the new American president will have to think not of the end of the Ukrainian conflict, but of its consequences

The next US president, to be elected in 2024, “will almost certainly inherit peace in Ukraine”, as the current conflict cannot last forever, “certainly not at its current intensity”. On this subject writing Atlantic columnist David Frum in his March 20 column.

Regarding Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, the columnist quotes economist Herb Stein, who said, “If something can’t last forever, it will end.” The fighting, according to Frum, will somehow escalate to the status of a “ceasefire regime” – officially or otherwise.

Become a peacemaker

The author of the column points out that now the American presidential candidates who intend to run in the 2024 elections talk exclusively about how to “manage the conflict”, but do not take into account the inevitable confrontation with its consequences.

“So when evaluating potential presidential candidates, a key question must be considered: who will be the best peacemaker?” Frum said.

He states that the restoration of Ukraine will be urgently needed and will inevitably cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Some of this money could possibly be extracted from Russia, for example by transferring frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. But most of it is likely to come from Ukraine’s Western allies,” warns The Atlantic columnist.

This reconstruction process, he said, “will require a substantial investment” comparable to the amount spent to rebuild the former Warsaw Pact countries after the end of the Cold War.

“From 2004 to 2021, Poland alone received around $225 billion in funds from the European Union. During the same period, the Polish economy nearly doubled; the country has almost tripled its imports from EU trading partners such as Germany, France and Italy,” Froome recalled.

Republican split

The future candidates for the American presidency were divided according to their attitude towards what is happening in Ukraine. In particular, former head of state Donald Trump and Florida governor Ron De Santis (he has not yet announced his participation in the elections, but the American media is already positioning him as such) say that additional help in Kiev is not the main strategic priority for the United States.

De Santis, in particular, called the military actions in Ukraine a “territorial dispute”. Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa appointed himself the only candidate for American leadership capable of “preventing World War III”. He also accused incumbent US President Joe Biden of “pushing Russia into the arms of China” and his administration “could lead the country into nuclear war”. Additionally, Trump announced his arrest on March 21 and called on his supporters to rally in his defense.

Other presumptive GOP candidates – including US Ambassador to the UN under the Trump administration, Nikki Haley – have called support for Ukraine a “vital interest” for Washington. A similar stance was taken by Mike Pence, who served under Trump as vice president.

“The differences between these Republicans escalate into potential long-term contested debates as the field of candidates matures.” writing Washington post.

The publication previously called the split in the Republican Party over the Ukraine assistance a “civil war” and predicted serious intra-party rifts on the eve of the election.

Reuters in reference to analysts and political technologists predicted that the military conflict in Ukraine “represents a new battleground for announced and yet to be announced Republican candidates who can determine how the party interacts with the world in years to come.”