"This Is a Matter of Ukraine's Surrender": Rashkin on Trump and Putin's Plans

The possibility of the United States purchasing Russian diesel raises questions about Washington’s future economic agreements with Moscow. At the same time, there are only a few days left until the U.S. congressional elections, and the Kremlin may use this time to push for an easing of sanctions and maintain its influence over the decisions of the Donald Trump administration.

Yuri Rashkin, a U.S.-based public and political figure, explained in an interview with 24 Channel why the diesel deal could prove more beneficial to Russia and how the U.S. elections could alter the Kremlin’s plans. He also analyzed Elon Musk’s dependence on Trump, the risks of a new escalation regarding Iran, and the possibility of a trilateral meeting between the presidents of Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia.

The diesel deal paves the way for further concessions to Russia

In an interview with The Sun, Volodymyr Zelenskyy compared potential economic cooperation between the U.S. and Russia to an unequal marriage of convenience. The Ukrainian president warned that agreements on diesel fuel could lead to new proposals concerning gas, fertilizers, frozen Russian assets, and the lifting of sanctions against certain individuals and companies.

Yuriy Rashkin agreed with Zelenskyy’s concerns. In his view, short-term economic benefits may mask far more serious consequences that will only become apparent after the agreements are implemented.

He compared this situation to populist promises, where politicians initially present voters with an attractive outcome but fail to explain all the risks.

Russia has a reputation that tells us we cannot enter into agreements with it. It’s just like making deals with Trump. It’s also, generally speaking, pointless,
– Rashkin stated.

He considers Zelenskyy’s position particularly telling, as Zelenskyy warns Americans against long-term dependence on Russian resources. Trump, on the other hand, presents future purchases as an opportunity to quickly lower fuel prices and demonstrate economic success.

However, the initiative for cooperation itself, according to Rashkin, originates primarily from the Russian leadership. The Kremlin may view energy supplies as the first step toward restoring broader financial relations with the U.S.

Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, plays a key role in this process. Rashkin suggested that economic agreements could serve as a pretext for easing personal sanctions against him and the entities through which financial transactions are planned to take place.

“This is a classic Kremlin idea. Dmitriev wants the sanctions against him lifted, since everything will go through his fund. So, the sanctions need to be lifted,”
– explained the public figure.

He links such steps to Moscow’s desire to regain access to frozen financial resources. If successful, the Russian side could not only profit from the sale of diesel but also gain the opportunity to secure new exemptions from the sanctions regime.

At the same time, questions arise regarding the fuel supply itself. Rashkin drew attention to reports of a ship that set sail with Russian diesel bound for the U.S. but, according to his information, had no specific buyer or final unloading point.

In his view, this situation indicates that the deal is primarily political in nature. Trump can showcase yet another agreement to voters, while Putin gains the opportunity to sell Russian energy resources and promote the idea of broader economic rapprochement.

At the same time, American consumers will judge the outcome by prices at the gas pump, not by the number of announced deals. Many factors influence fuel prices, including the situation in the Middle East, where tensions surrounding Iran remain high.

Rashkin also noted that Ukraine has refrained for several days from launching new strikes directly against Russian oil refineries. However, this political lull does not mean that Russia has ceased its aggression or abandoned its attacks on Ukraine.

We are living in this state of limbo, which is called ‘peace until the U.S. elections,’ until the third,
– Rashkin noted.

The results of the November 3 election will determine how freely the Trump administration will be able to pursue further agreements with Moscow. The Kremlin, for its part, may rush to make decisions on sanctions and economic measures while the political balance in Washington remains favorable to its plans.

The Kremlin is trying to make the most of the time before the election

The Russian leadership is interested not only in individual purchases of diesel fuel but also in resuming large-scale energy cooperation with Western countries. Rashkin suggested that Moscow aims to once again make European economies dependent on Russian resources, thereby gaining additional political influence.

However, the U.S. midterm congressional elections could hinder the implementation of such plans. If the Republicans lose control of one or both chambers, the Trump administration will face more active congressional oversight.

The new Congress will convene on January 3, so there will be a transition period between Election Day and the change in lawmakers. Nevertheless, the election results themselves could influence political decisions even before the end of the year.

“They would like to entangle the whole world in a network of oil and energy so that Europe would depend on Russia, and then Russia would control it all. But all of this is falling apart because there will be elections, and they will stand in their way,”
– Rashkin believes.

