"He Thinks Putin Is a Friend": An Interview with a Former Trump Advisor on the Kremlin's Dangerous Plan

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser and former U.S. ambassador to the UN, gave an exclusive interview to Channel 24, in which he sharply criticized the U.S. president’s decision to purchase Russian diesel, possible contacts with Vladimir Putin at the G20, and the situation regarding restrictions on Starlink’s operations for Ukraine.

During the conversation, Bolton noted that such a diesel deal makes no real economic sense but creates a dangerous political dependency, and he also explained why he considers a potential three-way dialogue between Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy to be “dangerous territory.” Read more in the article.

Why Is Trump Now in Putin’s Debt?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tells Piers Morgan that he feels betrayed by Trump’s decision to buy Russian diesel and make an energy truce. Quote: “This is not the right side of history.” So, in your opinion, is the Trump administration moving toward a complete withdrawal of support for Ukraine?

I wouldn’t necessarily draw such conclusions from the decision on diesel fuel. It was a terrible idea. It’s a huge mistake for many reasons, but Trump is focused almost entirely on the election, and the Republican Party is in deep trouble because many people are treating the election as a referendum on Trump’s performance, and they don’t like what they see.

So, they’ve focused on issues of inflation, economic security, and gas prices, which have risen due to the war in the Persian Gulf – a significant factor. And what Trump was trying to do with the diesel purchases was to be able to say that he is taking action to lower gas prices.

First, the price of gas and diesel in particular has not risen because of Ukraine’s attacks on Russian oil refineries, since sanctions have been in place on Russian oil and gas since 2022, when the invasion began. And in any case, the volume of diesel purchased and the time it takes to arrive in the U.S. will have no significant impact on prices.

So, this does indeed have international implications, but in Trump’s mind – which focuses on only one thing at a time – it’s all about the election.

Now he has also said that Ukraine needs to replace Zelenskyy as president. So this reflects the fact that he doesn’t like Zelenskyy. You could say this is a return to the incident in the Oval Office in February 2025 or a return to the summer of 2019 and the infamous “perfect” phone call, when Trump wanted to get Hillary Clinton’s computer server and threatened to suspend military aid until he got it.

That’s the root of all this, plain and simple. It all boils down to this: Trump wants what he wants. It’s not about America’s national security; it’s about Trump.

Full interview: watch the video

Is it worth making a deal with the devil if it won’t help lower diesel prices in the U.S. anyway? Don’t you think this might have been bad advice from his economic advisors or aides?

No, I don’t think so – it’s purely in Trump’s style. He needs this so he can announce with great fanfare that he’s purchased 300,000 metric tons of diesel fuel from Russia, which will arrive here by Thanksgiving at the end of November. It won’t have any impact.

He doesn’t care about that. He’s just looking for something to say so he can use it in arguments with voters: “Look, I’m trying to lower gas prices.” There’s no justification for this. I’m just saying that’s exactly how he thinks.

The problem is that he has once again legitimized the Kremlin. He lifted the sanctions. He’s also talking about lifting sanctions against Iran, which is just as senseless. And worst of all, he got something from Putin because he thinks Putin is his friend who did him a favor. And Putin is glad that Trump thinks that way, because now Putin has a favor he can demand from Trump in return.

And that’s dangerous. We don’t know what it will be. We don’t know when it might happen. But Trump is now in Putin’s debt. And Putin, like no one else, understands this perfectly well.

Are you sure that Vladimir Putin gave Trump something like this diesel fuel and can now demand concessions from him regarding Ukraine?

Of course. I think that’s exactly what Putin meant. Look, he was happy to sell that diesel fuel. Otherwise, it’s subject to sanctions. He can’t sell it on the international market. So he struck a deal that’s profitable in and of itself.

But he knows Trump. He’s been watching him for many years. And he knows that Trump desperately needed something he could use in political campaigns in America. And Putin helped him out.

So, Putin simply takes this, puts it in his pocket, and will wait – perhaps until the G20 summit in Florida later this year, to which he has been invited for the first time since 2016 – and I’m sure he’ll attend. That might be the very moment when he tells Trump, “Here’s what I want.”

How dangerous is a potential meeting between Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy?

Are you sure Vladimir Putin will accept the invitation, since the Kremlin still seems to be mulling over this G20 summit? President Zelenskyy said he would be interested in attending the G20 summit in Miami if a meeting with Vladimir Putin and President Trump were to take place.

Fair enough. I think the Kremlin isn’t giving a definitive answer because it wants to see what the reaction will be. In some capitals, there’s talk that their heads of state might not attend if Putin comes. That could lead to the collapse of the entire G20.

The last time the summit was scheduled to take place in the U.S. was in 2020, at the height of the COVID pandemic. So it was canceled due to the pandemic.

