Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Donald Trump is increasingly showing loyalty to Vladimir Putin, while his attitude toward Volodymyr Zelensky raises questions even in the United States. Against this backdrop, public opinion in the United States is shifting, and the future of support for Ukraine depends not only on the White House.
Uriel Epstein, the executive director of the nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative, told Channel 24 in an exclusive interview why, in his view, Trump perceives Zelensky as a personal foe and eagerly plays the role of a “peacemaker” for Putin. He also assessed how the US elections might affect aid to Ukraine, whether Congress can check the president, the prospects for Marco Rubio, and how likely a major summit involving the United States, Russia, and China might be.
How do Americans perceive Trump’s “peacemaking”?
In your view, the main goal of peace talks now is not to reach specific agreements but to keep the process going, which provides another pretext for Putin to drag out the war. Americans see in Trump a peacemaker who makes concessions to Putin but does not solve the problem?
It depends on whom you ask among Americans. If you talk about MAGA supporters or those who advocate US isolationism, they may support such a position. And this isn’t limited to radical right Republicans; some extreme leftists also agree with Trump on this issue and support Putin. For example, Hasan Piker, one of the most popular left-wing commentators, also agrees with Trump on this matter and supports Putin.
About half a year ago he spoke at Yale University, which I attended, and said that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. It’s the same thing Putin once said. Unfortunately, there are people like that in America on both the left and the right. But most Americans do not share this view.
According to polls, more than 60% of Americans support Ukraine, while Russia perhaps only around 3%.
According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, those are the figures. Do Trump and his administration ignore the level of support for Ukraine among Americans, and not just the dictatorial regime of Putin?
That’s hard to understand. On the one hand, we see that Trump is willing to change his mind when his decisions are unpopular. For example, he wanted to publicly kill someone, an Islamist, but when he realized that more than 80% of Americans were against it, he changed his mind. Why he acts differently on Ukraine is hard to say.
We can only guess. I, for example, think it’s related to Trump’s business interests. Putin may offer him and his family various business deals whose value could be well over a billion dollars. That could be one motive.
On the other hand, Trump may have convinced himself of certain things, because he listens to outright nonsense and disinformation. Putin, I think, very successfully spreads it. Trump somehow decided that Putin isn’t so bad, and Zelensky is the worst.
He hates Zelensky. From his own interests’ perspective, it’s easier for him to back Putin, effectively throwing Ukraine under the bus.
Full interview with Uriel Epstein: watch the video.
According to a October 22 poll, 46% of Americans support military aid to Ukraine, a little more than 30%. In July, support was about 56%. Also 51% support sharing military intelligence with Ukraine, which Trump again used to threaten us. At the same time 45% think Trump is more sympathetic to Russia, and only 16% to Ukraine. Another 45% of Americans believe Zelensky is more inclined toward a deal to end the war than Putin. Could these attitudes have influenced the decision to resume sharing intelligence and full Starshield operations?
Yes, thank God, America is still a democracy, and there are limits for Trump. He cannot single-handedly decide everything. Not even Elon Musk can. Musk controls Starlink and can change its operating rules, claim Ukraine is violating them, and impose certain restrictions. Starshield, by contrast, is controlled by the U.S. government.
But even on this issue they understand: if they go too far, they’ll have problems. Not only with public opinion but also with Congress.
In the last two weeks we’ve seen that such decisions are being actively opposed not only by Democrats but also by some Republicans, notably Fitzpatrick, who is running and hopes to return to Congress. If Democrats gain control of both the House and the Senate, Trump’s options in foreign policy will be significantly limited. The Senate will play a key role here.
There are two scenarios after 3 November. In one, Trump becomes even more aggressive, stirs up chaos, and blames Ukraine and Zelensky for the Republicans’ losses. In the other, Ukraine needs to hold on until the election or until 3 January, when the composition of Congress changes, and internal political problems, investigations, and questions of corruption distract Trump. Will he be more dangerous or still limited in his decisions regarding Ukraine?
Both. Ukraine will be difficult in any case. We mustn’t forget that a wounded tiger is the most dangerous.
After these elections Trump may find himself in exactly this position. On the one hand, he will blame Ukraine and Zelensky for everything. He will not care about the consequences, and he may become even more aggressive. But at the same time his options will be limited.
If Democrats gain control of the Senate and the House, and a portion of Republicans see that Trump is no longer as popular as before, I believe the Senate could have more than 60 votes to constrain his actions on the international stage. So Trump will remain dangerous.
And that means Ukraine and Zelensky will have to continue operating under his rules. I think publicly attacking him too aggressively is pointless. It won’t help.
We need to carefully continue engagement, but at the same time allow organizations like ours to work from within, counter Trump’s actions, constrain his options, and ensure that the U.S. government advances U.S. interests, not Donald Trump’s personal interests.