A potential shift in the majority could also create problems for further easing of sanctions. Democrats will have the opportunity to initiate investigations into executive branch decisions and demand explanations from officials who participated in negotiations with Moscow.

Therefore, according to Rashkin’s assumption, the Russian side will seek to secure as many concessions as possible by November 3. But rushing the process could draw additional attention to the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of the agreements.

If you rush to the cashier and say, “Please cash my check immediately, before the next guys arrive to ask questions about evidence and documents,” then, on the one hand, they might give you the money. But on the other hand, everyone sees you running to the cashier,
he explained.

In such a situation, Trump will also have to factor in the risk of future audits. Any agreement that creates economic advantages for Russia immediately before the election could become the subject of heated political debates in Washington.

Congress may tighten its grip on Trump

Democrats are already preparing for a possible return to control of the House of Representatives. In particular, Rashkin drew attention to the activities of Congressman Jamie Raskin, who, according to him, has begun raising the issue of preserving documents for future audits.

The political figure explained that the new majority will be able to demand sworn testimony from administration officials, review financial documents, and hold congressional hearings. Such tools could limit the White House’s ability to make decisions without proper oversight.

At the same time, as long as the election results remain unknown, all plans for future investigations depend on which party wins the majority.

If the Republicans win, all these subpoenas will end up as waste paper. But if the Democrats win, then there’s already a date starting from which you’ll be asked to keep all your receipts. We’ll come to audit you, and you’ll be held accountable before Congress under oath,
– said Rashkin.

He paid special attention to the period between the November 3 election and the start of the new Congress on January 3. At that time, the current lawmakers will still be in office, but some of them will already know they’re leaving their posts.

Do you think that people who vote according to their conscience will vote for Trump? I don’t think so,
– the public figure emphasized.

He did not rule out that the president might try to maintain influence over lawmakers through personal or political pressure. But once the election is over, some Republicans may begin to act more independently.

This creates additional risks for Trump, especially if the Democrats gain the ability to oversee the government’s activities. At the same time, it will be more difficult for the Russian leadership to count on the swift advancement of economic agreements without scrutiny from Congress.

Rashkin also drew attention to Trump’s own election campaign. The president is actively speaking at rallies, trying to mobilize his supporters, but his political spectacle does not change the economic situation in the country.

The problems facing American consumers – particularly rising fuel prices – persist despite the high-profile announcements of new deals. And Russian diesel, according to Rashkin, cannot single-handedly ensure Trump’s economic success ahead of the election.

Musk Has Become Dependent on Trump

Another significant development was Vladimir Putin’s statement regarding Russia’s contacts with Elon Musk. During a meeting with representatives of African nations, the Russian dictator called the SpaceX owner a genius and spoke about cooperation in the field of low-Earth orbit satellite systems.

Putin claimed that Russia maintains contact with Musk despite political disagreements between the two countries. He also stressed the need to coordinate the operations of satellite constellations so that they do not interfere with one another in orbit.

Rashkin noted that the Russian leader’s public remarks could create additional problems for the American businessman. After all, Musk has already found himself in a difficult position due to his active involvement in U.S. politics.

According to the public figure, the main problem lies not even in Musk’s relationship with Putin, but in his dependence on Donald Trump.

During the presidential campaign, the businessman spent over $200 million supporting Trump. After Trump’s victory, Musk gained significant political influence and, according to Rashkin, may have believed he would be able to influence the president thanks to his own financial resources.

Musk thought he had Trump in his pocket. And then Trump became president – and bam!
– Rashkin noted.

After Trump’s return to the White House, the businessman joined a sweeping overhaul of U.S. government agencies. Rashkin sharply criticized the consequences of these decisions, believing they harmed government institutions and the people who depended on their work.

At the same time, Musk’s active involvement in politics created risks for his own companies. Some consumers began to turn away from their products, and representatives of both U.S. political parties began to raise the issue more frequently of how important government programs were dependent on a single businessman.

Furthermore, Musk’s companies operate under government contracts and require the necessary permits. This gives U.S. authorities the ability to influence their operations.

Rashkin suggested that in the run-up to the election, the businessman’s political dependence could intensify even further. He drew attention to reports of Musk’s new, significant expenditures in support of candidates associated with Trump.

