They Want to Bypass Trump for Ukraine's Sake: Rashkin on $15 Billion in Aid and Investigations

Following the Republicans’ defeat in the U.S. congressional elections, Democrats are preparing new initiatives to support Ukraine and scrutinize the decisions made by Donald Trump’s administration. These include the possible allocation of $15 billion in military aid, a review of sanctions mechanisms, and an investigation into the activities of individuals in the U.S. president’s inner circle.

American political figure Yuriy Rashkin explained on 24 Channel how Congress might try to circumvent a potential veto by Trump and why Ukraine has become one of the Democrats’ priorities. He also assessed the prospects for investigations into Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and Elon Musk; Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s potential to influence Putin; and the risks of a new war with Iran.

Ukraine in the Spotlight in the U.S.

CNN reports that Putin is trying to destroy the Ukrainian economy with his attacks. How important is it for American politicians not to lose sight of Russia’s true goals, especially after the congressional elections?

It is extremely important. This is exactly how journalism does its job best: reporting on events in real time, presenting facts and figures, and showing what is actually happening. This is especially true now that the Democrats have gained new political opportunities and are already beginning to consider how to address the consequences of the decisions Donald Trump has made over the past two years.

They have many issues to address, but first and foremost, they will look for areas where they can gain bipartisan support. And Ukraine has practically taken top priority here. That is precisely why I was very pleased to read the Financial Times report that the Democrats are planning a new aid package worth up to $15 billion.

Of course, for now, these are just intentions, not a decision that has already been made. But even the mere fact that such an initiative has emerged is significant. I expected that after the election, the Democrats would first and foremost send out inquiries, summon officials to hearings, and warn the administration about upcoming investigations. Instead, they’ve already started talking about concrete aid for Ukraine.

When we talk about the whole nightmare that’s unfolding right now, it would be nice to have at least some glimmer of hope. And this is even better than what I had hoped for. Democrats are already planning a bill to provide $15 billion in aid to Ukraine.

U.S. lawmakers have several important tools at their disposal: they can pass laws, conduct investigations, and oversee budget expenditures. And now, according to reports, the Democrats are trying to make use of all these opportunities. For Ukraine, this means a chance not only to receive new military support but also to change Washington’s approach to decisions that previously depended on Trump’s personal stance.

$15 Billion for Ukraine

Democrats want to include aid for Ukraine in the annual U.S. defense bill. Will they be able to use it as a tool to pressure Trump, given the threats to Ukraine’s energy sector this winter?

They will do everything they can. And their main task will be to secure support for Ukraine, and only then to seek compromises on other issues important to the U.S. president. For example, Trump may be offered certain concessions on issues related to Iran or other areas of his policy.

But I suspect he will still try to block the relevant decision. Trump does not want to provide aid to Ukraine in the form proposed by the Democrats, so the possibility of a presidential veto remains very real.

And this is where it gets interesting. Aid to Ukraine is one of those issues on which, according to reports from Reuters and other agencies, support can be expected from both Democrats and some Republicans. And this opens up the possibility of trying to override a presidential veto.

If they succeed in overriding Trump’s veto specifically on the issue of Ukraine, it will be an extremely significant moment. After all, aid to Ukraine is one of the few issues on which bipartisan support can be found.

For Democrats, such an outcome will be significant not only because of the aid package itself. It will demonstrate that Congress is capable of making important decisions against the president’s wishes if lawmakers from both parties reach an agreement. But I don’t think Trump will simply accept such a turn of events. He will try to drag out the process, bargain, and use all the powers at his disposal.

And this applies not only to aid for Ukraine but also to sanctions against Russia. Earlier, a bill associated with Senator Lindsey Graham was discussed, but the administration ensured that the president retained the ability to decide on his own whether or not to impose restrictions.

In other words, he effectively retains a kind of “off switch”: he can impose sanctions, or he can choose not to. Now, in my opinion, lawmakers will try to change this mechanism and strip Trump of the ability to single-handedly block such decisions.

Democrats and Republicans want to take this “switch” away from Trump. He will be able to veto, and they will try to override him. This is exactly what we will be watching for now.

The problem also lies in the administration’s own operations. We’re seeing situations where funding decisions can effectively be stalled at the level of officials who simply refuse to sign the necessary documents. Such actions cause discontent in Congress, especially when it comes to funds earmarked in the budget.

In particular, Democrats may ramp up pressure on Russell Vought, who is responsible for the administration’s budget policy. He helps Trump implement his financial decisions, and it is precisely this system of micromanagement that is raising more and more questions among lawmakers.

I do not rule out that a prolonged standoff over the budget and authority could lead to renewed talk of impeachment. But for now, the main priority is a specific bill for Ukraine. If the Democrats can pass it even against Trump’s wishes, it will be a major political victory.

It’s important to understand that to make this scenario a reality, they may have to circumvent not only the White House’s resistance but also Mike Johnson’s stance. This is a difficult task, but since the election, the U.S. president’s political position has weakened significantly.

It would be a major decision – to bypass, perhaps, Mike Johnson, and to bypass Trump. But Trump, my friends, is a lame duck. A lame duck.

