Oleh Shamshur, a former Ukrainian Ambassador to the United States (2005–2010) and France (2014–2020), spoke with The Ukrainian Week about Kamala Harris’s prospects for surpassing and maintaining a lead over Donald Trump. He also addressed the implications of Tim Walz’s selection as the vice-presidential candidate and the broader impact of the U.S. election on Ukraine.
***
— Recent polls show Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in three pivotal states. What factors do you believe will influence the trajectory of the race? Is she positioned to extend her lead and secure it through to the election?
— The recent public opinion poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College reflects a positive shift in Kamala Harris’s campaign trajectory. Not only is she narrowing the gap left by Joe Biden, but she is also beginning to outpace her Republican rival on several key metrics. As of August 13, her national average rating was 2.7% above Trump’s, though the lead remains within the margin of error, with some estimates suggesting an even narrower gap.
Nevertheless, national support levels are less decisive than results in specific states due to the peculiarities of the U.S. electoral system. Swing states—where neither major party holds a reliable advantage—are particularly pivotal. Although Harris has markedly improved the Democrats’ position, the situation in these critical battlegrounds remains fluid. The same poll indicates she currently leads Trump in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—states that will likely determine the ultimate outcome of the presidential race.
When aggregating the various polls, a more nuanced picture emerges: Trump holds a slight edge over Harris in key battlegrounds such as Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona. American politicians and experts largely agree that predicting the outcome of the upcoming election is fraught with uncertainty, with a fiercely contested campaign anticipated on both sides. The candidates’ prospects will likely hinge on developments in areas that resonate strongly with the American electorate, including inflation, employment, real estate prices, and the overall economic climate, as well as pressing issues like immigration and domestic security.
In the presidential race, personal qualities and leadership capabilities are as critical as a candidate’s policy platform. For Harris, it is essential not only to sustain the current enthusiasm among Democrats but also to persuade independent voters of her political acumen and character for effective leadership in the White House. This presents a significant challenge for a relatively low-profile former senator and a vice president whose tenure has not been notably dynamic.
— With the debate scheduled for September 10, less than a month away, what strategic priorities do you anticipate both candidates will focus on in the lead-up?
— The upcoming debate poses a significant challenge for Kamala Harris, given the issues previously discussed. It will be her first chance to address a national audience without the benefit of a prepared script and against a seasoned and combative adversary like Donald Trump. In the lead-up, Harris is anticipated to outline her economic agenda and address other critical issues, which have so far been either vaguely defined or absent.
Harris and her team face the task of defining her public persona before her opponents succeed in framing her as a typical member of the liberal California elite, detached from the everyday concerns of average Americans.
As for Trump, he continues to struggle with devising a successful strategy in the presidential race following Joe Biden’s exit. Despite ongoing advice from his advisors to moderate his attacks on Harris’s personal attributes and instead target her political record, Trump persists in his derogatory remarks about her intellectual capacity and other personal traits. This combative and uncivil approach has failed to resonate with independent voters and has even alienated some within his own party.
— Recently, Harris selected Tim Walz as her vice-presidential candidate, sparking much debate about their stark differences, particularly in terms of background. In your view, how successful was this choice?
— Tim Walz’s selection as Kamala Harris’s vice-presidential running mate surprised many political analysts, given that he was not initially on the shortlist of potential candidates. Walz, the governor of Minnesota, gained attention for his sharp critiques of the Republican ticket, notably coining the term “weird” to describe them, and through his dynamic appearances on television and social media.
Harris’s campaign leaders assert that Walz’s choice reflects a strategic move to appeal to “Middle America” and attract working-class voters in the Midwest, whose support is pivotal for a November victory. However, this might not have been the sole factor. Walz’s appeal to Harris’s team likely stems from his lack of personal political ambitions and his willingness to go to great lengths for her success. Additionally, Harris and Walz have developed a notable personal rapport, presenting themselves as a team of optimists in their campaign rallies, in contrast to Trump’s grim forecasts and apocalyptic rhetoric.
