A Gas Bonus for Putin: Fesenko Reveals Trump's Team's Plan

Donald Trump is preparing for a possible weakening of his position following the U.S. midterm congressional elections, but his team continues to seek new ways to reach an agreement with Russia. Among the proposals being discussed by American negotiators is the resumption of Russian gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine as part of a broader agreement to end the war.

Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko explained on 24 Channel who is promoting this idea, why it is controversial in Europe, and under what conditions Ukraine might agree to discuss it. He also assessed Trump’s possible actions after the elections, the risk of new strikes against Iran, and the prospects for negotiations involving Ukraine, Russia, the U.S., and China.

Trump Prepares to Clash with Congress

On the eve of the U.S. midterm elections, Donald Trump is expressing confidence in a Republican Party victory. The president is actively participating in campaign events, trying to mobilize supporters, while House Speaker Mike Johnson is also publicly predicting success for the Republicans.

However, in an interview with Bloomberg, the U.S. president acknowledged the possibility of a different outcome. He suggested that if the Democrats win, he would have to become “Mr. Veto,” blocking unwanted bills until his political opponents agree to negotiate.

Fesenko does not consider these statements contradictory. In his view, campaign rhetoric is intended to bolster Republican confidence, whereas in the interview, Trump demonstrated an understanding of the possible consequences of the vote.

The U.S. president has already faced a similar situation during his first term. At that time, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, protracted budget standoffs arose, and impeachment proceedings were initiated against Trump twice.

"We have many illusions about the election results and their impact on American politics. As I understand it, everyone is so tired of Trump – they want relief, some kind of alternative, a limit on his power – that they’re mistaking their wishes for reality,”
Fesenko noted.

The political analyst reminded that the United States is a presidential republic, so even losing a parliamentary majority will not prevent Trump from making important decisions. However, in the legislative sphere, the budget process, and personnel policy, the president will have to seek compromises more often.

The House of Representatives has significant influence over the budget, and the Senate confirms the president’s key appointments. If the Democrats strengthen their positions, this could complicate the implementation of some of the White House’s plans.

According to Fesenko’s forecast, particularly sharp disputes may arise over the Pentagon’s budget. U.S. lawmakers are already talking about their intention to use budgetary powers to influence the administration’s decisions regarding support for Ukraine.

Foreign policy, as it has been, will remain under Trump’s control. Congress does not conduct foreign policy. However, it can impose legislative restrictions, in particular on Trump’s attempts to reach agreements with Russia or lift sanctions if they have been enacted by law,
the political analyst explained.

Fesenko drew attention to the legislative mechanisms for applying sanctions pressure, particularly those related to Senator Lindsey Graham’s initiatives. In his view, the president can maneuver around decisions to impose restrictions, but he does not have the authority to unilaterally repeal sanctions enshrined in law.

At the same time, Congress will not have unlimited influence over the White House. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority of lawmakers, and securing such a majority on most issues will be difficult.

Fesenko also did not rule out new disputes over the election results. He mentioned attempts to challenge election procedures in certain states, particularly in Alaska, although such efforts were unsuccessful there.

The U.S. May Launch New Strikes Against Iran

After the U.S. election, one of the most difficult decisions for Trump may be whether to launch further military operations against Iran. According to Fesenko, there is no consensus within his inner circle regarding the advisability of new strikes.

In particular, Vice President J.D. Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff may support continuing diplomatic efforts. However, Iran is also showing a reluctance to back down, rejecting compromise proposals put forward by Qatar and other Middle Eastern mediators.

If an agreement cannot be reached, Fesenko believes it is entirely possible that active hostilities will resume. At the same time, he doubts that the U.S. will launch a prolonged operation lasting several weeks, as American stocks of long-range missiles and air defense munitions are already limited.

The political analyst described a scenario of intensive airstrikes lasting several days as much more realistic. Israel could join these efforts, as its leadership also has its own political reasons to demonstrate resolve.

Following the recent elections, Benjamin Netanyahu failed to secure the necessary majority, so continuing the confrontation with Iran could help him bolster his image as the nation’s defender. Trump, for his part, may view a military operation as a way to shift the media agenda in the event of an unfavorable outcome in the congressional elections.

