Putin Found Trump's Weak Spot: Political Analyst on the Real Purpose of the Mission in Oleshky

Oleshky has become not only the epicenter of a humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied part of the Kherson region, but also part of a political game between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. The Kremlin agreed to a humanitarian mission involving Melania Trump, while not backing down from the war against Ukraine or its territorial demands. Behind this gesture may lie much broader interests on Moscow’s part – ranging from building trust with the White House to attempts to negotiate economic cooperation with the U.S.

Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko explained in an interview with 24 Channel why Putin decided to court the Trump family, how the humanitarian mission in Oleshky fits into the Kremlin’s strategy, and whether it could influence future peace talks. The expert also assessed how the domestic political struggle in the U.S. could play into Russia’s hands, why Putin is combining negotiations with an escalation of the war, and whether new humanitarian missions are possible in other occupied territories.

How Putin Is Using the Humanitarian Mission to Build Closer Ties with Trump

Let’s talk about Oleshky. The central question: Why did Putin decide to launch this so-called humanitarian mission right now? Russia flooded Oleshky – in part by blowing up the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant – starved people, and tortured them. And suddenly, it’s now declaring its readiness to organize an evacuation and provide aid to civilians. What has changed? How can we explain this shift in the Kremlin’s rhetoric, and what might be the real motives behind this decision?

The answer is this: not what, but who. This person has a first and last name. It’s Melania Trump. Well, to put it a bit more broadly, it’s Trump himself. That’s who Putin is willing to make certain gestures of goodwill for, to demonstrate some kind of humanity, to show that he supposedly cares about humanitarian issues. Well, he has to back up what Witkoff said – that he’s supposedly a humanist. But in reality, the humanism comes from Melania Trump.

I’m not going to judge here whether this is sincere, opportunistic, or neither. Some say it’s related to the U.S. congressional elections. I don’t think so. Because Melania Trump is involved in humanitarian projects. Well, previously, it involved returning children to both Ukraine and Russia as well. This is her special mission. She has chosen this humanitarian project for herself. As a rule, first ladies focus specifically on humanitarian issues.

And it’s very good that it happened this way – somewhere around the beginning, we don’t know exactly – late September, early October – but Melania Trump also turned her attention to the Oleshko case.

Mr. Volodymyr, let me clarify right away: did one-sixth of the front line come to a halt because Melania Trump intervened?

No, well, it wasn’t just Melania Trump. It was a coincidence. Melania Trump drew attention to this issue because, incidentally, the Ukrainian side had raised it, particularly at the UN General Assembly. That was the initial impetus. This is according to American journalists. Well, there is information – though it’s unconfirmed – that Davyd Arakhamia allegedly reached out to her and also reported on the humanitarian catastrophe in Oleshky.

Political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko on Putin’s new plan for cooperation with the U.S.: video

But here’s what contributed next: Putin’s game with Trump began. Putin decided to change tactics – or rather, to return to his old tactics, but under new circumstances. He began making gestures toward Trump. Not just flattery or compliments. By the way, he did this regularly toward Melania as well. But the diesel deal, business deals for the future. And to strengthen Trump’s trust in him.

Plus, it’s well known that Melania also influences Donald Trump. I think Putin – such a “soul-lover,” or more accurately, a “soul-killer” – believes he’s an engineer of human souls, that he knows how to influence and manipulate them. Well, that’s his KGB training. So he decided to exert influence in this way. He decided to make gestures toward Melania Trump.

We don’t know all the details of how it happened, but various sources confirm that Melania Trump was the decisive factor. That’s the first source. And then there was a favorable circumstance – the fact that Putin decided to play along, again, in order to gain more trust from Donald Trump. That’s why this humanitarian gesture took place. I think that it was precisely a coincidence of circumstances that was decisive in this case.

So, Putin – if I may simplify what you said – is trying to curry favor with Melania Trump?

Volodymyr Fesenko: He’s playing to Trump. Excuse me, he’s playing to Trump. This is a manipulative game with Trump. And the gesture toward Melania is a demonstration to Trump that he, Putin, also has peace-seeking motives and is ready to do good things for Melania Trump. In other words, it’s a complex game. In this case, Melania is a way for Putin to demonstrate his openness and willingness to cooperate with Donald Trump.

How the diesel deal and negotiations with the U.S. helped the Kremlin

Why was the humanitarian mission to Oleshky organized right now? We know that over the past two years, Trump has said he has deadlines for Putin. We all know this and have discussed on air what he meant by these deadlines. But now, for some reason, a window of opportunity has opened.

It opened – or began to open – in terms of public actions and statements – on October 9, when the diesel deal was announced. That’s when, I’d say, Putin’s game with Trump moved to a new level. And, unfortunately, Trump began to play along with this game with pleasure. That was the first stage.

