Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Republicans' defeat in the midterms dealt a serious blow to Donald Trump. The Democrats gained more leverage in Congress, but that does not mean the White House will suddenly change course on Ukraine. U.S. foreign policy remains in the hands of the president and his inner circle, which continues to show a commitment to making deals with the Kremlin.
In an exclusive interview 24 with Channel Professor of International Politics at the Clinton Institute at University College Dublin, Scott Lucas explained what to expect from the new balance of power in Congress, why attempts to implement Trump and Putin’s “diesel deal” have run into obstacles, whether there are prospects for talks in Abu Dhabi, and why JD Vance is already effectively preparing for the presidential race 2028 year.
How the Republicans' defeat could affect U.S. policy toward Ukraine
Let’s discuss events in the United States and this humiliating blow to the Republican Party and President Donald Trump. How might this affect U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine, security assistance to Ukraine, and Trump and Putin’s “diesel deal”?
Undoubtedly, Democrats now have a clear majority in both chambers of Congress, at least 54 to 100 seats in the Senate. There are two more races where they could win: in Alaska and Mississippi. That would raise the total to 56. The projected House majority is 87 seats.
This is quite significant, given that we considered these races very tight, with an uncertain majority just a few weeks ago. But I think we should be cautious about what this means for U.S. support for Ukraine or the restoration of that support.
First, the new Congress does not begin work until 3 January. So we have almost two months until then. Second, foreign policy is now, quite evidently, in practice in the hands of the executive branch, the White House.
And, of course, Trump’s closest circle has been very hostile to Ukraine in recent weeks through his envoy Steve Bieff? Whitcoff? and Jared Kushner, in particular, due to the tens of billions of dollars in business deals that Moscow is offering.
So, at the moment there are no indications that Trump’s camp will suddenly say: “We lost this big victory. We need to pause talks on these deals with the Russians. We need to act tougher toward Moscow to push for a ceasefire on the current frontline.”
Full interview with Scott Lucas: watch the video
Instead, I think the first signal of what Trump’s team will do next week is that they will hold these talks, perhaps in Abu Dhabi, UAE, with Ukraine and Russia participants. At that moment we may receive a signal after talks about whether Bieff and Kushner are more inclined toward a ceasefire along the current frontline, but for now there are no signs.
Thus, for example, President Zelensky said he spoke with Bieff and Kushner for 90 minutes. He said, as I understand it, quote: “a very substantive discussion,” but no details were provided. He could not offer anything that would indicate a change in the Americans’ position.
If there is a broader sign, if not hope, it is that Congress is more supportive of Ukraine than Trump’s inner circle. We’ve seen this with the sanctions bill, actually a tariff bill, that would impose 500% tariffs on Russia and 100% on each of its five major clients.
But, of course, when this bill, nicknamed the Graham Act after the late Senator Lindsey Graham, passed in September, Donald Trump signed it but refused to enforce it.
Will the new Congress resist this and say: “No, you must do this. It’s the law. You must resist this”? Or will the new Congress say that purchases of diesel fuel from Russia are not allowed? In fact, they are illegal, because there is a year law 2022 that bans any import of Russian energy, oil or gas, into the United States.
Will we see pressure not only on Trump, but, say, on his defense secretary, Pete Gags? He must explain why Starshield, early warning intelligence, was cut off, and why they block the transfer of equipment, weapons, including Patriot air defense systems from NATO allies.
I think the only thing we can say as a hopeful sign at the moment is that somewhat as the Trump camp weakens, other parts of the U.S. administration and the U.S. political and business communities in general are acting more hardline toward Russia.
And I think the sign of this today is that Russia failed to supply the diesel fuel Trump agreed to purchase. Two of the four tankers are not even heading to the United States. They are heading elsewhere. And the third, apparently, is in a wait-and-see mode, trying to figure out if it can reach the United States.
Why the Trump-Putin “diesel deal” ran into trouble
You just mentioned Financial Times reports about tankers deviating from planned routes, presumably due to fear of punishment by Congress, sanctions, and legal issues. Does this mean that global companies and corporations, insurers, are simply afraid to fulfill this Trump-Putin deal, knowing that next year the new Congress may come to power, may pass a law prohibiting imports of Russian diesel to the U.S., and may even punish because there were reports that lawmakers sent letters to port authorities and U.S. banks about possible further investigations?
I think you’re absolutely right, even without going further. It’s not about whether Democrats can pass a law banning these supplies of Russian diesel fuel. The law already exists. Import of Russian energy supplies to the United States is already illegal.
That’s why Trump’s willingness to buy them is so brazen not only toward Congress but also toward the legal position.
