A Kamala Harris win could juice military support for Ukraine

Russia’s recent military advances and ferocious bombardment of Ukraine have led the country to renew calls for Western allies to lift their ban on the use of their long-range missiles to hit military targets in Russia.

But despite the urgency, with Russian forces approaching the strategically important city of Pokrovsk in the east of Ukraine, nothing is likely to change this side of the US presidential election.

There remains the distinct possibility that Donald Trump will win in November and immediately withdraw US aid to Ukraine, forcing Kiev to seek a termination of the conflict on Russia’s terms. This prospect currently dominates political and military calculations in the conflict.

Zelensky’s decision in early August to launch a counterpunch against Russia by invading the Kursk region was made when a Trump victory looked all but assured. His logic had several elements.

First, taking Russian territory would give Kiev leverage if Ukraine were forced to bargain with Russia. But the attack was also designed to demonstrate that the Ukrainian military was neither defeated nor lacking in the ability to go on the offensive.

This was intended both for domestic consumption, as a morale booster, and for the benefit of Kiev’s allies. Opinion in the US was beginning to doubt the ability of Ukraine to prevail. The Kursk offensive was designed to reverse that perception.

Further – and more interestingly – the Kursk assault was also launched to test the assumption that Russia would not use the attack on its sovereign soil with Western weapons as a trigger to escalate the conflict. This was always Putin’s threat, but Kiev decided to call his bluff in the context of the looming American election.

If Putin believes an incoming Trump