The second factor, which also contributed and served as a window of opportunity for this humanitarian mission, was the resumption of negotiations between the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine – specifically, the agreement to resume trilateral peace talks. And since there was, I would say, a revival of the peace process, Melania Trump’s peace mission – her humanitarian mission – fit naturally into the revitalization of the peace talks. This is now seen as part of the process.

So this factor – the resumption of trilateral peace talks, and the prior agreement to resume them – also contributed to the agreement on Oleshky.

Based on what we’ve been discussing, I can surmise that Putin is playing along with Trump in order to enter into peace talks and ultimately push through his own version of those negotiations. Why is Putin going along with all of this?

To gain the trust of Trump and his wife. It’s about building a positive image. So that he can continue to manipulate Trump. And this doesn’t necessarily mean peace talks on Russia’s terms. It’s part of Putin’s plan.

An important part lies elsewhere. Peace talks and such humanitarian missions are a smokescreen. They’re just for show – for the general public, including the American and international audiences. But the real goal is that Putin now wants to negotiate business deals with Trump. The main thing is to maintain active communication and continue agreements on specific business projects without stopping the war against Ukraine.

What is the paradox of the current situation, one that will become increasingly apparent as time goes on? And it’s already very noticeable now. On the one hand, there’s an intensification of peace talks, including the humanitarian mission in Oleshky; on the other hand, there’s an escalation of the war, including the air war. All of this is happening simultaneously. And in my view, unfortunately, this is exactly how things will continue.

We will see both trilateral negotiations and a further escalation of the war. Putin’s strategy is to destroy Ukraine by crippling its energy sector and its economic system. Once again, this is the second attempt to freeze us out. Putin now believes he has the conditions for this: a shortage of air defense missiles in Ukraine. And that is why the focus is on the air war, while simultaneously pursuing the peace process.

This, by the way, is Putin’s style. Peace talks and attempts to pressure Ukraine into accepting Russia’s terms for ending the war are also objectives, but they are more of a consequence. It is not Putin’s main goal; rather, it is a result that can be achieved. The strategy itself is more long-term in nature.

And the key element of this strategy is to first reach an agreement with Trump, separate the business track of negotiations with Trump from the peace track, and then use Trump to pressure Ukraine into accepting Russia’s terms for ending the war. That’s roughly the strategy.

Well, the main strategic goal is to bring Ukraine back under Russian influence – if not directly, then indirectly, particularly through so-called neutral status.

How Trump’s domestic problems play into Putin’s hands

Isn’t Putin a little late in counting on Trump’s loyalty, given that Trump is losing the election? Here are the projections from Decision Desk HQ. The Democrats have approximately 238 seats in the House of Representatives, with a required majority of 218. This is a better-than-expected split of 52 to 48 in favor of the Democrats. In other words, he’s losing the lower and upper chambers and is becoming weak. An internal struggle is beginning in the United States. Trump, one way or another, will have to deal with whatever the Democrats do. Will he be interested in some business deals with Putin?

That’s exactly why this is happening now. Because Putin made similar attempts last year, but Trump took a tougher stance back then. Both last year and early this year, Trump’s position was: first, end the war; then, business deals. Now that has changed. It has changed due to several factors.

First, the problems the U.S. has faced regarding Iran, issues in the oil market, and rising prices for oil and petroleum products. And this is precisely what’s undermining Trump’s standing in the U.S. This record-high price of diesel – that’s the favorable backdrop for why Trump has now decided to negotiate with Putin.

Putin sensed this. Then he saw that the Americans had grievances regarding Ukraine. I think – at Russia’s instigation, by the way – that the narrative being pushed is that the main cause of the diesel problems in the U.S. is supposedly Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries. I suspect that the Russians themselves planted this narrative with Trump, and then it began to be exploited in the election campaign by Trump’s most radical supporters. And it seems that, at least in part – and perhaps even entirely – Trump came to believe it himself.

And that’s when Putin’s game began – to reshape Trump. While up until late September or early October, the Americans were betting on reaching an energy truce to resolve the issue of the strikes on Russian oil refineries – our strikes – Putin met them halfway and made a proposal without calling for a cessation of hostilities. He offered his own diesel fuel.

Putin was, as they say, killing two birds with one stone. He was offloading the remaining diesel supplies that had accumulated in Russia. Not much, but there was some. Then he set a trap for Ukraine. He effectively destroyed the prospect of an energy truce, while making a goodwill gesture toward Trump by giving him diesel before the election. Even if it’s symbolic, even if it has almost no impact, it does influence Trump, because Trump greatly values such personal gestures.

Meanwhile, Zelenskyy is haggling, Zelenskyy is setting conditions, while Putin is ready to make such gestures preemptively. Unfortunately, it works.

