for Trump.
Her answer to the question of why, she said, is always “Because it was during the Biden administration when Russia invaded Ukraine.” She added: “I remember Biden’s words about a ‘minor incursion’ [“It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.”—President Biden on Jan. 20, 2022, just before the all-out invasion].
The guys on the front are telling me they remember the American support they got when Trump was President. Biden has thrown Ukraine to the wolves. My town in the Luhansk region is bombed out, I lost my mother’s apartment and everything in it.”
Olena agrees with the idea of the ceasefire that would stop the bloodshed and allow Ukraine to take a breath. She expects strong-handed policies from President Trump that would help Ukraine rearm, retake the occupied territories, and prevent further Russian aggression.
Ihor
Ihor Prots, a transportation business owner from New Jersey, originally from Lviv, did not vote. He recognized that without the Biden administration’s support, Ukraine would not have lasted long in the war. However, the bulk of this support, he believes, was due to the military-industrial complex’s desire to make money. At the same time, he considers the U.S. assistance insufficient, caused by the Biden administration’s determination to prevent Russia’s loss and disintegration.
Regarding the idea for a ceasefire, Ihor acknowledged Ukraine’s deep trauma of the lost territories but said: “I am not in the trenches. Only those in the trenches have the right to oppose a ceasefire and demand to keep fighting until we reach Ukraine’s 1991 border.”
“The corrupt nature of the Ukrainian government makes it impossible to win the war now. Ukrainians are either fleeing the country or dying in the trenches. If the controlled territory gets a chance to join NATO and the EU, the best option is to stop the war, end this catastrophe, and hold the elections to change the government,” added Ihor.
Sergii
Sergii Mangerovskyi is a U.S. green card holder from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, originally from Zaporizhzhia, south Ukraine. He says that “everyone” at his Ukrainian Protestant congregation in Philadelphia supports Donald Trump, with most of the congregation coming from central Ukraine. He thinks that the combination of the Ukrainian corruption and the insufficient support from the Biden administration has led to the bloody stalemate. He expects that President Trump as a decisive leader will make some “tough” decisions to turn the situation around. Sergii believes that to return the occupied territories to Ukraine, it is necessary to stop the war and reform the Ukrainian government.
Oksana and Peter
A Ukrainian-born Oksana and a U.S.-born Peter from New Jersey voted for Trump. They want Ukraine to return the occupied territories but with minimal casualties: “We hope that Trump will stop the war and solve this diplomatically, it’s impossible to watch this suffering anymore. If the Biden administration wanted to help Ukraine, this war would not have lasted almost three years. Biden was not able to prevent this war or push Putin back.”
Voices from the Diaspora: Pro-Harris
Andriy
Andriy Kopiychuk, a hospital worker from Holly Springs, North Carolina, originally from Lviv, voted for Kamala Harris. A former Republican, he compared Donald Trump’s and his team’s ‘hostile’ position on Ukraine with the approaches of other Republican leaders whom Andriy said supported Ukraine. He also provided Trump’s ‘potential’ links to Russia as the reason for his vote. He prefers the Democrats’ ‘positive’ and ‘balanced’ approach to Ukraine which avoids ‘excessive’ expenditures on the war and provocation of Russia’s aggression towards America. He blames Ukraine’s current troubles on indecisive actions and insufficient support by the European governments, and Ukrainian corruption.
Natalie
Natalie, a public school educator from New Jersey, was born in the U.S. to World War II refugees from Ukraine. She voted for Kamala Harris, whom she described as having a “very centric position from the American standpoint which speaks to, what I perceive, upholding the Budapest memorandum that pledged for security for Ukraine.” Natalie said that Harris “was very outspoken in her support of the Ukrainian cause, understanding it as a fight for democracy over totalitarianism and unjust invasion.”
“As a Ukrainian-American, it was a very significant issue for me. My sense of what former President Trump was talking about is terrifying, like ‘I would let Russia do whatever they want.’ It is not the American viewpoint, NATO has supported peace for the last 80 years,” she said.
A Generational and Media Divide
The debate between the two groups of Ukrainian-Americans along the lines of the Trump/Harris divide is less visible than America’s general debate but is as deep.
The U.S.-born Natalie said that the position of many fourth-wavers (those who came to America after 1991) who support Trump was “amazing and confounding” to her.
Her opinion “is borne out in the ways they educated us,” she said. “My parents’ generation, the third wave, was escaping the encroaching Soviets after World War II, wanting to hold on to Ukraine in whatever ways they could with [the scouting organization] Plast, the churches, and schools. They are looking at the threat of Trump in a very clear-eyed way. I can’t explain the fourth wave’s standpoint, but they probably like Trump’s leadership style.”
But not all older-wavers adhere to this point of view. The U.S.-born Peter, who also went through Plast and other diaspora organizations in his youth, explained why many third-wavers do not understand the fourth-wavers who support Trump: “It depends on where you get your information. In America, the Democrats control most of the news.”
From Peter’s experience, the choice of the news source can change even the third wave’s intrinsic uncompromising stance against Russia and make one more susceptible to a diplomatic solution to Ukraine’s quagmire.
Yuri Bilinsky is a Toronto-based journalist covering energy and global affairs, with a focus on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its impact on North American communities.
