Ukraine in the Context of the US Presidential Election and Trump’s Victory in 2024: Monitoring US, UK and German Media Coverage of the Full-Scale Russian War Against Ukraine

Authors: Lviv Media Forum

Українською читайте тут.

Based on monitoring of US, UK and German media sources in 2024-2025, President Donald Trump is portrayed as unpredictable and inconsistent. The sources highlight his ties to Putin and his plan to force Ukraine into peace negotiations on terms favorable to Russia. He is likely to curtail or even halt arms supplies to Ukraine. At the same time, Trump’s team offers a glimmer of hope that Ukraine will not be abandoned. The media also notes a gap between Trump’s election campaign rhetoric in 2024 and the foreign policy nominations leading up to Inauguration Day. 

In this report, we describe the key messages or narratives surrounding Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine published in the media of three countries from 10 September 2024 to 20 January 2025. A total of 85 core messages have been identified that can be broken down into the following clusters: media characterizations of Donald Trump, the perception of war events, war coverage in the context of US politics, the issue of weapons supplies, the proposed peace formulas and certain messages with an independent perspective on Russia’s war of aggression. 

The report also captures how past statements have influenced later policy decisions. Trump stated in October 2024 that continued weapons supply for Ukraine could take the shape of a business deal by providing US investors with privileged access to rare earth minerals. After his inauguration, preliminary talks about access to minerals became a key bargaining element in the peace negotiations. In the fall of 2024, Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky appeared to find common ground based on pragmatism. However, by 18 February 2025, the media noted a widening rift after US and Russian officials held initial bilateral talks in Saudi Arabia without Ukrainian representatives. 

This report is the result of the monitoring of 305 articles about Ukraine published in US, UK and German media from the date of the Trump-Harris debate in September 2024 to the days leading up to Inauguration Day in January 2025. The publications reviewed during this time period included:

Through January 2025, the media sources described the different peace formulas proposed by military experts, as well as those put forth by Retired General Keith Kellogg, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and Vice President JD Vance. 

Capitalizing on Washington’s leverage over Kyiv and Moscow, Trump initially proposed to broker an end to the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. By January 2025, he had extended the timeframe for negotiations to within 6 months, echoing the idea that he never gets “too attached to a deal or a single approach”, according to The Telegraph and Deutsche Welle In November 2024, Trump stated that US arms supplies for Ukraine could take the shape of a strategic economic partnership in exchange for privileged access to critical minerals valued at USD 500 billion. As reported by the media, Ukraine’s priorities for a peace plan continued to be territorial integrity, NATO membership and EU accession.  

This report compiles the statements made by Donald Trump and his entourage in the run-up to the presidential election of 5 November 2025 and how the campaign rhetoric gave way to a more realistic assessment of the war as Inauguration Day approached. It builds on previous monitoring studies conducted by Lviv Media Forum to determine how Ukraine is portrayed in foreign publications and how such perceptions can help Ukrainian policymakers calibrate their strategies in the future.

While some positive traits were highlighted by all media outlets, the general characterization of Trump was negative. Trump was often described as dangerous, unpredictable and radical. Fox News, the conservative media group owned by Rupert Murdoch, was the only media outlet with an unequivocally positive stance toward the newly elected US president. Below is a summary of the key media messages surrounding Trump’s persona:

In the second half of 2024, media outlets continued to report on US military assistance and Ukraine fatigue. Certain outlets ventured that a “land for peace” deal was inevitable and that Putin had adopted a wait-and-see attitude ahead of the US presidential election in what essentially had become a war of attrition. The media sources also addressed the shortfalls in Ukraine’s mobilization drive. Below is a summary of how progress in the war was portrayed by US, UK and German publications:

What would happen to weapons supply If Trump failed to negotiate a peace agreement? Most publications, including Fox News, reported that a significant reduction in US weapons supply for Ukraine was likely if peace talks failed. This highlighted the idea that military aid packages were being used as leverage during the war. Keith Kellogg’s peace plan even featured weapons supply as a key bargaining element.

In conservative-leaning media such as Fox News, Bild and The Telegraph, a message emerged that Trump, on the contrary, might increase weapons supply and that his statements were merely election rhetoric aimed at currying favor among voters. In October 2024, Fox News cited Trump’s approval of Javelin anti-tank missile systems for Ukraine in 2018 as an example of actions that spoke louder than words. In November 2024, Germany’s Bild reported that Trump could use future arms deliveries as a means of exerting pressure on Kyiv. In The Telegraph,  a business article in January 2025 argued that Trump appeared “more willing than Biden ever was to throttle the Russian economy.” The author cited Alan Riley from the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, stating that a ”controlled confrontation” with the Kremlin could work elegantly for Trump. “He hates being thought of as Putin’s poodle,” Riley said.

However, it is important to note that Trump appeared to act out of self-interest, even in the case of the Javelins in 2018. This notion was expressed by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in an article published in November 2024. The author argued that Trump had been tainted by the Russian interference scandal in the 2016 US presidential election and that the decision to supply Javelins to Ukraine had been an attempt to whitewash his reputation as a pro-Russian politician.