And that would have been the second time during the Trump administration that a G20 meeting – or perhaps it was the G7 meeting in 2020 – was canceled. But in any case, it would have been a major international meeting that was canceled.

So I don’t think Putin wants to agree too quickly. He wants to see the reaction and, I suppose, will likely wait until the U.S. election is over and then decide how to proceed. I think he’d be happy to have the opportunity to visit Miami.

And how do you assess the chances of a meeting between Putin and President Zelenskyy, for example, at the G20?

I’d be cautious about such a meeting. To be honest, I know that Zelenskyy said he is ready for this.

However, I’m worried that a meeting between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin could end up with Trump and Putin joining forces against Zelenskyy.

And Trump will tell Zelenskyy, “You have no bargaining chips. But here’s what I want.”

And remember, for Trump, this is once again not about Ukraine’s future or preserving its independence. It’s about whether Donald Trump will win the Nobel Peace Prize. So he could easily view this meeting in Florida as his chance to win it. And that’s dangerous territory.

Who actually halted the exchange of intelligence with Ukraine in the U.S.?

Let’s also consider another aspect of U.S.-Ukraine relations – the exchange of intelligence. We’ve had serious problems with this, as the U.S. and its Western partners likely failed twice to warn Ukraine in a timely manner about the threat of a ballistic missile strike on Kyiv. According to Ukrainian military sources, there were certain issues with the Starlink connection as part of the military package of this service. How do you assess this? Is this pressure to force Ukraine to stop strikes on Russian diesel and oil refineries?

As for Starshield – the part of Starlink that affects Ukrainian communications – I believe it actually belongs to the U.S. government. So there is almost no doubt that the decision to limit its range, as well as the scope of intelligence data, was a decision made by the U.S. government.

Now, Defense Minister Hegset has apparently told the Ukrainian defense minister that the problem has been resolved. Let’s hope that’s true. This is certainly implicit confirmation that it was the U.S. government that shut it down.

So the next question is: who exactly in the U.S. government did this? Based on what we know right now – and that’s far from everything – I don’t understand it. I don’t understand whether it was Trump.

Perhaps it was a lower-level official at the Department of Defense. I’m sure journalists are trying to figure out who it might have been.

I have my own suspicions, but it could be someone trying to do what they think Trump would want, but without any authorization from higher up. We’ll have to figure that out.

In any case, this is not good. This should not have happened, and there should be no interference in the exchange of intelligence. You’ll recall that in early 2025, someone shut it down for a few days. That was very damaging, but it was restored.

This actually costs the United States nothing extra, so there can be no objections on that basis, and I think the political significance of continuing this assistance is very important, and I believe it has strong support in Congress. Of course, they won’t be here for the next three weeks, but when they return, I think the issue of Russian oil, the Starshield problem, and intelligence matters will be on the agenda.

Could this person be, for example, Mr. Elbridge Colby?

Well, he has certainly done similar things in the past, and it’s entirely possible that it’s him. That’s why I say Congress will be very interested in finding out who made this decision and summoning that person to Capitol Hill to testify.

According to a Reuters article published today, this order to restrict SpaceX’s access came from within the White House, and President Trump was not the one who made that decision. From a legal standpoint, what position allows someone to make such a decision?

You know, I haven’t seen that article, but people often talk about a “White House decision,” even though it’s actually made by a particular department or agency. The U.S. government is very large, so its various departments do different things, and sometimes you don’t find out about it until later.

Maybe it really did come from the White House, or maybe it was someone on the National Security Council staff led by Marco Rubio. I doubt that. But I think it’s just a way of saying “White House decision” when referring to any U.S. decision.

According to CBS News, the U.S. may have deliberately withheld early warnings about a Russian missile strike on Kyiv, which killed six people and left 100,000 without power. From a purely legal standpoint, who else but President Trump could make such a decision? Could this decision have been made without President Trump’s knowledge and approval – without his “green light”?

In such a sensitive area, this should not be done without his approval, but I expect that it was decided within the Pentagon. That’s my best guess. The government is currently operating in a disjointed manner.

The president is on the campaign trail. And there are people, mainly in the Department of Defense, who are isolationists and believe that Trump would approve something like this. And in the end, he might do just that.

I hope not, but, you know, sometimes they try to do things like live-stream the execution of the Fort Hood killer, and Trump cancels them. So it’s possible that he might cancel this decision as well.

And from what Hagseth said during that phone call with the Ukrainian defense minister, it sounds as if we’re returning to standard procedure. You know, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Also, according to Western media reports, CIA Director John Ratcliffe is actively opposing the idea of halting the exchange of U.S. intelligence with Ukraine. What could this mean? After all, the CIA director played a certain role in the meeting with the Russians on August 31. Can we characterize his position as pro-Ukrainian or, at the very least, not pro-Russian?