It’s important to constantly remind senators and representatives about Ukraine, in particular by showing photos of the consequences of shelling. Trump, by his behavior, is effectively eroding Ukraine’s trust in the United States, which has developed over decades. This also concerns European partners. Doesn’t he understand that confrontation with allies in Europe could harm not only him personally but the entire American economy?
And what does it matter to him? Honestly, I think he understands it. He just doesn’t care. Normal U.S. presidents fight for American interests. And that means supporting allies and opposing enemies. That is how the United States benefits. But Trump does not think that way. He only thinks about what is personally advantageous to him. We’ve said this several times.
Who are his key diplomats today? Vitkov and Kushner. Even Marco Rubio, our secretary of state, is not the main diplomat when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. This is simply absurd. There has never been anything like this in U.S. history.
You can look at Nixon’s presidency or any other president—the difficulty of finding a situation where the president’s personal son-in-law and close friend Vitkov play such a key role.
And the main question is—to whom are they loyal? Not to the United States or the American government. Their loyalty is personally directed to Donald Trump. And this is not accidental, but part of the system he built.
Therefore Ukraine needs to operate from this logic. All arguments should be framed from the perspective of what benefits Donald Trump. We need to offer him concrete options—A, B, and C. Unfortunately, today diplomacy operates exactly like that.
Trump’s personal enmity toward Zelensky and Russian influence
Poland’s Foreign Minister Radislav Sikorsky, who has criticized Elon Musk in recent days, said he personally would nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize if he achieves a just end to the Russia-Ukraine war. At the same time, the level of justice, according to Sikorsky, will be assessed by him and Ukraine. Perhaps Trump will finally begin pressuring Putin? After all, pressure on the aggressor could be key to a just end to the war.
Yes, of course, that’s absolutely correct. But no, I don’t think Trump will ever do that. First, don’t take Sikorsky’s statement too seriously. I don’t think anyone truly believes he will push Trump’s candidacy for the Nobel Prize. They hate each other.
That argument still should be used. Why not? But it’s important to understand the probability of success is almost zero, at best 5%. I think Trump has already solidified his position, and changing it now is almost impossible.
There are also personal reasons that matter to understand. In 2019, Trump tried to blackmail Zelensky, demanding kompromat on Biden. Zelensky acted as he could, but ultimately did not do it, because he could not. Still, the situation became a large public scandal in the United States.
One of our friends, Oleksandr Windman, who is also Ukrainian, moved to the United States, became a lieutenant colonel, and worked in the National Security Council. He testified that Trump tried to pressure Zelensky. This scandal ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.
I think it was right after this that he decided Zelensky is his personal foe.
A personal conflict arose between them over events in 2019.
This is being exploited by Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, who wrote in English urging the liquidation of Zelensky. He also mentioned Biden and the money the United States had given to Ukraine and allegedly stolen. He clearly echoed Musk’s theses as well. Will Trump even respond to such calls by Medvedev, who has repeatedly drawn his anger? Will he want to preserve at least some of his authority?
Hard to say. Medvedev is such a drunk that everything he accuses Zelensky of concerns primarily himself. But look at how they play it. Russians continue to use all triggers that Trump responds to and echo the corresponding theses.
The Economist wrote that Trump is making one mistake after another. But the problem is also that he is surrounded by idiots. This refers to Vitkov and Kushner, who are under the influence of Russian propaganda and are susceptible to it. Look how effectively this works. Russians use even people like Medvedev to promote what Trump likes.
So the Russians understand well which personal weaknesses and interests of Trump they can exploit?
Absolutely. Russia has no moral constraints and can offer them anything. I have no doubt they can offer women and anything else they can offer. This affects them.
I also have no doubt that the Russians invest tens of millions of dollars in influence through social networks. Imagine what Vitkoff reads in the morning when he opens his computer, Facebook or other platforms. It’s possible to organize it so that he constantly sees Russian propaganda. I don’t doubt that the Russians have invested serious money to ensure exactly that kind of influence.
Ukraine must also fight on this battlefield, no matter how unpleasant it is to say so. For example, there is currently no Ukrainian ambassador in Washington. Ukrainian authorities need to send people to the United States who know how to work with the Trump administration.
Oksana Markarova is a very smart and successful person, and I have nothing against her. But she was the right candidate for the Biden administration, not Trump’s. As soon as Trump took office, she should have been recalled and replaced with someone else—preferably a person without corruption issues and not at risk of being forced to return to Ukraine due to such accusations.
I think Ukraine should act on both sides. As they say in English, good cop, bad cop.
On the one hand, a hard, aggressive, strong representative, perhaps a military one who has seen war, is needed. Trump respects such people. And this is, of course, sad to say, but this man should also look the part—large, tall, capable of projecting strength. Trump respects such people.