If he can’t show there is an exception, that there must be a deviation from the law, and he has certainly not asked for it at the moment. There is a serious question whether he can avoid responsibility for this. And at least there are enough questions why these tankers turned around or stopped, waiting to see what to do next.
Even more striking is that both tankers that diverted away from the United States were under sanctions. One belonged to Hong Kong, the other to Russia. So the question of why the U.S. should even deal with sanctioned tankers is obvious.
And yes, I think insurers, shipowners, financial firms that could be involved in these operations all understand that there is a big risk: that a court could deem this an illegal operation, and cargoes could be seized, and you could lose your money. At least I hope that is where this will lead.
It’s interesting that in recent days there has been very little talk from the administration about purchasing Russian diesel fuel. Returning to the idea that it is absolutely necessary, returning to the idea that they consider it legal.
So I am quite hopeful. I am hopeful that at least this specific Trump initiative to purchase Russian diesel fuel, which hardly helps the U.S. diesel market but gives Russia billions of dollars, will not be realized now.
What to Expect from the Abu Dhabi Talks
And what about peace talks? We currently have the next meeting in Abu Dhabi scheduled for 10 – 11 November with U.S. representatives, Trump’s special envoy, the Ukrainian delegation, and likely also the Russian delegation. What are your expectations now? Do you think Trump will remain as active in these peace efforts, or should we expect to see maybe only the last round tables with this team?
There are so many questions about this meeting next week in Abu Dhabi. I think the first is: what is the agenda here? Is it simply an introductory discussion? “Okay, we’ll sit back down at the negotiating table for the first time in almost nine months.”
Or will it be a meeting with a real agenda and issues put on the table? And if so, what are these issues?
We know that at the beginning of September, Trump’s envoy, developer Steve Bieff? and his son-in-law Jared Kushner pushed the idea of a partial ceasefire, namely an energy ceasefire. But, of course, we also know that the problem with that energy ceasefire was that it was basically “oil refinery for oil refinery.”
And Russia has many oil refineries. Ukraine has only one, which is not actually operating at full capacity. So it was an unbalanced proposal.
Now, will they return to the negotiating table with a real energy ceasefire that contemplates stopping attacks on all energy facilities, not only oil refineries but also critical infrastructure for the power grid, such as thermal power plants and hydroelectric plants? Will their agenda include a ceasefire proposal? Will it be based on the current frontline, or will it allow Russia to seize even more Ukrainian territory?
So we really have no idea what the content or essence of these talks will be. And that brings us back to the fundamental reason we have no progress on the political track of negotiations.
There is progress on the military front, but on the political track there is none because the Russians do not want a ceasefire along the current frontline. They insist on their maximalist demands: give us the rest of Donbas, Donetsk region, otherwise we will not stop attacking.
And if the Russians say this is the so-called “special military operation,” that they have certain demands, that they must get more territory, you tell the Russians: “No, we did not tell you that. We said: would you agree to a ceasefire on the current lines of contact?” That is exactly how it should happen.
I think at this stage these talks should be viewed only as a preliminary step, and then we’ll see if there is a possibility to push them forward.
Why the Kremlin uses the topic of Olenivka and the meeting with Melanie Trump
The disaster at Olenivka exposed the real face of the so-called “Russian world.” What role does Melania Trump play in this process?
Yes, this is indeed an important question to unpack at several levels. The first is to talk about the reality of politics and political theater.
The reality of politics here is that the Russians essentially used civilians as human shields, as a means to deter Ukrainian attacks. There were almost 2 thousand residents of Olenivka left. They suffered from severe poverty, lack of food, medicines and other supplies for months as the Russians confiscated aid that the Ukrainian forces dropped to them this autumn.
So, as I understand from people familiar with the situation, what helped break the deadlock was to force the Russians to allow civilian evacuation, the Papal intervention, Pope Leo XIV. It was only after his intervention that negotiations took place, which, to put it mildly, energized the dialogue between Mr. Lubinets, the Ombudsman for human rights of the Verkhovna Rada, and his Russian counterpart.
And we have an agreement. And I am very glad we reached it, because a few hundred — we do not know the exact number — did not provide it. Ukraine and Russia did not provide it. Melania Trump says that almost 800 civilians were able to leave Olenivka, and many of them returned to free Ukraine.
They had to travel via Russia and Belarus, and then return to a free Ukraine. And now they can get something to eat. Now they can, at least as much as possible amid night Russian attacks, feel a bit of safety. That is the reality of the politics that unfolded.
And the theatrical side of politics is that regardless of what Melania Trump said, and I am sure she cares about the fate of these civilians, she did not play a central role in the negotiations.