I hope the Democrats will continue to push this bill forward. They will need to be supported and urged to make concrete decisions, because there are still many steps between political intentions and the actual allocation of funds.

Investigations into Trump’s Inner Circle

The Financial Times also reports on the Democrats’ intention to investigate the diesel deal with Russia and the possible business interests of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Requests have already been sent to banks, ports, and other entities, and lawmakers also want to examine Starlink’s restrictions on Ukraine. How might this threaten Trump’s inner circle?

When I hear about all these initiatives, it feels like some kind of holiday has arrived. They’ll be investigating Musk, Witkoff, and the diesel deals might be reviewed as well. After everything that has happened over the past two years, this truly offers some hope.

Let’s start with Steve Witkoff. He has effectively become one of the key figures in contacts with the Kremlin, although it’s important to understand that U.S. international agreements cannot be based solely on his personal negotiations. They must go through the relevant U.S. government institutions and established procedures.

In my opinion, members of Trump’s inner circle expected to achieve the desired result quickly enough to avoid unnecessary questions later on. But they did not manage to carry out their plans, in part because Ukraine did not agree to demands that would have amounted to capitulation.

They didn’t have time because Ukraine didn’t capitulate, didn’t give in, and certainly won’t give in now. And Witkoff will now be investigated; all of his conversations will be scrutinized.

I don’t know how far these investigations will go or what legal consequences they might have. But Witkoff should have understood the risks when he began participating in negotiations with the Kremlin. The shift in the political balance in Washington means that decisions and contacts that previously went unnoticed by Congress may now come under close scrutiny.

The same applies to the diesel agreement. In a democratic system, a change in power or the political balance can lead to a review of previous decisions. Trump himself scrapped many initiatives of the previous administration, particularly those related to the development of green energy. Therefore, it would be entirely natural for lawmakers to now begin scrutinizing and reviewing agreements they deem disadvantageous to the United States.

Another serious problem has arisen for Elon Musk due to the controversy surrounding the slowdown of Starlink services for Ukraine. In my opinion, his company has caused itself significant reputational damage. After all, potential satellite communication customers saw the risk of dependence on a provider that could restrict service at a critical moment.

Musk got himself into serious trouble when he decided to slow down the internet for Ukraine. He lost future customers because of this. Who would want to do business with a company that can simply cut you off if it doesn’t like what you’re doing?

Now, U.S. lawmakers want to investigate the circumstances surrounding this incident and review any preserved documents related to the service restrictions. For the company, this means not only political questions but also potential long-term consequences for trust in its services.

Can Trump Stop the Investigations?

Musk has enormous financial resources, while Trump retains influence over the Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice. How difficult will it be to conduct such investigations?

It will indeed be difficult. The people we’re talking about have massive budgets and the ability to hire a virtually unlimited number of lawyers. At the same time, Trump continues to influence the work of the Department of Justice, even though the department itself is reportedly facing a staff exodus.

But there is another side to this story. I see that U.S. courts are taking an increasingly critical stance toward the position of representatives of the current administration. In the past, government attorneys enjoyed a fairly high level of trust simply because they represented the federal government. Now, in my opinion, that trust has been seriously undermined.

We are seeing situations where courts and juries disagree with the prosecution’s arguments. In particular, grand juries are refusing to support certain cases, deeming the evidence presented insufficient to bring charges.

This creates problems for officials who, in my view, are trying to carry out the president’s political wishes. They may want to show Trump results, but they are not always able to secure the necessary rulings in court.

Previously, there was a presumption of trust in the state within U.S. courts. Now, that presumption has effectively vanished. And it will be difficult for government attorneys.

The political situation may become even more complicated. I don’t know if there will come a point when Trump’s behavior becomes unacceptable even to some in the Republican Party leadership. Perhaps they will continue to tolerate his decisions for the entire two years remaining.

But the Democrats have already gained the ability to more actively scrutinize the administration, and Congress can demand information and conduct investigations. That is why I expect an increasingly sharp confrontation between the White House and lawmakers.

Erdogan and the Talks

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Trump to discuss Russia’s war against Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East. He is proposing to make greater use of diplomacy. Does Erdogan have any influence over the American president, and is Trump willing to share the role of mediator with him?

It seems to me that Trump is now hoping that at least someone will come to his rescue. Figuratively speaking, a call has gone out across the world: Save Trump. And perhaps Erdogan has decided to join these diplomatic efforts as well.

But we need to take into account the nature of the U.S. president himself. He loves public recognition and strives to be the central figure in any success story. Just recall the awards ceremony following the soccer World Cup co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Trump tried to be the center of attention and personally present the awards.

Therefore, if any peace agreement emerges, we will first and foremost hear that it is Donald Trump’s achievement. He will certainly explain what a huge role he played in bringing it about. But that doesn’t mean he’ll categorically deny the involvement of other politicians.

If there is an agreement, we’ll hear about Trump first. He’ll tell everyone just how great he is. But if Erdogan needs to talk about his own successes at home, I don’t think that will particularly bother Trump.