On the other hand, a soft approach is needed, to try to interest him and even entice him. Here, an attractive woman who knows how to work with such people could help.
If you look at Trump’s former press secretary and the one who held the post recently, only five days apart, they look the same. Ukraine also must consider these traits.
I believe Ukraine should do everything possible. But now, living in Washington and leading one of the most influential pro-Ukraine organizations in the United States, I do not see enough influence from Ukraine itself. I do not see Ukraine as a state having strong positions here, although there are many opportunities.
Therefore, one should appoint an ambassador, send a special representative, and work from both sides: recruit a strong, tough person with military experience, and someone who can calmly and softly explain and find a common approach. I also think that after congressional elections Ukraine will find many allies not only among Democrats but also among Republicans who understand that Trump is becoming less popular with each passing day.
The role of Kushner, Rubio, and the possible Trump–Putin–Xi summit
Jared Kushner is implicated in a scandal regarding possible transfers of 2 billions of dollars. Journalists who obtained access to supposedly secret financial arrangements report that leaders of the UAE and Saudi Arabia proposed creating a fund of over 10 billions of dollars to support the administration’s foreign policy aims, including funding the construction of the border wall with Mexico. The initial plan was not realized, but at least 2 billions were reportedly directed to accounts Kushner had access to. Should we expect an investigation into this after 3 November?
Perhaps there will be some investigations, but I’ll be frank: I am skeptical about these reports. I have no doubt they stole billions and that they are paid from all sides. Don’t forget that Saudi Arabia has already invested 2 billions into the fund that Kushner managed.
But did they also transfer another 2 billions to his personal bank accounts? I doubt it. Moreover, the story claimed that part of these funds allegedly reached the Israel Central Bank. But he does not maintain personal accounts for individuals.
So either a huge exception was made here, or something else is going on. Overall, I think this story is false.
Why do such stories arise? Is someone trying to undermine Kushner?
I think there are two possibilities. Either someone among us hates Kushner so much and wants to discredit him that they will push anything, regardless of truth. Or, and this is also possible, Russia is behind it.
There are already so many scandals, corruption, and money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, and other countries around Trump, Kushner, and others that Russia can take advantage of the situation. If it pushes a story that turns out to be false, and then this is proven, Trump can say: “See, everything else is the same nonsense as this story.”
Human rights activist Mark Feygin does not rule out that Marco Rubio, after the midterm elections, could take on a diplomatic track in negotiations over the Russia–Ukraine war. Will he get access to this issue, and would the approach change? Or will Rubio, who still seems to wear shoes two sizes too large, simply follow Trump’s directives, even if he is politically weakened?
I think Marco Rubio will do what Trump tells him. We’ve seen this before. Compare what Rubio says today with his statements three years ago. They are worlds apart, as if two different people.
When a person reaches the level where they are ready to say whatever their boss tells them, it’s unlikely they will change. I think Trump has broken Rubio. He is a completely broken person, and returning him to the role he once had is unrealistic. So even if Rubio takes up this issue, little will come of it.
Rubio and Trump / AFP
Could there be a trilateral meeting of Trump, Xi Jinping, and Putin, about which Western media have written? The Kremlin has been actively discussing it, Trump mentioned it, and Xi Jinping has not publicly commented. The meeting is supposedly to be held on the sidelines of a summit in Shenzhen, China, on 18 – 19 November. If Trump exits the midterms with weakened positions, what could he gain from such a summit and who would benefit?
Yes, such a meeting is quite plausible. Whether it will take place I do not know, but it is entirely possible. The main winners of such a summit would, of course, be Putin and Xi Jinping. They will meet on equal footing with the U.S. president, effectively ignoring the rest of the world.
With such a summit, Trump would show that he considers the world’s most important leaders to be two dictators, rather than democratic leaders. Personally, he would prefer dealing with dictators to leaders of free countries, because he is envious.
Trump wants to have the same level of control as they do, and for no one to dare criticize him. In Russia or China, people cannot freely criticize Putin or Xi Jinping. I think this summit would also be psychologically pleasant for Trump, especially after elections in which Republicans may suffer losses.
Putin and Xi Jinping will flatter him, reassure him that he is wonderful and smart, and tell him that Americans who criticize him are terrible. They will say that Trump should only use power more aggressively, as they do in their countries. So the summit is quite possible.
But whether it will actually happen is unknown. I think Republicans themselves will try to persuade the White House to abandon this idea, because such a meeting would not fit their political interests.
This interview has been shortened, corrected, and edited for better comprehension by the audience.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Трамп може стати ще небезпечнішим для України: інтерв'ю Уріеля Епштейна про вибори у США". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Channel 24.