According to his estimate, the amount has already exceeded $400 million. Previously, Musk had considered supporting other political projects, particularly those linked to J.D. Vance, and had also spoken about forming a third party.

However, significant resources are now once again being directed toward Republican election campaigns. Among the examples, Rashkin cited the race in Texas, where support for Ken Paxton is being discussed, while Democrat James Talarico is also popular among voters.

Musk thought he was in control of the situation, but it turned out he was simply a complete hostage. He now has one defender – sorry, two: Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin,
– said Rashkin.

In this situation, it is more difficult for Musk to distance himself from the U.S. president without jeopardizing his own political and business interests. Putin’s public statements about his contacts with Musk could further heighten U.S. lawmakers’ scrutiny of SpaceX’s activities.

Russia’s threats pose new risks for Starlink

Against the backdrop of Putin’s statements, Elon Musk posted a message on social media platform X warning of the dangers of using Starlink for offensive military operations. The post he reposted highlighted Russia’s ability to destroy satellites and the potential consequences of such attacks on space infrastructure.

In particular, it mentioned the test of Russia’s “Nudol” anti-satellite missile on November 15, 2021. At that time, Russia destroyed one of its own old satellites, leaving a significant amount of debris in orbit.

A widely circulated report claimed that Starlink should remain a civilian project, although it could be used to support military infrastructure. At the same time, using the system for offensive strikes could allegedly make the satellites legitimate targets for an adversary.

Rashkin views such arguments as yet another source of pressure on Musk. Russia can use the threat of anti-satellite strikes, while U.S. authorities have the means to influence SpaceX through contracts and regulatory mechanisms.

Trump can use licensing as a threat, while Putin threatens to damage and destroy the product in space, leaving debris behind. And once again, you'll get more than you bargained for,
– explained Rashkin.

All of this raises the broader question of the role of private companies in ensuring national security. SpaceX’s satellite systems have become vital not only for commercial communications but also for U.S. space programs and Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

The dependence of such systems on the decisions of a single person is causing concern among policymakers responsible for ensuring the continuity of government and military programs.

According to Rashkin, the U.S. will have to rethink the current model of government interaction with SpaceX. He did not rule out increased government oversight or the creation of new forms of partnership that would reduce the dependence of critical infrastructure on Musk’s personal stance.

The politician even suggested the possibility of discussing the nationalization of certain assets. However, he emphasized that there are less radical options, such as a government partnership, under which the U.S. would be able to better control critical technologies.

“That’s too much power for one person. This system needs to be changed in some way. First, Musk must be removed from managing all these assets, and then we need to decide whether they should be nationalized,”
the public figure believes.

Rashkin pointed out that SpaceX’s development has been tied to cooperation with the U.S. government from the very beginning. Now that the company has significantly greater influence over space infrastructure, the question of how responsibility is divided between the private sector and the government becomes even more important.

However, he does not expect any major changes in this area during the Trump presidency. In his view, the White House will continue to support the current model, under which the president wields significant influence over Musk’s political and economic future.

Tensions surrounding Iran threaten another spike in prices

Energy agreements with Russia cannot solve the main problem of the U.S. fuel market if the situation in the Middle East remains unstable. Rashkin attributes the rise in fuel prices primarily to the risks of a new escalation regarding Iran.

Israel is considering resuming strikes on Iranian targets. At the same time, such decisions may be postponed until after the U.S. elections.

The politician suggested that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are taking the U.S. election calendar into account as they decide on further actions regarding Tehran. However, he is skeptical about the prospects for a diplomatic resolution.

A new escalation could trigger further fluctuations in global oil prices. At the same time, Russia is already reaping significant revenues from energy exports at high prices, which allows it to continue funding the war against Ukraine.

This is a major problem for Trump – one that no amount of diesel can solve. After all, everyone looks at the price of gas at the pump or at how much things cost in the store. After all, all of that got there by truck,
– explained Rashkin.

He cited the example of American farmers, who are harvesting their crops right now. In southern Wisconsin, large agricultural machinery is in operation, requiring significant amounts of fuel.

Rising fuel costs affect farmers’ expenses and, subsequently, food prices. Therefore, even voters who support Trump for political reasons are facing the consequences of higher energy costs in their daily lives.

Rashkin also mentioned reports of credit support for American farmers, with a figure of about eight billion dollars cited. In his view, the need for additional funding contradicts the president’s statements about a thriving economy.

