"Trump Sat Down at the Table with a Cardsharp": Zagorodniy on Putin's Trap, Starlink, and Pressure on Ukraine

The Russian Air Force continues to lose combat aircraft, and new talks between U.S. officials and the Kremlin have not yielded any significant results. Following Steve Witkoff’s meeting with Vladimir Putin, Moscow began discussing the possibility of continuing talks in November, as important elections approach in the United States.

Political strategist Taras Zagorodniy appeared on 24 Channel to explain why Russian aircraft may be breaking down more frequently and how the Kremlin is exploiting the political situation in Washington. He also assessed the prospects for sanctions against Russia, the controversy surrounding Starlink, the shift in sentiment among Republicans, and high-profile NABU and SAPO cases in Ukraine.

Why Russia Is Losing Combat Aircraft

The Russian Air Force has suffered new losses. Initially, reports emerged of a Su-30 crash and injured pilots, and later, another crash was reported, this time with fatalities. Why are Russian planes crashing more and more often?

This is primarily due to the aircraft reaching the end of their service life. They are operating under conditions for which they were not designed. Russia cannot restore their service life quickly enough, and the strain on the air force remains very high.

In addition, Ukraine is striking airfields located closer to our territory. The Russians are forced to redeploy their aircraft farther away, to other airfields. This means greater distances to combat zones, longer flights, and additional strain on the aircraft’s structure and engines.

So let them fly farther. The more they operate their aircraft under these conditions, the faster their service life will be depleted.

I also cannot rule out a decline in the quality of aviation fuel. Russia is having problems securing it, although we cannot yet say for certain to what extent this is contributing to specific plane crashes.

Ukrainian strikes on oil refineries have recently become less intense. There is currently debate over whether to continue attacks on refineries. However, strikes on other targets within Russia’s fuel infrastructure have not ceased.

In particular, the “Transneft” system remains under attack. This is very important because damage to pipeline and pumping infrastructure complicates the delivery of oil to refineries that are still operating.

In other words, Russia is facing several problems at once: wear and tear on its aircraft, the need to use remote airfields, and risks to fuel logistics. All of this increases the strain on its military aviation.

Putin is dragging out negotiations with Trump

Steve Witkoff met with Putin in St. Petersburg, called him a humanist, and thanked him for the release of an American citizen. After more than three hours of talks, Yuri Ushakov mentioned a new meeting in mid-November. What is the Kremlin actually seeking, and why are there still no results?

What interests me most about this story is something else: where is Jared Kushner? Why didn’t he go with Witkoff?

I don’t really buy into all these diplomatic excuses and explanations that someone came down with the flu. There have been reports that Kushner takes a tougher stance toward Russia. Apparently, he even argued with Putin when the latter once again spoke of his intention to seize the Donbas.

According to these reports, Kushner asked something along these lines: “We heard all this last year – where are the guarantees that we won’t hear it again?” I think he’s gradually distancing himself from this issue because he doesn’t see any real results.

Meanwhile, Witkoff continues to travel to Russia. He apparently promised Trump something, convincing him that agreements could be reached. And now Ushakov announces that the next round of talks is possible around the 10th of November.

This effectively means that Trump has once again been led up the garden path. He had expected to achieve some kind of result by November 3, but now the Russians are proposing to resume negotiations after that date.

The Russians want chaos. They don’t need either Trump or Biden as specific politicians. What they need is instability in the United States, which will weaken the American state and its ability to influence international processes.

Trump has made a whole series of concessions toward Moscow, but has received nothing in return. He finds himself in a situation where he is being criticized for Russia’s actions, while the Kremlin isn’t even trying to demonstrate a serious willingness to compromise.

Recall the diesel fuel incident. The Russians took a long time to prepare to send the tanker, and then Putin stated that everything needed to be checked. This also shows that the situation regarding Russian diesel exports is not so straightforward.