The American president understands that different political leaders must explain the results to their own electorates. Therefore, Erdogan may well present some diplomatic initiative as his own achievement in Turkey. The main thing for Trump is that he remains the central figure on the international stage.

But what can Turkey actually do to end the Russian-Ukrainian war? Does Erdogan have enough leverage over Putin?

Turkey has certain advantages. It controls key geographical corridors and is not directly involved in the war. Furthermore, as Russia becomes exhausted in its war against Ukraine, Turkey’s position in the region may gradually strengthen.

The United States has not yet been able to resolve the issue of Russian aggression, so other countries may try to exercise diplomatic leadership. But for me, the main question is whether anyone is truly capable of forcing Putin to end the war.

I don’t see such a politician. Everyone is looking for someone who can influence the Russian president, but I doubt such a person even exists.

Everyone is looking for someone who can influence Putin. There is no such person. And more and more often, people are saying that this war is limited by Putin’s own biological lifespan.

Even Xi Jinping is unlikely to be able to simply call the Russian president and order him to end the war. China, of course, has certain means of influence. For example, Beijing could halt the supply of components or limit its assistance to Russia in circumventing sanctions.

But I don’t think that would automatically stop the fighting. Putin adapts to circumstances and continues to use the capabilities he has. If certain technologies become unavailable, he will try to find other ways to inflict harm.

In particular, I fear an increase in Russian sabotage and interference in the internal affairs of other states. If the Kremlin loses some of its military-technical capabilities, this will not necessarily mean an abandonment of its aggressive policy. It may shift its efforts to other methods of pressure.

Putin does not do what he wants, but what he can. But he wants to wage war. If China stops selling him certain things, he will try to act differently. This could mean more sabotage and interference in the affairs of other states.

That is why I link the actual end of this war primarily to changes within Russia itself. Under the current circumstances, I do not see how Erdogan or any other international mediator could have enough influence to force Putin to make peace.

Incidentally, a change in political leadership often allows for a fresh start in international relations. For example, if Israel gets a new prime minister, Trump might try to shift the blame for past decisions onto Benjamin Netanyahu and announce a reset in relations. He has already used a similar approach many times with regard to Joe Biden, blaming his predecessor for various problems.

But when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine war, a change in the U.S. approach does not, in and of itself, eliminate the main problem – Putin’s desire to continue the aggression.

Iran Cautiously Threatens the U.S.

Iranian official Rezaei issued a harsh statement against Washington for the second time in a few days. He mocked the Republicans’ defeat in the election, mentioned possible personnel changes in the Trump administration, and threatened a devastating response in the event of a new war. At the same time, the U.S. is redeploying forces to the Middle East. How serious are these threats?

I noticed one interesting detail: the Iranian statement did not mention Trump by name. It referred to Vance, Rubio, Hegset, and other members of the U.S. leadership, but did not directly address the president.

In my opinion, this indicates a certain degree of caution. The Iranians are ready to mock the U.S. administration, but they do not want to unnecessarily provoke a man whose behavior is difficult to predict.

It’s important to keep in mind that the United States possesses nuclear weapons and immense military capabilities. The Iranian leadership understands this, which is why it tries to project confidence while avoiding direct confrontation with Trump.

Could Trump, following an election defeat, still decide to launch a new military operation against Iran?

I don’t rule it out, but so far I don’t see a compelling reason why he would need such a war right now. Following the Republicans’ defeat, Trump has significantly fewer political prospects, and, in my opinion, he is increasingly focusing on his personal interests and his confrontation with the Democrats.

One could speculate that a new operation against Iran would serve as a form of revenge for him. But this is just one of several possible scenarios, and I do not feel that the U.S. president truly desires such a turn of events.

For Israel, however, the situation has a different significance. This is especially true for Benjamin Netanyahu, who is facing a difficult domestic political situation. I suspect that a new military campaign against Iran could serve his current political interests.

This is important for Israel, especially for Netanyahu given his political situation. For him, a war with Iran right now would be very convenient. But does Trump himself need it? I don’t get the sense that he really needs it.

At the same time, U.S. forces continue to move toward the Middle East. According to the reports we’re discussing, aircraft carriers are expected to arrive in the region in the second half of November. This is certainly a demonstration of military capabilities, but the mere movement of the ships does not yet mean that a decision to launch an operation has already been made.

I suspect that Washington is trying to demonstrate strength and increase pressure on Iran. But it is not yet clear to me what specific decision from Tehran Trump is counting on, or to what extent such a demonstration is capable of changing the Iranian leadership’s position.

For its part, Iran seems to understand that the U.S. president’s political time is gradually running out. Therefore, its leadership may try to wait out the last two years of Trump’s term, refusing to accept unfavorable terms but also avoiding provoking an open war.

Iran clearly understands the balance of power and that Trump’s time is running out. They are prepared to wait it out, but do not want to engage in open confrontation with him.

That is precisely why I would not view the harsh statements by Iranian officials as proof that a new war is inevitable. Right now, both sides are demonstrating a readiness for a tough standoff, but at the same time, they may be seeking to avoid a direct clash.

Rashkin on Erdogan’s influence on Putin: watch the video