By the way, Putin isn’t just doing this with Trump right now. He’s using the exact same tactic with Musk. He saw that Elon Musk, due to Trump’s complaints about Ukraine, had also developed negative feelings toward Ukraine – and that’s it. Putin is now stepping into this gap and trying to establish good relations with Musk as well.

And what was the trap? It was that, because of the diesel deal, a very negative choice effectively emerged for Ukraine: either we agree to U.S. demands, stop striking Russian oil refineries, and thereby limit our influence on Russia, or we continue striking Russian oil refineries and face problems in our relations with the U.S. And we’ve tried both of these alternatives.

So, unfortunately, from a purely tactical standpoint, Putin managed to succeed in October. He pulled Trump over to his side, taking advantage of Trump’s problems and weaknesses.

And it seems to me that Putin is counting on Trump becoming weaker now. Trump may indeed face problems within the U.S. This doesn’t mean he’s losing power. No, it will simply be harder for him to pass the budget, and it will be harder to push certain personnel decisions through the Senate.

But it is precisely the intensification of the domestic political struggle in the U.S., in Putin’s view, that creates the conditions to draw Trump even closer to him. Because he’ll say: “See, the Ukrainians are on the Democrats’ side. The Democrats are against Russia. So we have a common enemy; that unites us,” and so on. In this sense, unfortunately, Putin is acting quite strategically.

Can Oleshky’s experience help Ukraine in negotiations?

So, based on what we’ve discussed, is what’s happening around Oleshky good for Ukraine or bad? Personally, my answer is that it’s good, because people were dying of starvation there. But if we’re talking in broad strokes – the geopolitical dynamics we’re discussing here – then what?

Well, if we’re speaking in the language of sociological surveys, it’s probably a good thing. That is, I’m not speaking in absolute terms. From a humanitarian standpoint – I absolutely agree with you. We need to save people.

Especially since, as we’re seeing now, a great many people – well, at least half of those who remained there – want to return to Ukraine; they identify as Ukrainians; they don’t want to stay in the occupied territory. That’s what’s important, so these people need to be rescued. And it’s very good that the circumstances for this have now come together.

Another potential positive – and, I’d say, an important political and humanitarian precedent – is this ceasefire. There hasn’t been any shooting there for three days now. It’s localized, but in this way, a certain test is taking place – particularly a technical one – to see if the ceasefire can be maintained.

There were many doubts – and there still are – that everything could fall apart. There is mutual distrust. But, as it turns out – thanks to such active American mediation and the understanding that it’s not in anyone’s interest to break this ceasefire right now – we’re seeing that it can be done.

Why is this a positive for us? Because we can use this argument going forward in negotiations and in our discussions with the Americans – and, of course, in negotiations with the Russians. The Russians, however, do not want to cease fire along the front line, and we can say, “See, it’s possible; it works.” And so it’s solely a matter of political will. We’re ready to cease fire. It’s you who don’t want to. And that’s the card we need to play.

If Trump – even if only insincerely – speaks of the need to end the war, we need to focus on this precedent, including by engaging Melania Trump through her humanitarian motives. So yes, this is an unquestionable positive in that sense.

But why not in absolute terms? Because, unfortunately, this is only a local development. It’s not connected to the overall logic of the peace talks. We’re now seeing the first round of negotiations, which will take place – if all goes well – in Abu Dhabi, or perhaps elsewhere if there’s a strike on Iran. Nevertheless, this isn’t about ending hostilities or a ceasefire. It’s about security conditions after the war ends.

Well, as far as I understand, this has been done deliberately on our part, in particular, to divert attention from the deadlocked issue of territorial claims. But, nevertheless, the Russians do not want to agree to a ceasefire. And that is the problem right now.

And so, unfortunately, this precedent with Oleshky is a positive one, and it may work – but not now, not in the near future. After all, the Russians are currently banking on war and military pressure against Ukraine. And indirectly, they’ll use this in their relations with the U.S. as well.

Is Putin ready to call a ceasefire for the sake of peace?

Putin is not backing down from his demand to occupy the Donbas, so his position remains unchanged. At the same time, negotiations are coming up, where a ceasefire will likely be discussed. Could Russia’s so-called humanitarian initiative regarding Oleshky influence Trump’s position and give the Kremlin additional leverage at the negotiating table?

No. Putin will have a little more of his loyalty than he did before. No, a ceasefire will be discussed. The Ukrainian side will definitely raise this issue. Generally speaking, the first round of talks – as Ushakov, Putin’s aide, put it – is a “test run.” It’s a rather ambiguous phrase in the context of war.