Now Moscow is trying to portray the release of an American citizen as a huge humanitarian success. Putin is showing off how much of a humanitarian he supposedly is, even though we’re talking about a man whom the Russians themselves had previously captured and detained.

At the same time, there were other promises. In particular, there was talk of a possible “thousand-for-thousand” exchange, which was linked to Ukraine’s refusal to strike Red Square. However, we did not see such an outcome.

Ukraine, on the other hand, continues to demonstrate its ability to strike Russian territory. The strike on Kapotnya, in particular, demonstrated this. Moscow has received no guarantees that Kyiv will cease such operations, and Washington has failed to secure any significant concessions from Putin.

Why is Putin so confidently dragging out the negotiations? Does he expect his position to strengthen after the U.S. elections?

I have long said that Putin will not change his position as long as he remains in power. He is counting on destabilization rather than seeking compromises.

In particular, he is waiting for political changes in the United States, monitoring the upcoming elections in France, and keeping an eye on the situation in Europe as a whole. Russia is interested in exacerbating internal conflicts within Western nations.

In my opinion, Moscow is also trying to exploit the protests in European countries. We’re seeing unrest in France, Italy, and other nations. It benefits the Kremlin when European governments are forced to devote political resources to addressing domestic instability.

In Italy, for example, Giorgia Meloni has taken a much tougher stance on the unrest. She has insisted on holding people accountable for damaged property, specifically on the possibility of holding the parents of underage offenders liable for damages. The authorities began to respond more vigorously to the unrest.

Russia will continue to seek out such vulnerabilities. It is in Putin’s interest for Ukraine’s allies to quarrel among themselves, change governments, and lose political stability.

Trump’s main mistake is that he sat down at the table with a cardsharp. And the cardsharp has no intention of playing fair. He uses your desire to reach an agreement to get even more.

Trump can talk all he wants about Putin’s humanitarianism, but Russia continues the war. Moscow isn’t changing its demands, isn’t showing any willingness to abandon its goals, and is simply postponing negotiations to dates that are more convenient for itself.

That is precisely why pressure is mounting on Trump to finally impose tough sanctions – specifically those proposed by Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal. First and foremost, this concerns countries that continue to buy Russian oil.

India is particularly important. Restricting Russian oil exports to this market would deal a very painful blow to the Russian economy. Such a decision has long been expected from Trump, but he continues to look for ways to reach an agreement with Putin.

And all of this is happening at a time when oil prices are not falling as much as the U.S. administration would like. Lavrov is traveling to Iran, Russia continues its contacts with Tehran, and Trump is still trying to secure at least some diplomatic outcome from the Kremlin.

The U.S. Elections and Musk’s Role

How important could November 3 become for Trump? Republicans are already criticizing Witkoff’s remarks about Putin’s humanism, and questions are being raised about Elon Musk due to problems with Starlink. Could the political fallout affect the president himself and his inner circle?

I wouldn’t rush to make predictions about the outcome of the U.S. election. Trump has a hidden base of support, particularly independent voters who backed him in the previous election.

The Democrats’ problem is that they still haven’t offered a compelling agenda for people disappointed with Trump. Their own poll numbers also aren’t showing the kind of growth that would allow them to speak confidently about a future victory.

An interesting statement came from actor Matthew McConaughey, who is occasionally mentioned as a potential U.S. presidential candidate. He spoke about the need to support some kind of third political force, effectively suggesting a vote against the traditional parties.

In my opinion, this could work in the Republicans’ favor. Some protest voters who are disillusioned with Trump but do not want to vote for the Democrats may support independent candidates or a third force.

We’ve already seen how wrong predictions about U.S. elections can be. At one point, many were certain Hillary Clinton would win; later, Kamala Harris was similarly predicted to win. But the actual results turned out differently.

That’s why we need to wait for the votes to be counted. The American electoral system is more complex than it might seem based on opinion polls or television projections.

But for Ukraine, the main issue isn’t even who will win in a particular state or how many seats the Democrats and Republicans will secure. We need to understand how to use the situation Trump finds himself in to protect our own interests.

