"The Kremlin is counting on the US to weaken": Filipenko on NATO's ultimatum and Trump's problems

Upcoming negotiations on ending the war could provide the Kremlin with yet another opportunity to buy time while the United States prepares for the midterm congressional elections. At the same time, Moscow is returning to its demands for a reduction in NATO’s military presence in Europe, even as European countries are increasingly preparing to ensure their own security independently.

American studies expert Oleksandra Filipenko explained on 24 Channel why the Russian leadership is counting on Washington’s weakening and how Putin’s ultimatums might influence Donald Trump’s position. She also analyzed the scandals surrounding the U.S. president’s family, voter sentiment, and the reasons behind his conflicts even with conservative media outlets.

The Kremlin is counting on Trump’s political problems

A new round of trilateral talks between Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia in Abu Dhabi is tentatively scheduled for November 10. Kyiv and Washington tried to persuade Moscow to hold the meeting a week earlier, but the Russian side was in no hurry to agree on a date.

The Ukrainian side does not expect a quick breakthrough and is counting on a series of negotiations. At the same time, Europe insists on participating in discussions of future agreements, as it is European states that can play a key role in guaranteeing Ukraine’s security.

Filippenko noted that Europe is already preparing for a possible decline in U.S. support. In particular, France is more actively discussing a future nuclear deterrence system that would involve less dependence on the United States.

In her view, this shift in approach is linked to the unpredictability of the current U.S. administration. Donald Trump may be discussing economic agreements with Moscow – such as the supply of diesel fuel – but the position of U.S. government institutions will not necessarily remain unchanged after the congressional elections.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, is counting on the U.S. to weaken, and Europe, as they see it, will also be weak. Then these will be players who are much easier to deal with,
Filippenko explained.

Moscow is interested in dragging out the negotiation process while Trump spends more and more time on domestic political conflicts. The Kremlin may hope that the American president will pay less attention to the war in Ukraine and seek quick foreign policy results that can be presented as his own victories.

However, European countries are not only discussing new defense capabilities but are also gradually beginning to act with greater confidence. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte plays a key role in maintaining cooperation between the U.S. and its allies.

Mark Rutte’s personal role is enormous. He is even referred to as “the one who whispers to Trump.” He knows how to negotiate with Donald Trump while at the same time defending European security and NATO’s security,
– noted the American studies expert.

Filippenko does not rule out that such contacts will help maintain Washington’s involvement in European security issues even amid strained relations between the White House and its allies.

As for the talks in Abu Dhabi, even Putin’s adviser Yuri Ushakov referred to the upcoming meeting as preliminary, describing it as a “trial run.” This indicates that the Russian side is in no hurry to discuss specific agreements.

It would be advantageous for Trump to announce a diplomatic success before the November 3 election. However, a significant number of Americans have already voted early, and there have been no real breakthroughs in the talks so far.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin has brought back onto the international agenda demands that concern not only Ukraine but also NATO’s military presence in Europe.

Putin is testing NATO’s reaction with new ultimatums

Russia may once again demand that NATO’s military presence be rolled back to its 1997 configuration. This would affect Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland, which joined the Alliance in 2023.

Moscow portrays NATO’s expansion as one of the so-called root causes of the war. However, European allies show no willingness to agree to demands that would limit their right to independently determine their own security policy.

Filippenko believes that such ultimatums can be significant even when their implementation seems practically impossible. The Russian leadership is trying to test how Western politicians will react to each new proposal.

It’s like trying to throw pebbles into water. One will create larger ripples, another smaller ones. And perhaps one pebble will eventually bring something back,
the American studies scholar suggested.

Using this tactic, the Kremlin can put forward several demands at once without expecting immediate fulfillment of each one. It is enough if at least one idea is picked up in Washington and begins to be discussed as a possible subject for negotiations.

Filippenko drew attention to the behavior of Donald Trump, who sometimes revisits proposals that initially met with significant opposition. The American president may see a certain benefit in them and begin to develop the idea he’s heard in his own way.

Some ideas originating from the Kremlin – even the most absurd ones – have been taken up by the American side,
Filippenko emphasized.

She cited the possible resumption of Russian gas supplies through Ukrainian territory to Europe as one example. In her view, European countries are unlikely to support such a proposal, but the very fact that it is being discussed indicates that Washington did not reject it outright.

Such initiatives may also be designed with the long term in mind. The Kremlin is capable of revisiting its demands over the course of years, hoping that they will be considered not only by the current members of the U.S. administration but also by future political leaders.