In other words, it’s a kind of reconnaissance. Among other things, they’ll be determining the future agenda for the talks – what these negotiations will be about going forward. This is because the negotiations that took place at the beginning of the year effectively reached an impasse, as Russia focused specifically on the territorial issue. And the Americans, unfortunately, fell for that as well. They, too, believed that the problem of this war could be resolved through the Donbas. Now the situation is supposedly a little different.

So we’ll see how the negotiations unfold from here. I simply wanted to emphasize that, judging by public statements from the Russian side – specifically Ushakov – Russia certainly has no intention of declaring a ceasefire. And as for Putin himself – well, it doesn’t seem like he’s ready to end the war. Playing games with Trump – yes. The negotiations are also resuming for Trump’s sake, to demonstrate that Putin really wants peace.

Because Putin is playing on Trump’s stereotypes – the positive ones about Putin – which don’t actually correspond to reality. But, unfortunately, that’s how Trump perceives it. He’s already said repeatedly that Putin wants peace. So, Putin has convinced him of this. But this needs to be confirmed, at least by the fact that negotiations are taking place. And so the tactic here will be this: there will be negotiations, but without an agreement to cease hostilities.

To what extent, say, Trump will accept this – and for how long – remains an open question. Because Trump’s moods can change, and circumstances can change. We’ll see how a possible escalation after November 3 – an escalation of the military situation with Iran – will play out. That, too, could have an impact. Trump is the kind of person who says one thing today, another tomorrow, and something else the day after tomorrow.

Nevertheless, Putin’s current insidious tactics and strategy are working for now. And we need to look for safeguards. One of these safeguards – and the most powerful one – is our cooperation with Europe in the negotiation process. This is because the Americans have already realized that a significant part of their peace plan can only be implemented through agreements with Europe. This means that the Europeans must be involved, at least indirectly, in the negotiation process. And this has already begun.

But we see that there is no unity among the Europeans. Precisely in terms of the strategy and tactics for participating in the negotiations, they have not yet decided exactly who from their side should take part in the talks. And this is a hindrance. But overall, for us, it is the Europeans who will serve as a serious safeguard – not only in countering Russia’s insidious game, but also in neutralizing a certain flawed strategy of Trump’s – or rather, Steve Whitcoff’s.

Here’s a specific example. Whitcoff proposes that sanctions against Russia be lifted even before hostilities cease. Well, in fact, the Americans have already started doing this. This is fundamentally unacceptable. And both our position and that of the Europeans must be principled. We cannot lift sanctions or hand over even a portion of assets to the Russians until hostilities cease. This is simply unacceptable. We see that, on the contrary, this encourages Putin to continue the war. So in this case, we must act together with Europe – both in our relations with the Americans and in countering Putin’s insidious strategy and tactics.

Where might Russia agree to the next humanitarian missions?

It will be difficult for us in 2027 as well – we’ve discussed this. And there are budgetary and economic problems. But I want to ask something. Has the “Melania Card” been fully played, or might we still see some sort of extension in another area?

No, I don’t think it’s been fully played out. It’s a positive precedent, including in terms of the outcome. I think the positive effect is taking hold. When a person achieves a positive result, many people feel the desire to scale it up and further develop that positive result. And it’s quite likely that this could be the case – that Melania Trump might have this same motivation.

There are already reports that further humanitarian missions of this kind are allegedly being discussed. I’ve already heard about Energodar. But, in my view, it’s more important to do this either in the Kharkiv region or in the combat zone in the Donetsk region. It’s more complicated there; the Russians are unlikely to make concessions there, because the Donbas has also become an obsession for them. They’re fixated on the Donbas, on occupying the entire region.

It will be more difficult there, but there are definitely places where the humanitarian catastrophe is just as severe – not due to a lack of food or medical services, but simply as a result of the destruction and bombings carried out by Russia. And there are other places along the front lines where the situation is also very difficult. And God willing, Melania’s motivation to continue such humanitarian missions will bear fruit in the future. There’s a chance it will.

So I still believe – despite my own skepticism regarding any specific agreements in the peace process in the coming months – that precisely these kinds of humanitarian missions may indeed continue.

Mr. Budanov is also involved in this process; he’s in contact with Mr. Lubinets. What is his role here? And how do you assess this?

Well, actually, it’s not just Mr. Budanov. Not just him, not just him. I’ve been following this on Telegram – I subscribed specifically for this. I don’t know if he’s working with Lubinets on this, or – I don’t know – through some personal connection, but Arakhamia is actively involved in this mission.

Budanov is the coordinator; he’s been in contact with the Americans for quite some time now. He’s one of the key figures in our negotiating team. Formally, Umerov is the head there, but according to various sources, Budanov plays a very important role in the negotiation process, specifically in contacts with the Americans. And he has personal experience with such negotiation missions, specifically regarding prisoner exchanges. So I think he is most likely acting as the coordinator of this process on the Ukrainian side.