Meanwhile, The New York Times, The Guardian and BBC compared Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine to the war in Afghanistan. Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Joe Biden for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, calling it a major international defeat for Washington. Thus, the comparison between Ukraine and Afghanistan served to highlight that a hypothetical Ukrainian defeat—caused by a US withdrawal—would result in a foreign policy debacle for Washington, something Trump could ill afford since a Russian takeover of Kyiv would allow Democrats to say that “he lost Ukraine”. This further bolstered the idea that weapons supply for Ukraine might be increased.

The key messages across all the proposed peace plans was the need for Ukraine to temporarily or permanently relinquish part of its territory. Based on the media monitoring, the “land for peace” formula was dictated by military reality, and none of the publications suggested a handover of all occupied territories. 

However, Donald Trump had his own vision of peace negotiations. While he initially vowed to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours during the election campaign, most predictions came from his entourage rather than from Trump himself.

An opinion piece published by Fox News in October 2024 stated that unpredictability was part of Trump’s strategy to quickly end active combats. It added that Trump posed a threat to the Kremlin because Russian intelligence had characterized him as “unpredictable” and therefore difficult to assess whether he ”is serious or bluffing.” The Telegraph’s Fraser Nelson admitted that even if Trump’s strategy was “hard to discern”, the rise of Marco Rubio and Michael Waltz, combined with a pro-Kyiv US Senate, still offered a measure of hope for Ukraine.

The most frequently mentioned peace formula was the one put forth by Michael Waltz and Marco Rubio. In November 2024, their plan envisioned freezing the war along current positions, creating an 800-mile demilitarized zone between Ukrainian and Russian forces controlled by a joint European military contingent, and providing Ukraine with the maximum amount of weaponry to deter future attacks from Russia.

This plan was initially not well received in Europe, as the financial burden would largely fall on European shoulders and security guarantees remained elusive. According to Deutsche Welle, without US assistance, Ukraine would be essentially abandoned given that the EU lacked the military capacity to meet the shortfall. This perception was reinforced by the belief that once in office, Trump could completely halt weapons supply, leaving Ukraine exposed.

In September 2024, Fox News described the peace formula proposed by JD Vance. Vance said that if Trump was elected, Washington would work with Russia, Ukraine and European leaders “to establish a peaceful settlement that would grant Moscow the territory it [had] illegally seized.” The Vance formula would “gift the land to Russia” and create a demilitarized zone along the front lines. To deter a third Russian invasion, Ukraine would be fortified. Fox News cited security experts describing the Vance plan as “a substantial win” for Putin. The Telegraph characterized it as a “Minsk III plan”, adding that it “came dangerously close to playing into Putin’s hands” because it required Ukraine to forego NATO security guarantees.

Another peace plan cited by the sources was proposed by Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative for Ukraine and Russia. According to The Telegraph, Kellogg had co-authored a research document in April 2024 with former Trump aide Fred Fleitz in which he proposed to use the weapons supplied to Ukraine as leverage for ceasefire talks. ​​Kellogg suggested peace negotiations under strict conditions: “If Kyiv refuses to participate, US aid will be cut off. If Moscow refuses, Kyiv will receive more US assistance.” This plan also proposed to freeze the war along current front lines, amounting to a loss of almost one-fifth of Ukraine’s territory.

The Kellogg peace plan served to reinforce the “peace through strength” message frequently alluded to by both Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky. In a summary of war coverage in September 2024, The Guardian cited Zelensky’s mention of this idea a day after 9 people were killed in Sumy as a result of Russian shelling. Zelensky stated that “[Russia] was waging war on hospitals, civilian objects, and people’s lives. Only strength can force Russia into peace.”

The Guardian reported that Zelensky had pitched his victory plan to Trump shortly after winning the election. Kyiv’s victory plan rested largely on improved defense capacities and a non-nuclear deterrent element, including an invitation to join NATO and assurances of territorial sovereignty. Meanwhile, British MPs from all parties were cited by The Guardian as backing Kyiv’s position and encouraging Zelensky not to submit to Russian demands.

Kurt Volker, the former US special envoy to Ukraine from 2017 to 2019, told Deutsche Welle that NATO membership should be part of any peace settlement. He added that Trump was likely to go even further than the Biden administration by offering a “lend-lease” package and encouraging Kyiv to “borrow as much money as you need as long as you buy American equipment.” He added that Trump would pressure Putin to end the war by threatening to increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine and approving its accession to NATO.

Other media messages identified during this monitoring period included:

Although most sources indicated that neither Ukraine nor Russia were ready for peace talks, some opinion pieces argued that Russia was willing to freeze the conflict to better prepare for a renewed assault on Ukraine. The Telegraph suggested that Russia was struggling on the battlefield, making a ceasefire highly advantageous for Putin and turning it into a pathway for Russia to exploit Trump’s desire “to close a deal.”