At the same time, Iran’s future remains one of the most complex issues in U.S. foreign policy. Rashkin suggested several possible scenarios depending on the extent to which the Iranian leadership acts independently and the influence Russia exerts on it.

If the Kremlin is able to influence Tehran’s decisions, the situation may develop in one direction. If, however, Trump and Netanyahu are guided by their own political and security objectives, a much more serious confrontation is possible.

I have a strong feeling that there will be a war. We are in a crisis that is being sustained by the fact that everyone is waiting for the elections,
the public figure speculated.

At the same time, he does not believe that any continuation of hostilities in the Middle East would necessarily serve Putin’s interests. Russia is interested in high oil revenues, but a large-scale regional conflict could also have unpredictable consequences for its partners.

Rashkin also highlighted the role of independent American voters and financial markets. In his view, it is precisely the reaction of people who are not staunch supporters of any party, along with the economic consequences of Trump’s decisions, that could influence Washington’s policy.

Trump May Gain More Leeway After the Election

The results of the November 3 vote will determine not only the composition of Congress but also Donald Trump’s future political options. Rashkin suggested that once the election campaign is over, the president may step up his international engagements, which he has been postponing so far due to concerns about voter reaction.

Among possible steps, he cited new negotiations with Putin, trips to China, and decisions regarding Iran. At the same time, the nature of such actions, in his view, will depend on the extent to which the new Congress will be able to keep the administration in check.

Rashkin also drew attention to Trump’s campaign rallies, in which the president attempts to mobilize supporters through emotional statements and personal attacks on political opponents.

Instead of a detailed discussion of economic policies or taxes, a significant portion of the rallies consists of emotional speeches designed to convince people to turn out to vote.

According to the public figure, this is important for the Republicans because Trump himself is not running in the current election, and his supporters do not always back other candidates with the same enthusiasm.

Therefore, the president is trying to create the impression that voting for the Republicans is, at the same time, a vote for him personally.

However, after November 3, it will become clearer just how effective this strategy was. Even more important will be the period after January 3, when newly elected lawmakers take office and will be able to influence future White House decisions.

This will also apply to a possible major diplomatic initiative by Trump related to ending Russia’s war against Ukraine.

Trump Wants to Meet with Putin and Zelenskyy

Donald Trump continues to speak about the prospect of a trilateral meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin. The G20 summit in Miami is being discussed as a possible venue, although it is not yet certain that the Russian dictator will agree to attend.

Rashkin does not expect such a meeting to ensure a just end to the war. In his view, the U.S. president is primarily seeking a high-profile diplomatic achievement that he can present as his own victory.

At the same time, he does not see in Washington’s current proposals any willingness to provide Ukraine with additional tools to strengthen its negotiating position. Instead, he fears that the Trump administration may demand concessions from Kyiv that Moscow is insisting upon.

“This is a matter of Ukraine’s capitulation. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine anything else here. And since that won’t happen, there won’t be such a meeting,”
Rashkin stated.

He speculated that Trump would like to end the war before Christmas and turn the signing of a future agreement into a major political event. One of the desirable scenarios for the American president could be a meeting with Putin at his Mar-a-Lago residence.

Ukrainian participation would make such an event significantly more significant from a diplomatic standpoint. But Rashkin believes that Trump’s main desire may still be personal contact with the Russian leader.

At the same time, the politician expressed concerns about the future operation of Starlink and Starshield for Ukraine. He suggested that after the U.S. election, the Trump administration might once again use access to satellite systems as a tool for exerting pressure.

“I think Ukraine will receive Starlink and Starshield until the election. But after the election, probably not. In this regard, I am a pessimist,”
– Rashkin noted.

He had similar concerns even after Trump’s return to the White House. Although satellite support for Ukraine continued, previous restrictions demonstrated just how heavily its availability depends on political decisions in Washington.

Rashkin did not rule out that new communication problems could arise precisely during the period when the U.S. is more actively pursuing diplomatic agreements with Russia. For Ukraine, this would mean the risk of simultaneous pressure on its negotiating position and its defense capabilities, while the Russian army continues its military operations.

Rashkin on the diesel deal with Russia, Musk’s dependence on Trump, and a possible meeting between Zelenskyy and Putin: watch the video