In the U.S., a war with Iran is already viewed very critically, so it won’t boost Trump’s approval ratings, but it might shift attention slightly. In terms of media coverage, attention will be focused on an attack on Iran rather than on discussions of the results of the U.S. congressional elections,
Fesenko speculated.

Reports about the possible use of American nuclear weapons sparked a separate debate. Tucker Carlson claimed that Netanyahu is allegedly trying to persuade Trump to make such a decision in order to destroy an underground Iranian uranium enrichment facility.

Fesenko doubts that the U.S. president would dare to take such a radical step. Instead, he believes the use of powerful non-nuclear aerial bombs capable of penetrating fortified underground structures is more likely.

The use of nuclear weapons sets a very serious precedent. And it could simply trigger a chain reaction – something that should be avoided. I think they understand this in the U.S. as well. That’s why I still hope that Trump won’t embark on such a reckless venture,
the political analyst emphasized.

Even limited strikes could provoke a response from Tehran, so a military scenario carries additional risks for the region. Fesenko believes that Washington may combine targeted strikes with the continuation or intensification of the naval blockade of Iran.

In his assessment, economic pressure remains one of the U.S. administration’s main tools. Restrictions on maritime trade create financial difficulties for Iran and can be used to force its leadership into negotiations.

Russian gas is being offered as a bonus for ending the war

In parallel with preparations for a possible escalation in the Middle East, the Trump team is discussing economic proposals for Russia. One option involves resuming exports of Russian natural gas to Europe via the Ukrainian gas transmission system.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the idea is being promoted by members of the U.S. negotiating team, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. Among the possible mechanisms under consideration is the involvement of a U.S. intermediary in the sale of Russian gas, which could create new profitable opportunities for investors.

Fesenko confirmed that such a plan is indeed being discussed. He noted that reports of similar proposals had surfaced earlier – notably in articles by The Washington Post around October – and that Western journalists had shared specific details with him.

I confirm that such a plan exists, and there is nothing sensational about it. Some Western journalists, particularly American ones, have confirmed to me that it is indeed Witkoff who is promoting this peace plan. It is his idea. Perhaps together with Kushner, but they are definitely promoting this idea,
the political analyst said.

According to Fesenko, the gas proposal may have been discussed in Oslo, where Witkoff met with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Finland, and the Prime Minister of Norway prior to further talks with Putin.

Advisers to European leaders and representatives of NATO and the European Commission also participated in these consultations. However, there is no final agreement on the American initiative.

Importantly, Washington views the gas agreements not merely as a way to reduce the risk of attacks on energy infrastructure. Fesenko explained the broader scenario within which the Americans intend to use this economic tool.

The Americans believe this could serve as an attractive incentive for Putin to end the war. But this idea was discussed not as part of an energy truce, but as part of a broader agreement to end the war altogether,
Fesenko explained.

Some European countries are categorically opposed to resuming purchases of Russian energy resources. Ukraine also refuses to make economic concessions to Moscow until hostilities cease.

At the same time, Trump’s negotiators are trying to convince their partners that resuming sales of Russian gas and oil could provide funds for Ukraine’s postwar reconstruction. According to Fesenko, such an arrangement would also serve the commercial interests of the American parties to the agreements.

Europe does not want to return to gas dependence

The idea put forward by American negotiators contradicts the European Union’s current plans regarding Russian energy resources. Fesenko recalled the decisions adopted, aimed at completely halting purchases of Russian gas – including liquefied natural gas – starting in 2027.

However, the economic situation within the EU remains challenging. Some countries continue to purchase Russian liquefied natural gas, and certain European politicians advocate maintaining access to cheaper energy resources.

The political analyst cited the example of Germany, where, according to his data, underground gas storage facilities are filled to about two-thirds of the level required to prepare for winter. The situation in the Middle East creates additional difficulties, limiting the ability to obtain gas from Qatar.

At the same time, some European countries are concerned about increasing dependence on American gas. This complicates the search for a common position on the future energy market, as countries have different needs and economic capabilities.