Among the potential recipients of such signals, Filipenko mentioned U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. After all, Russian proposals may gradually become part of political discussions, even if most participants initially consider them unacceptable.

The U.S. May Take Up Proposals Favorable to the Kremlin

The issue of reducing the U.S. military presence in Europe has already come up in discussions in Washington. According to reports, the Pentagon has considered the possibility of withdrawing a significant portion of U.S. troops, particularly from Germany, Italy, and Spain.

Such a move could significantly alter relations between the U.S. and its European allies. After all, the U.S. military presence remains one of the key elements of NATO’s defense system.

Filippenko does not rule out that Putin may have raised such issues during his numerous phone calls with Trump. In that case, the Russian leadership would not necessarily have to demand an immediate withdrawal of troops – it would be enough for the U.S. administration to begin considering such a possibility on its own.

This may well be exactly the kind of “whispering” that took place during their numerous phone conversations. Some may find these proposals absurd, but Putin continues to repeat them anyway,
Filippenko said.

She drew attention to how frequently the Trump administration’s approaches to foreign policy issues change. Decisions may depend on what economic or political benefit the White House sees in a particular proposal.

Under such circumstances, even ideas that are clearly disadvantageous to European allies can end up on the negotiating agenda.

Not only does the Trump administration not immediately reject certain proposals, but it may even go along with them,
the American studies expert explained.

However, the U.S. president’s ability to implement his own initiatives depends largely on the domestic political situation. On the eve of the midterm elections, Trump’s position is complicated not only by disputes over foreign policy but also by new questions regarding the financial ties of his inner circle.

The scandal surrounding Kushner threatens to trigger new investigations

In the run-up to the U.S. elections, attention is intensifying on potential conflicts of interest within Donald Trump’s administration. According to a poll cited by the Financial Times, nearly 70% of American voters are concerned about corruption and the possible use of public office for private gain.

One of the most notable developments has been new reports regarding Jared Kushner, the U.S. president’s son-in-law. Vanity Fair magazine published excerpts from journalist Matthew Cole’s upcoming book.

These reports raise questions about possible secret financial accounts linked to funds from the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Kushner denies the existence of such accounts and any involvement in the transactions described.

Filippenko pointed out an important difference between Kushner’s current situation and his status during Trump’s first presidential term. At that time, he was an official White House adviser, whereas now he participates in the administration’s work as a private citizen, without holding a similar government position.

The most important question is: How do people close to Donald Trump use their position? Do they work for the benefit of the American people and the state, or solely in their own interests?
– Filipenko noted.

After the end of Trump’s first presidential term, Kushner founded the investment firm Affinity Partners. Investors from the Persian Gulf countries have poured billions of dollars into it, and the company’s management handles these funds and makes investments.

The very existence of such a business is not the main issue. Controversy has arisen over whether financial ties with Middle Eastern partners could have been linked to Kushner’s activities while he was officially employed at the White House.

Filippenko explained that the status of a senior advisor entails different requirements for transparency and accountability. In particular, Congress can demand explanations regarding financial transactions and potential conflicts of interest.

Therefore, Kushner’s current unofficial status complicates direct congressional oversight of his activities. The American studies scholar did not rule out the possibility that lawmakers might raise the issue of the need to formally formalize his participation in the administration’s work.

Additional questions concern the business dealings of Trump’s children. The U.S. president maintains that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump manage the family’s companies, and that he himself does not participate in their business decisions.

However, new reports about Kushner’s activities are fueling doubts among some voters about how clearly public policy is separated from the private financial interests of the president’s inner circle.

Kushner himself denies the allegations, and his representatives have indicated they may seek legal recourse. Filipenko noted that the article was published by *Vanity Fair*, which is part of the large publishing conglomerate Condé Nast.

“I very much doubt that such a large publishing house failed to protect itself and did not engage the most meticulous lawyers in advance to review the article and the book. I think a lawsuit could reveal a lot of interesting information,”
– the American studies scholar speculated.

How this story unfolds will depend on whether the dispute goes to court and what evidence the parties present to support their positions. At the same time, scrutiny of the presidential family’s financial ties is already becoming part of the pre-election debates in the U.S.

American voters want a stronger Congress

Concerns about potential conflicts of interest could influence the behavior of even those Americans who generally support Donald Trump’s policies. Filippenko explained that while some Republicans are not necessarily ready to vote for Democrats, an increasing number want tighter oversight of the White House’s decisions.