But in the theater of politics, if you want to win the administration’s support or at least not let it switch sides, you say: Melania Trump is wonderful. And Melania Trump — she deserves awards for what she did. And indeed yesterday President Zelenskiy awarded Melania Trump, presenting her with a high Ukrainian honor for her actions. This is theater.
I understand why this was done. And the Russians would say the same. Melania Trump is wonderful. She is a peacemaker. She is wonderful, because they want her husband to be “in Putin’s pocket.”
Now let me turn to what, in my view, is very interesting to develop this discussion further. And Ukrainian ombudsperson Lyubinets and the Russians came to Washington for what I suspect was a ceremony honoring Melania Trump.
There was Vladimir Putin’s chief financial adviser Kirill Dmitriev.
Kirill Dmitriev did not have any involvement in Olenivka negotiations. He was not involved in organizing evacuation. So why is Kirill Dmitriev in Washington? Has he suddenly become a great humanitarian? And the answer, of course, no.
Kirill Dmitriev, probably in Washington, to talk with other people, such as Trump’s envoys Steve Bieff? and Jared Kushner.
Kirill Dmitriev is there to push Russian deals worth tens of billions of dollars that Moscow offered Kushner and Bieff at the beginning of September. And they are using the Melania Trump encounter as cover to push their real agenda.
The story now is how the Kremlin is trying to maneuver this and push talks back onto its terms: we give you business deals, you give us what we want inside Ukraine, and keep the rest of the country weak.
How JD Vance Has Already Launched His Presidential Campaign
Let’s also highlight the reaction of U.S. Vice President JD Vance to this humiliating midterm defeat. He blamed the situation on the Iran war and probably on President Trump. Do you see this as his first statement, the start of his presidential campaign?
Yes. This is not a subtle hint. JD Vance wants to be president in the 2028 year. As, by the way, does Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
However, JD Vance’s political stance differs from the rest of Trump’s camp: he opposed the Iran war from the start. He did not stop it. He did not try to stop it, but he was against it.
Just after the midterm results came in and this is such a heavy defeat, JD Vance does not want this defeat to undermine his presidential bid in 2028 year. So instead he looks at how to use it to secure a special position, a special place for that campaign.
And that means saying: “I was the one who opposed this war, and everyone else involved in it, including Marco Rubio, dragged you into this mess, dragged the Republican Party into this mess, dragged the country into this mess. I am the reliable one.”
Now also remember that JD Vance last week, just days before the election, sent a message to Tehran through intermediaries that the United States wants to resume negotiations that could perhaps end the war.
And now Vance will hope that Iran accepts this offer, and Vance will be able to position himself as the one who leads negotiations and can say that he helped end this war, which has caused so much damage.
This, of course, puts him in opposition to Donald Trump. And although Donald Trump has said that he somewhat supports Vance’s words about the Iran war having consequences due to rising gasoline prices, he has also made clear that he does not support Vance’s candidacy in the next elections.
He even said: “I don’t know if he will run.” Well, I know he is running, and I think Trump knows that too, but he does not want to commit.
That means — and we return to what we started with — Trump’s camp becomes even more unbalanced due to the internal political processes taking place.
We must clearly realize that JD Vance is an enemy of Ukraine’s security. He is an enemy of Europe’s security. He explicitly stated this position in February 2025 year when he said Europe should take care of itself, and it has nothing to do with the United States. I do not think Vance will change this position. So we have a situation where Donald Trump acts on his own, but he is unreliable, at least on Ukraine security. Vance also acts on his own. He is unreliable for Ukraine’s security as well.
Next, we should watch whether Marco Rubio will resign as secretary of state, because Rubio cannot run for president while remaining in this post. And what does that mean? First, we will see whether Rubio as a candidate will support Ukraine’s security, and also who will replace him.
Today it has already become known that someone not very qualified in diplomacy or geopolitics is — Sergio Hora? — one of Trump’s fixer figures. He could become the next secretary of state.
And it is significant not only for lack of qualifications. He is a person who promoted the false narrative that the Revolution of Dignity 2014 year was fake, supposedly orchestrated by the West.
So no matter what, I fear that under the Trump administration, given its inner circle, there is no good news to expect. What is happening is that everyone pursues their own interests first and foremost, not Ukraine’s. And you, as before, will have to rely as much as possible on the relevant agencies to continue talking about Ukraine’s security. Career officials will become even more important.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Демократи здобули перемогу, а Венс прагне посісти місце Трампа: ексклюзивне інтерв'ю зі Скоттом Лукасом". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Channel 24.