According to Fesenko’s assessment, Ukraine is better prepared for this winter than it was for the previous one. He noted that the situation with gas reserves currently remains under control, and there are agreements in place regarding the possibility of selling limited volumes of gas to Moldova.

However, a return to large-scale cooperation with Russia raises concerns due to Europe’s past experience. In 2022, Moscow used cuts in gas supplies as a tool for political pressure, causing sharp price fluctuations.

Europeans have already learned that Russia is an unreliable gas supplier. They can blackmail Europe, as they did in 2022, by restricting or cutting off gas supplies, thereby triggering a sharp increase in gas prices,
– the political analyst emphasized.

Fesenko explained that the position of Ukraine and some European leaders is that a complete end to the war must be achieved first. Only then can economic agreements with Moscow be considered, including determining possible volumes of gas transit.

This is possible, but only after a complete end to the war. No concessions to Russia. Only after the war ends and Russia agrees to a complete end to the war can this idea be discussed,
– Fesenko stated.

In his assessment, the American initiative remains controversial and has not been fully agreed upon by the negotiating parties. Washington sees it as an opportunity to gain economic benefits and entice the Kremlin with agreements, while European partners are primarily concerned about the risks of renewed dependence on Russia.

Political Changes in Europe Threaten Support for Ukraine

Despite plans to phase out Russian gas, the political situation in the European Union is gradually shifting. In a number of countries, forces advocating for a revision of energy policy and a reduction in aid to Ukraine are gaining strength.

Fesenko drew attention to France, where Marine Le Pen’s potential rise to power could alter the approach to Russian energy resources. At the same time, he cautioned against automatically labeling her current position as pro-Russian.

After the start of the full-scale invasion, Le Pen publicly condemned Russian aggression and attempted to distance herself from Moscow. According to the political scientist, this is also linked to the political fallout from the case involving a loan from a Russian bank.

However, a shift in rhetoric toward the Kremlin does not mean a willingness to support Ukraine at current levels. Fesenko suggested that if Le Pen comes to power, she may adopt an approach similar to Trump’s policy.

Marine Le Pen wants to do what Trump did: stop all support for Ukraine. Weapons may be provided, but only for a price. There will be no financial support, and weapons sales will be on a pay-as-you-go basis,
Fesenko explained.

Such changes could affect more than just bilateral relations between Kyiv and Paris. France plays an important role in making pan-European decisions, so the position of its leadership will also influence future aid programs for Ukraine.

In Germany, the debate over the procurement of Russian energy resources has also resumed. This is fueled by the rise of “Alternative for Germany,” although the party is not part of the government and does not currently shape state policy.

Separately, Fesenko analyzed political developments in Bulgaria. He noted that the country’s president-elect supports the idea of dialogue with Russia and has called on European leaders to call Vladimir Putin.

But why? Phone calls aren’t negotiations to end the war. It will be a gift to Putin. Putin will take phone calls from all of Europe’s leaders. What good will that do?
– the political scientist remarked.

At the same time, Bulgaria is a parliamentary republic, so the president’s powers there are limited. Fesenko pointed out that the current Bulgarian leadership, despite the presence of political forces sympathetic to Russia, is not blocking aid to Ukraine.

Kyiv also continues to purchase Bulgarian weapons. Therefore, the political analyst does not yet expect any immediate critical consequences for Ukraine, although he sees a risk that the number of European countries refusing to participate in financing Ukraine’s needs will increase.

Among the countries where such disagreements are arising, he named Slovakia, Hungary, and, on certain issues, the Czech Republic. Fesenko emphasized that refusing to actively assist Ukraine does not necessarily mean siding with Russia, but it could weaken a common European policy.

A face-to-face meeting between the presidents remains unlikely

Alongside economic agreements, the possibility of new trilateral talks between Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia is being discussed. However, Fesenko is skeptical about the prospect of a face-to-face meeting between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin mediated by Trump.

According to the political scientist, the Kremlin shows no willingness to engage in an equal dialogue on ending the war. Instead, the Russian side insists on symbolic gestures from the Ukrainian president.