He is making one mistake after another. And Ukraine’s task is to find opportunities to apply pressure in order to secure the decisions we need.

In the short term, I believe it is very important to force Trump to impose sanctions on India for purchasing Russian oil. This could indeed inflict significant economic damage on Russia.

Moreover, Trump is forced to respond to accusations of excessive favoritism toward Moscow. I do not consider him a Russian agent. But it is obvious that with his clumsy attempts to save Russia, he is creating problems for himself.

Zelenskyy understands this well. He is actively engaging with the American media, particularly Fox News, to explain Ukraine’s position directly to American voters.

And who could have made the decision to restrict the military segment of Starlink? Could Musk really have been behind this, and who will be held accountable if Congress begins an investigation?

I don’t believe that Elon Musk could have made such a decision on his own without a corresponding order from the U.S. government. In military matters, his company acts as a contractor for the Pentagon and operates under government contracts.

Musk may have his own political views, make statements, and argue with officials. But when it comes to military infrastructure and contract fulfillment, decisions of this magnitude aren’t made simply because he felt like shutting something down.

In my opinion, the relevant order came from the U.S. leadership. I suspect that the final political decision rested with Trump, since Pete Hegseth would hardly have decided on his own to restrict the operation of systems of military significance.

Now, administration officials are starting to make excuses, explaining that no one shut anything down. Perhaps Trump will try to shift the political responsibility onto his subordinates.

For example, Hegseth might be asked to explain the situation to Congress himself. I wouldn’t even rule out a scenario where he takes some of the blame himself and later lands a position at one of the major defense contractors. But that’s a matter of how the administration handles its internal issues.

The situation with Musk is more complicated. He is a key player in the U.S. economy, and it’s not so easy to simply bar him from government contracts.

It’s worth remembering that Musk’s companies have collaborated with the U.S. government under various presidents. Tesla once benefited from government programs supporting electric vehicles, and Musk received assistance from the U.S. government when his business was going through a difficult period.

He is not a politician who depends exclusively on a single party. Large American companies often support candidates from both political camps to maintain the ability to operate regardless of election results.

Therefore, I do not rule out that Musk may eventually begin to support Democrats as well, if it serves his interests. They may create political difficulties for him, but completely ousting him from the system will be much more difficult.

At the same time, the issue of potential restrictions on satellite communications poses problems for the entire U.S. defense industry. If partners begin to doubt that access to U.S. military technologies will remain stable, this will affect their future procurement decisions.

I am convinced that representatives of the U.S. defense-industrial complex are already asking the administration some tough questions. Such decisions cast a shadow not only on Starlink but also on the reliability of U.S. military systems as a whole.

Meanwhile, European nations have begun discussing the creation of their own military satellite communications system. If they pool their resources and carry out such a project, SpaceX risks losing part of its monopoly.

And that means a significant financial loss and a loss of leverage over European partners. Therefore, political games involving communications could prove costly for American companies.

The situation with Russian fertilizers, which Putin is offering to the United States, is also telling. Fertilizers were not subject to the same restrictions as most other Russian goods, and Russia continued to trade them.

In fact, this is yet another way to export products whose production relies heavily on natural gas. Russia has large reserves of relatively cheap gas and uses them to produce fertilizers, which it sells primarily to European countries.

Therefore, Putin is not offering Trump anything fundamentally new. Russia has long had the ability to sell fertilizers, and the relevant policy was established under the previous U.S. administration.

Trump wanted to secure a political victory from Moscow, but instead only created additional difficulties for himself. Ukraine proposed a different approach: to provide Tomahawk missiles and increase military pressure on Russia to force it to end the war.

He refused to do so. Now he has to explain why his attempts to reach an agreement with the Kremlin are not yielding the expected results.