The effectiveness of Walz as a running mate is still uncertain. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a more ambitious and popular figure, might have offered greater potential for expanding Harris’s electoral base. Walz’s position in the left wing of the Democratic Party also remains a factor in evaluating his selection.
— Ukrainians are understandably anxious about which candidate—Harris or Trump—would be more beneficial for Ukraine. While Trump’s policies are relatively well understood, Harris’s stance remains unclear. What do you anticipate will be the impact of the American election on Ukraine?
— The outcome of the U.S. presidential election will hold significant implications for Ukraine, given the pivotal role of the United States as Ukraine’s primary ally in countering Russian aggression, particularly in terms of military aid. Turning to Trump, it is evident that even he remains uncertain about his administration’s policy towards Ukraine should he win. Throughout this election cycle, his positions have ranged from praising Putin’s “genius” in seizing Donbas to acknowledging the strategic importance of Ukraine’s “survival” for U.S. interests. His stance has fluctuated between reluctance to ensure continued military support for Ukraine and, more recently, easing congressional objections to the latest security assistance package.
Trump’s approach to political decisions is heavily influenced by personal biases and emotional reactions. It is important to note that he harbours no particular affinity for Ukraine, a sentiment rooted in the fact that Ukraine was central to his first impeachment.
Despite describing Zelensky’s conduct as “honourable” in a recent interview with Musk, Trump’s historical lack of sympathy towards Ukraine remains a concern. Additionally, Trump’s current inner circle lacks the seasoned Republican strategists who previously supported critical decisions, such as providing the initial shipment of Javelins to Ukraine.
However, the former president does not want to appear “weak” or as an enabler of Putin’s foreign policy, especially considering the consistent public support in the U.S. for continued aid to Ukraine. Trump has also been actively using the issue of Ukraine to highlight the perceived weakness of Joe Biden and the current administration, which he argues allowed Russia’s war against Ukraine to happen.
According to my American colleagues, Trump is notably apprehensive about the prospect of a scenario in Ukraine during his presidency that could mirror the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Should Trump be re-elected, his primary objective regarding Ukraine is likely to focus on ending the conflict. Despite publicly rejecting Putin’s terms for negotiations, Trump might apply significant pressure on Ukraine, potentially compelling it to make concessions that run counter to its national interests. Additionally, a likely shift in Trump’s policy could involve reducing or entirely halting direct aid to Ukraine, favouring instead support provided on a loan basis, reminiscent of the Lend-Lease program.
Kamala Harris’s personal stance on the war in Ukraine remains ambiguous. Her limited tenure as a senator yielded few relevant statements, and her speeches as Vice President reflect the current administration’s stance rather than offering individual insights. It is probable that both now and if elected president, she would continue Joe Biden’s policy of supporting Ukraine, which aligns with the majority sentiment within the Democratic Party. However, whether she would be willing to lift restrictions on the use of American weaponry by the Ukrainian Armed Forces is uncertain and remains a matter of speculation.
— The outcome of the U.S. elections will undoubtedly influence not just relations with Ukraine but also U.S. interactions with China and Russia. What can we anticipate in these areas?
— Regardless of the outcome on 5 November, U.S. relations with Russia will largely be influenced by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Putin and his allies are hopeful that a Trump victory might advance some of their objectives concerning Ukraine. While specifics remain to be seen, the risks for Ukraine are significant.
Regarding China, U.S. policy is unlikely to experience dramatic changes, with China remaining a central strategic competitor in global economics and international relations. The current administration’s approach to China largely extends Trump’s strategy, albeit with more measured rhetoric.
Trump has signalled his intention to sharply increase tariffs on Chinese goods, contrasting with Harris’s more restrained approach aimed at avoiding a trade “war.” Additionally, Trump has suggested that Taiwan should bear the cost of U.S. military protection and has avoided committing to support Taiwan in the event of Chinese aggression. In this context, China is closely monitoring both the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the U.S.’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine.