On the other hand, all predictions came with a caveat—Donald Trump is an unpredictable politician. The belief that Trump’s actions were impossible to foresee has remained strong since his first presidential term. This view was shared by most experts and media outlets.

This category includes noteworthy messages in US, UK and German media that do not reflect mainstream coverage of the war during the time period covered by the monitoring:

References to NATO weakness in the runup to the US presidential election of 2024 became apparent in January 2025 when European leaders realized that the post-World War II order could be imperiled by Trump’s second term. The New York Times described the threat to the alliance as an undercutting of trust. Reversing three years of NATO unity over Ukraine, European leaders asked whether the new administration in Washington would honor NATO’s Article 5, which provides mutual security guarantees if a member of the alliance is attacked. The New York Times also noted that Trump had begun to echo Kremlin talking points, recasting Russia as the aggrieved party in the war.

In the fall of 2024, the media also reported that Ukraine might provide US investors with privileged access to critical minerals in exchange for military aid. This ultimately led to a visit by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Kyiv in February 2025 in an effort to sign a strategic partnership agreement. For The New York Times, Ukraine’s mineral deposits had suddenly turned into a “prominent component” of negotiations over the country’s future. Bessent presented Zelensky with a draft agreement valued at USD 500 billion designed as a form of “payback” for past US military assistance. The minerals story was traced back by The New York Times to Ronald Lauder, a politically connected investor who had previously suggested to Trump that the US should acquire resource-rich Greenland.

Statements made by Zelensky’s entourage in 2024 that the Ukrainian president was “a man of simple solutions” like Donald Trump did not lead to finding common ground once the incoming administration took office in Washington. In February 2025, Trump questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy as president of Ukraine on Truth Social, labeling him “a dictator”. He further implied that Ukraine was to blame for Russia’s full-scale invasion of 2022, echoing Russian propaganda. In response, Zelensky countered that Trump lived in a “disinformation bubble.” The Guardian described the rhetorical escalation as an “irreconcilable rift” between both men.

The media reported in November 2024 on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s position that there should be no peace negotiations “over the head of the Ukrainians.” However, fears that European leaders would be sidelined and that Trump would negotiate a “land for peace” deal directly with Putin were confirmed on 18 February 2025 when Saudi Arabia hosted preliminary talks between US and Russian officials, without Ukrainian or EU representatives. The New York Times described the meeting in Riyadh as “a striking display of bonhomie after three years of American efforts to isolate Moscow for its 2022 invasion.” Media warnings about Trump’s isolationism and his disregard for European leadership also became apparent at the Munich Security Conference when US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hinted at a possible drawdown of US troops in Europe “over the next few months or years.”

The monitoring and analysis of media coverage from 10 September 2024 to 20 January 2025 indicated that Ukraine should prepare for difficult peace negotiations with Russia. Based on reports from foreign media, it is likely that US President Donald Trump will play a crucial role in the negotiations surrounding Ukraine. At this moment, the US stands as Ukraine's most significant military ally, and it possesses the ability to use its influence over weapon supply discussions as a strategic lever in these negotiations. This influence became clear after February 28, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met with Trump at the White House. During the meeting between the presidents, a dispute arose, leading Trump to declare that Zelensky had "insulted" the United States and was "not ready for peace." Consequently, the subsoil agreement was not signed, and on the same day, it was reported that the United States had halted its support for the program to restore Ukraine's energy system.

At the same time, the media generally echoed concerns that a resolution to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine could result in unfavorable terms for Kyiv, including failure to provide security guarantees and the loss of almost 20% of its territory. This was reinforced by media references to Washington’s lowered engagement with NATO and Trump’s ties to Vladimir Putin, which raised fears that he may further Russian interests.

However, the media sources also highlighted a more optimistic outlook for Ukraine by referring to the peace proposals floored by Trump’s team, including those of Marco Rubio, Michael Waltz and Keith Kellogg. The premise here was that if Ukraine’s security were compromised, the US  would bolster its military support for Kyiv beyond what had been done under the Biden administration. 

By February 2025, this optimism had given way to a more sobering tone as US policymakers appeared to prize loyalism to the “America First” doctrine above deterrence of Russia. At the peace talks hosted by Saudi Arabia on 18 February 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not warn his counterpart Sergey Lavrov, about the costs of violating international law in Ukraine. Instead, he expressed interest in exploring “the incredible opportunities that exist to partner with the Russians,” casting aside the worries of European allies. Both officials lauded Trump’s efforts to broker an end to the war.

Over five months of monitoring, the rhetoric in the media regarding Ukraine and the potential conclusion of the war shifted alongside changes in Donald Trump and his representatives' rhetoric. In contrast, the portrayal of the American president in the analyzed media remained consistent throughout this period. The media depicts Trump and his team as individuals who favor personal agreements and negotiations with leaders of other nations while also portraying them as politicians whose actions are unpredictable in the long term. The events that took place in the Oval Office on February 28 further underscore this characterization of the newly elected American president.