Republicans and Zelenskyy’s Interviews

Trump has repeatedly claimed that Zelenskyy allegedly does not want to sign a peace agreement. At the same time, the Ukrainian president appeared on Fox News and explicitly stated that he is ready for peace along the line of contact. Does this indicate a weakening of support for Trump even among Republicans?

Absolutely. With his latest decisions, Trump is increasingly acting against the interests of the very groups he has long relied on. First and foremost, these are the U.S. defense-industrial complex and the oil and gas lobby.

He previously demonstrated a willingness to defend the interests of American manufacturers and energy companies, but now his actions regarding Russia are beginning to create problems for them.

Republicans see this. I think that some influential party figures and its donors are already asking: Why support decisions that yield no results and, at the same time, harm U.S. economic interests?

Trump has promised to increase pressure on India over Russian oil. However, this issue is not only about sanctions but also has major economic implications for the American energy sector.

In particular, the U.S. is interested in attracting investment for the development of oil fields in Venezuela. Such projects require significant funds and long-term contracts for oil supplies.

India is one of the potential major buyers. But if it continues to purchase significant volumes of Russian oil, it will be more difficult for American companies to negotiate new long-term supply agreements.

Consequently, the economic interests of American corporations may increasingly diverge from Trump’s efforts to find a compromise with Moscow. And this is creating additional tension within Republican circles.

That is precisely why I am not surprised that Zelenskyy was given the opportunity to speak on Fox News. It is one of the most important conservative TV networks in the U.S., and its audience needs to hear the Ukrainian position directly.

Zelenskyy responded to accusations that he allegedly does not want peace. He stated his readiness to end the war along the line of contact, but this does not mean he agrees to meet all of Putin’s political and territorial demands.

Trump constantly repeats that Ukraine does not want to negotiate. Yet Zelenskyy appears on a network watched by a Republican audience and directly explains what kind of agreement the Ukrainian side is prepared to accept.

In my opinion, this indicates that Trump no longer has the unquestioning support of the entire Republican establishment. Moreover, influential economic groups are unwilling to indefinitely support political moves that run counter to their interests.

And Russia has once again postponed a possible outcome of the negotiations until after the U.S. elections. Trump had hoped for an agreement sooner, but now Moscow is effectively proposing to return to this issue at a time when the political situation in the U.S. may already be different.

NABU and Media Pressure

Against the backdrop of Ukraine’s complex negotiations with the U.S., high-profile anti-corruption stories have resurfaced. Why does the publication of materials by NABU and the SAPO sometimes coincide with important foreign policy events, and could these cases be used to exert pressure on the Ukrainian government?

Let me start by saying that NABU and the SAPO are indeed doing a lot of valuable work. They are conducting investigations, and the fight against corruption is essential for Ukraine.

But another question comes to mind: why do certain reports surface precisely when the Ukrainian government is engaged in the most complex negotiations with the United States?

Some publications create a major media scandal, but then we see no clear progress in the criminal proceedings. In particular, I don’t see any real progress in the Mindich case, despite the fact that there have been numerous public statements on this topic.

Records of phone conversations, snippets of communication, and various discussions are being made public. However, the conversations themselves do not yet prove that a crime has been committed. It is necessary to present documents, specific actions, the flow of funds, and other evidence that corroborates the relevant allegations.

Furthermore, there is a question regarding the legality of releasing materials from the pre-trial investigation. If information is published before the investigation is complete, it takes on a political life of its own.

Then this is exploited in the U.S. Some congressman comes out and declares: “Look, there’s corruption in Ukraine again – that’s what they’re writing about.” But what has actually been proven in this specific case? No one pays attention to that anymore.

I believe that this approach may be part of an information campaign against Ukraine. It is particularly dangerous when, at the same time, attempts are being made to force the country to agree to unacceptable terms for ending the war.

You also link this to NABU’s cooperation with U.S. agencies. What is the basis for this position?

In 2023, NABU signed a memorandum of cooperation with the FBI. This is public information; there are photographs and reports documenting the signing of the agreement.