It’s hard to say. I think that when he was in Congress, I would have called Ratcliffe pro-Ukrainian. You know, going back to the Russian aggression in 2014, I still haven’t heard a credible reason why Retcliffe traveled to Moscow. I don’t know of any.

I’ve thought about this a lot. So, for me, it remains a mysterious trip, but it sounds plausible, given other incidents, that Retcliffe might have advocated for continuing the intelligence-sharing, and it could have been, as is often the case, a conflict between the intelligence community, on the one hand, and the Department of Defense, on the other.

This time, the situation was complicated by isolationists within the Ministry of Defense.

What is the flaw in the U.S. strategy toward Russia?

According to the Financial Times, the U.S. is considering the possibility of unfreezing Russian assets worth up to $100 billion in exchange for a limited ceasefire in the energy war. Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff discussed this idea. We’ve also heard reports about the possible resumption of operations on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and the sale of Lukoil’s foreign assets. How do you view these developments? I mean, for example, $100 billion in Russian assets in exchange for nothing more than an energy truce?

I think this shows that Witkoff and Kushner don’t really understand what they’re negotiating. They want to free up a huge sum of money that they can then play around with. At least one of the proposals was for these unfrozen assets, which are held in Europe, to be transferred to the U.S. for use – a proposal that, as I understand it, the Europeans rejected, which is hardly surprising.

This kind of diplomacy they’re engaging in focuses solely on the agreements that will be concluded once peace is achieved, as a sort of incentive. But they never get to the heart of the matter: how to resolve the issues that caused the war – namely, Russian aggression against Ukraine and everything Russia has done over the past five years, including the destruction and devastation in the territories it occupies.

And obviously, whether it’s there, in the Middle East, or with Iran, people don’t resolve disputes simply because they might gain attractive investment opportunities after the war ends. To establish peace, you must first eliminate the causes of the hostilities. Only then will you be able to understand what comes next. They’ve simply skipped the most crucial step.

Do you think they really believe that Putin can be persuaded to end the war solely with financial assets, money – $100 billion? Don’t you think Putin isn’t actually interested in money? He’s interested in destroying Ukraine.

I think if he could make a little money on the side, he would. And he just made a little money on the diesel deal. But this shows that the U.S. position with Trump in office is never certain.

He knows that Ukraine is under pressure right now, and he understands that Europe has found itself at the center of a series of political crises in one country after another, where elections are approaching and incumbent governments are becoming increasingly unstable. So, I think Putin is biding his time at this stage to see if weakness among Ukraine’s supporters will give him more opportunities this winter. So he’s in no rush at the moment.

Will Trump and Zelenskyy be able to mend their relationship?

Let’s discuss U.S. domestic politics and these midterm elections. Ukraine, unfortunately, is likely being drawn into this process due to President Trump’s statements regarding President Zelenskyy. What might change in U.S.-Ukraine relations after the midterm elections? Will we be able to return to the way things were before, during the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump in Ankara? That was a truly positive meeting. What are the chances of restoring good relations between Zelenskyy and Trump?

I think we should make an effort to try to restore relations. Trump is very unpredictable. It depends on the day of the week and the time of day. That won’t change.

In fact, there are concerns that if the Republicans perform poorly in the November 3 election, Trump will become even more unpredictable, because he’ll realize he’s on his way to becoming a “lame duck.”

So this will be a very difficult time. We’re truly in uncharted territory right now, because the end of Trump’s political career is becoming apparent. And this time, it’s not up for debate. His term will end in just over two years, and that’s it. And this reality is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day.

What are the chances of any retaliation by President Trump against Ukraine if the Republicans lose these midterm elections by a wide margin?

I think he’ll be blamed for the defeat in many respects – and not without reason, since voters have turned away from his administration. But I think this will encourage more Republicans to become less dependent on Trump.

And since, I think, Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate are more resolute in their support for Ukraine, I think this will improve the situation. This could influence Trump in either direction. With Trump, everything is personal, so it’s very hard to predict which direction he’ll go.

Could a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives change President Trump’s course regarding Ukraine – his foreign policy toward Ukraine?

Well, I think Trump is in for a very tough two years if the Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives – and it looks like that’s exactly what will happen. It’s hard to say how much they’ll focus on Ukraine. Since much of what happens in foreign affairs is actually decided by the president, not Congress.

Still, it seems that President Trump is acting in violation of a law that he personally signed. I’m referring to the Lindsey Graham Act. Under this law, he would have to impose tariffs on himself – on the United States – for purchasing Russian diesel fuel. Can the Democrats use this law to force President Trump to change his tune, to change his position?

Yes, they will certainly argue about this, but, you know, Trump moves faster than the opposition. So they may be able to voice their opinion, but he’ll already have moved on to something else before anything can happen.