Emerging evidence indicates that Russia significantly escalated its attacks on Ukraine ahead of the United States election on November 5. This may have been an attempt to bolster isolationist sentiments aligned with Donald Trump’s policies.

As Trump’s January 20 inauguration approaches, Russia seems intent on continuing this strategy.

“November marked the fifth consecutive month of increased Russian troop losses,” noted Britain’s Ministry of Defence, with Ukraine estimating 45,680 Russian soldiers either killed or wounded during that month.

The Ukrainian Armed Forces' General Staff projected Russian casualties at 38,130 for September and 41,980 for October, respectively.

These rising losses stem from Russia’s relentless intensification of its ground offensives despite the high costs.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a Washington-based think tank, reported that Russian forces secured an average of 22 square kilometers (8.5 square miles) per day in Ukrainian territory in October, which increased to 27 square kilometers (10.4 square miles) in November.

“Across September, October, and November 2024, Russian forces likely incurred over 125,800 casualties in exchange for territorial gains amounting to 2,356 square kilometers,” stated the ISW.

These levels of losses surpassed what U.S. analysts believed Russia could endure, estimating its recruitment capacity at 25,000 to 30,000 troops per month.

Ukraine has reported a sharp increase in airstrike activity as well.

“Between September and November 2024, Russia deployed more than 6,000 UAVs and missiles in attacks on Ukraine,” said Victoria Vdovychenko, program director at Ukraine’s Centre for Defence Strategies and a fellow at Cambridge University’s Centre for Geopolitics.

“This represents triple the number of air attacks seen between June and August 2024, and four times those recorded in the same timeframe in 2023,” she informed Al Jazeera.

Vdovychenko also suggested that Russia intensified its disinformation efforts during and after the election to shape U.S. public opinion.

On Election Day, North Korean troops were reported engaging in live combat in Russia’s Kursk region, indicating Moscow had tapped into new sources of manpower.

Following Kamala Harris’s defeat in the presidential race, President Joe Biden authorized U.S. weapons to target deeper Russian territories, a move met by Vladimir Putin’s launch of the Oreshnik ballistic missile into Ukraine, seemingly in retaliation.

However, Russia’s Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov reportedly assured his U.S. counterpart that the missile strike had been planned long before the U.S. authorized Ukraine to use ATACMS for long-range strikes. This claim was reported by The New York Times, citing U.S. officials.

Regardless, the Kremlin managed to frame the narrative as U.S. provocation prolonging the war, a messaging angle that resonated with Trump’s campaign.

“President Trump advocates for peace and an end to ‘never-ending wars’ that benefit entrenched elites,” said Demetries Andrew Grimes, a former U.S. naval officer and Trump supporter.

“By electing Trump, Americans clearly signaled their desire to cease U.S. funding for Ukraine’s war, reflecting rising concerns about prolonged entanglement,” he explained to Al Jazeera.

“Talks about negotiations surged in foreign media post-election,” noted Vdovychenko. “Yet Russia has shown no interest in pursuing dialogue, as it is unwilling to concede on any front.”

Russia doubles down

Russia appears to be intensifying its campaign further, leveraging tactics that helped Trump secure electoral victory.

Ukraine reported Russian casualties surpassing 11,000 during the first week of December, alongside over 900 drones, missiles, and glide bombs deployed by Russia in that same period, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Putin had earlier set his negotiation terms in June.

“Ukrainian forces must withdraw completely from the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhia regions,” Putin told foreign ministry officials, listing territories partly occupied by Russian forces.

“Once Kyiv officially agrees to these terms and abandons its NATO ambitions, we will issue a ceasefire order and initiate talks,” he declared.

In contrast, Zelenskyy presented a “victory plan” that included swift access to NATO and further western military aid to bolster Ukraine’s defenses.

During a November 30 interview with Sky News, Zelenskyy appeared open to compromise, suggesting NATO membership for Ukraine’s free territories while addressing occupied regions separately.

“Zelenskyy proposed an immediate NATO membership for free territories and deferred discussions on occupied areas,” explained Keir Giles, a Eurasia expert at Chatham House, a London-based think tank.

However, Giles added, “He was highlighting the lack of political will within NATO to implement quick solutions, given its slow bureaucratic structure and opposition from nations like the U.S. and Germany.”

A recent poll by Kyiv’s New Europe Center revealed that most Ukrainians remain committed to fighting. The December survey showed that 64.1% of Ukrainians oppose negotiations with Russia without firm Western security guarantees.

“The consensus is that Russia would only use negotiations to regroup and launch fresh attacks,” they stated.

Is Trump set to abandon Ukraine?

Some analysts argue that Trump’s return to power has already undermined Ukraine’s momentum from its 2023 counteroffensive.

Last fall, Trump pressured Republican legislators to block $60.4 billion in military aid, delaying its approval by half a year.

“Russia’s measured, incremental advances likely began after supply interruptions caused an artillery shortfall on Ukrainian frontlines,” suggested Keir Giles.

By February, Ukraine was on the defensive as Russia gained the upper hand in firepower.

“Under Trump, we can expect a façade of ceasefire negotiations rather than sustainable resolutions,” Giles remarked. “Aid suspensions or withdrawals could come swiftly after he takes office,” he told Al Jazeera.

Trump recently hinted at possible U.S. aid cuts for Ukraine during an NBC interview.

“Ukraine is heavily reliant on the U.S., so any reduction in support could force Ukraine to concede territory,” warned Michael Gjerstad, a land warfare analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

Gjerstad added, “If aid is entirely cut, both logistically and in terms of intelligence, Ukraine would be at a major disadvantage, leaving Putin in a stronger position for negotiations.”

Not all analysts share this grim perspective.

“Only $11.5 billion of the $60 billion in proposed aid would go directly toward Ukraine’s equipment procurement,” noted Oleksandr Danylyuk, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

Danylyuk highlighted Ukraine’s resilience: “Ukraine has achieved extraordinary results with limited resources despite heavy Russian numerical advantages.”

Russia’s troop strength reportedly grew from 140,000 in 2022 to half a million in 2023 and around 800,000 now. However, Ukraine's one million servicemen include many non-combat personnel.

Europe’s resolve to assist Ukraine

If Trump sidelines Ukraine to pressure Zelenskyy into talks, Minna Alander of Finland’s Institute for International Affairs (FIIA) expressed confidence that Europe could step in.

“Nordic nations—Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden—have collectively provided $35 billion in aid, exceeding Germany’s contributions,” Alander shared with Al Jazeera.

“A coalition of willing nations like the Nordics, Baltics, Poland, the UK, and possibly France is prepared to ensure continued European aid, even if support from the U.S. or Germany wanes,” she added, citing Denmark’s leadership with an $8.5 billion aid commitment and Norway’s recent $12 billion long-term pledge.

Still, some defense needs may go unmet. “Europe currently lacks alternatives for systems like Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAVs, tactical ballistic missiles, and long-range artillery rockets,” said Hanna Olofsson of Sweden’s SOFF, pointing to decades of underinvestment.

Ultimately, questions linger over broader Western strategy. “The U.S. seems more hesitant about a clear Ukrainian win fearing Russian defeat,” Giles revealed. “This ambiguity reflects the lack of coherent allied planning,” he concluded.