I wonder to what extent U.S. law enforcement agencies influence the work of the Ukrainian anti-corruption agency. Especially now, when the U.S. administration’s policy toward Ukraine is so controversial.

I suspect that certain news stories may be exploited not only by American political groups but also by forces interested in weakening the Ukrainian state. In particular, I do not rule out Russian interest in such processes.

Take, for example, the story surrounding Sense Bank. This is the former “Alfa-Bank,” linked to Mikhail Fridman. Its nationalization was a major issue for Ukraine, as it involved a large bank with Russian owners.

Ukrainian government officials, including representatives of the National Bank, were involved in the nationalization. Among them was Andriy Pyshnyy, and Iryna Mudra was also involved in the relevant processes.

I suspect that the interests of the bank’s former owners may be linked to certain information campaigns. Fridman retains economic interests, and the issue of sanctions against him has been handled differently in Ukraine and Europe.

It is possible that certain groups are trying to use the anti-corruption narrative to fight for economic assets and political influence. That is precisely why I am interested not only in the sensational nature of the published materials but also in who might benefit from their release.

And how do you assess the stories surrounding Yermak, Mindich, and other officials? Are the leaked conversations sufficient to draw serious conclusions?

I’m not going to act as a defense attorney for Andriy Yermak or anyone else. But let’s distinguish between real evidence and media noise.

For example, there are rumors about consultations with fortune-tellers, various private stories, and details of phone calls. How does this relate to a specific crime? If there are documents and evidence, present them and proceed through legal channels.

And if there isn’t, why stir up a scandal that ultimately leads nowhere?

In one such story, according to my information, the materials in question date back to 2021. The question is why they are being made public right now and why, after all the high-profile statements, we are not seeing these cases brought to a proper conclusion.

Similar questions arise regarding other high-profile cases. We’re seeing public discussions surrounding former officials in the energy sector, specifically Volodymyr Kudrytskyi and Andriy Kobolev.

Regarding Kobolev, I mentioned the Supreme Court’s ruling on the bonuses he received in 2017–2018. I am interested in what specific legal consequences such decisions entail and why the public often witnesses media scandals but does not receive answers regarding accountability.

At the same time, I am convinced that the Ukrainian government, despite all its problems, generally continues to defend the country’s interests. This does not mean that there is no corruption or mistakes. But one cannot automatically portray all Ukrainian officials as traitors solely on the basis of media campaigns.

Zelenskyy is also demonstrating that he has no intention of agreeing to unacceptable terms. And the public, in my opinion, senses this. Following yet another escalation in relations with Trump, we saw a rise in support for the Ukrainian president, which I estimated at approximately ten percent.

That is why I view some of these high-profile publications as a tool to weaken the government’s position. When a country is engaged in complex negotiations, attempts are made to drag it into internal conflicts in order to force the leadership to waste resources on justifying its actions.

The story about Mindich’s conversations regarding missile production was also telling. Shteilerman spoke about this at a meeting of the temporary investigative commission attended by Oleksiy Goncharenko.

The claim was that Mindich, during a phone conversation, discussed the possibility of producing a certain number of missiles and allegedly made corresponding proposals to government officials.

But just because someone said something over the phone doesn’t mean they actually controlled production, made the relevant decisions, or could have carried out their statements. They might simply have been exaggerating their own capabilities.

As far as I understood from his explanation, Shteilerman also pointed out that certain statements from the phone conversations might have been disconnected from actual production processes.

However, such snippets are then circulated as if they were already proven facts. They are used to level political accusations against the Ukrainian leadership, even though there can be a huge difference between what was said in a phone conversation and actual actions.

That is precisely why I insist: when it comes to the fight against corruption, there must be evidence, a thorough investigation, and a clear outcome. Otherwise, sensationalist reports can turn into weapons in an information war against Ukraine precisely when the country most needs a strong position in international negotiations.

Zagorodniy on the Putin-Trump talks: watch the video