Fesenko compared this position to a historical episode of confrontation between the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. After his defeat in the political struggle, the emperor was forced to humbly beg for forgiveness, and it is precisely such a gesture, according to the expert, that the Russian dictator is seeking.

Putin wants the same from Zelenskyy. And so, through Ushakov, Peskov, and his aides, he is conveying the message: either a call to the Kremlin, or Zelenskyy must come in person. But meeting to negotiate an end to the war – for now, unfortunately, this is something Putin refuses to agree to,
– Fesenko explained.

The political analyst believes that the personal relationship between the two presidents has become an additional obstacle to negotiations. He does not see a realistic mechanism by which they could independently reach a mutually acceptable agreement, especially with Trump’s mediation.

Instead, the negotiating delegations could work on specific military issues if they are granted the appropriate political authority. Among possible agreements, Fesenko mentioned a sectoral ceasefire and, in the long term, its extension to the entire front line.

Historical experience shows that a ceasefire can be agreed upon without the presidents’ signatures. That is how the Korean War ended, as did a number of other wars. But as for two presidents who have become personal enemies reaching an agreement – especially with a mediator like Trump – I find that hard to believe,
– the political scientist noted.

Fesenko viewed Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s proposals for greater involvement of Turkey and the European Union in the negotiation process positively. In particular, through Turkish mediation, it might be possible to bring the issue of a maritime ceasefire to the table.

In his view, such a format does not require an immediate meeting between the presidents but could yield concrete results. At the same time, their implementation will depend on the parties’ willingness to agree on practical mechanisms for ceasing hostilities.

Negotiations may be moved from Abu Dhabi

The date of the next round of trilateral talks remains unknown. The Ukrainian and Russian sides are considering Abu Dhabi as a possible venue, but the situation in the Middle East could change these plans.

If, following the U.S. elections, the United States and Israel launch new strikes against Iran, this could lead to a temporary closure of airspace in the region. Under such conditions, organizing a meeting in the United Arab Emirates would be significantly more difficult.

Fesenko noted that the negotiators have a backup option – Geneva. However, the final decision on the venue and date will depend on how events unfold after November 3–4.

The political analyst also drew attention to Russia’s position, which, in his assessment, is in no hurry to resume negotiations. He suggested that the meeting could take place around November 10 or later, although no date has been definitively agreed upon.

The further course of the negotiations will also depend on whether the U.S. administration manages to avoid a larger-scale confrontation with Iran. A new escalation could force Washington to address several complex international issues simultaneously, which would affect the organization of contacts with Kyiv and Moscow.

China Does Not Want to Negotiate with Russia on Ukraine

Another possible venue for international contacts is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, scheduled to take place in China on November 18–19. Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Xi Jinping are expected to attend, and the Kremlin is interested in a joint meeting among them.

Fesenko emphasized that this is not an official trilateral summit, but rather potential contacts on the sidelines of an international event. Such meetings are usually brief and intended for an exchange of views, although they can sometimes lead to important decisions.

Particular attention was drawn to the report that China is unwilling to participate in negotiations regarding Ukraine. The political analyst clarified that, as he understood it, the German president conveyed this message following his meeting with Xi Jinping, rather than the Chinese leader himself in a direct public statement.

According to Fesenko, Beijing, first and foremost, does not want the upcoming meeting to be portrayed as a platform for making decisions regarding the end of Russia’s war against Ukraine. However, he does not entirely rule out a brief meeting between the three leaders.

At the same time, China has its own reasons for not supporting the Kremlin’s desire to organize a full-fledged trilateral summit.

The Chinese have no need to elevate Russia’s status. They want to maintain a format in which the two key, most influential states are the U.S. and China, while Russia is not part of this club of the most influential,
Fesenko explained.

Beijing may prefer separate bilateral contacts without creating the impression of equal political status among the three states. According to the political scientist, this approach aligns with China’s desire to maintain its own influence in relations with the United States.

Fesenko did not rule out the possibility that Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping might still have a brief conversation during an international event. However, in his view, the signal from China indicates that Beijing has no intention of negotiating the terms for ending the war directly with Washington and Moscow at such a meeting.

Fesenko on Russian gas transit through Ukraine: watch the video