For some, this may be a reason not to vote; for others, it may prompt them to support Democratic candidates. Such a scenario creates additional risks for Republicans in their fight for a majority in Congress.

According to Filipenko, more than 28 million Americans have already voted early. Voters are using both mail-in ballots and the option to vote in person at polling places, and lines are forming in some states.

She described the race for the Senate seat from Texas as particularly intense. This state is of great importance to Republicans, and the election result could affect the overall balance of power in the upper chamber of Congress.

Filippenko believes that financial scandals surrounding the president’s inner circle may influence voters more strongly than individual disputes over foreign policy. Even Trump’s supporters do not necessarily agree that the executive branch should operate without effective congressional oversight.

In American political culture, there is a very clear notion: presidents come and go, politicians come and go, but institutions must function,
Filippenko emphasized.

That is precisely why the new Congress could play an important role in the future of U.S. relations with Russia and European allies. If the balance of power shifts, lawmakers will have more opportunities to demand accountability for the Trump administration’s actions.

Also telling is the criticism of the president by Barack Obama, who accused the current administration of corruption, incompetence, and cruelty. At the same time, for Americans themselves, the issue of trust in the government concerns not only political statements but also how decisions are made and whether people close to the president benefit from them.

Tension in the White House is also evident in Trump’s relationship with the American media. Moreover, criticism is increasingly directed not only at outlets that traditionally support the Democrats.

Trump even had a falling out with Fox News

Donald Trump criticized Fox News for, in his opinion, giving too much airtime to Democratic candidates. The president also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of support from Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

Filippenko noted that Fox News remains one of the most popular American television networks and traditionally has a conservative editorial slant. According to her, its audience exceeds the combined audience of CNN and NBC when comparing traditional television broadcasts.

However, even a conservative network invites representatives from both major political parties. Democrats and Republicans who hold different positions on a single issue may participate in the programs.

Therefore, Filipenko attributes Trump’s complaints about Fox News not to a shift in the network’s political views, but to the tense situation surrounding the president himself.

Amid all these attempts to secure at least some kind of demonstrative victory for Donald Trump, it seems that his nervousness is growing,
the American studies scholar suggested.

Among the White House’s problems, she cited disputes over economic agreements with Russia, attempts to lower fuel prices, and unfavorable poll results.

In particular, following discussions on diesel fuel agreements, prices, according to data cited by Filipenko, fell by only 18 cents. She considers this change insufficient for the president to present it to voters as a significant economic success.

The American studies scholar cited personnel disputes within the administration and the president’s sharp public statements as further signs of tension. However, his reaction to criticism from well-known TV host Bill Maher proved particularly revealing.

The conflict with the TV host revealed new plans from the White House

Bill Maher has been hosting a political show on HBO for many years and is known for his critical stance toward representatives of both major U.S. political parties. He has met with Donald Trump in person on several occasions, which has also drawn criticism from Democratic supporters.

According to Filipenko, Maah’s latest dinner with the U.S. president took place on October 15. However, after the dinner, the TV host did not stop criticizing the White House occupant and continued to mock his decisions on his own show.

One of the topics was a New York Times article about possible changes to the White House premises. It concerned a historic swimming pool that had previously been located where the press center for journalists was later set up.

Maar discussed the possibility of returning the pool to its former location, and Trump responded with a lengthy social media post. According to Filipenko, his response was extremely long – nearly a thousand words – and contained sharp criticism of the TV host.

The president denied any intention to restore the pool inside the press center. However, at the same time, reports emerged about another possible move – relocating the journalists’ workspace from the White House to a neighboring building.

Thus, the controversy surrounding the TV joke has drawn attention to the future organization of press operations at the presidential residence.

Perhaps the pool won’t be reinstated, but Donald Trump does indeed want to ask journalists to leave the White House and move them to another building,
Filippenko noted.

The American studies scholar links this conflict to the general deterioration of Trump’s relations with the media. Whereas previously his main critics were predominantly liberal TV channels and publications, the president is now reacting more and more sharply even to the positions of conservative journalists.

According to Filipenko, Trump has the fewest conflicts with certain right-wing bloggers who consistently support his statements and decisions. At the same time, traditional American media outlets – even those close to the Republican audience – continue to give a platform to representatives of various political forces, which is increasingly causing the president’s dissatisfaction.

Watch the full interview on 24 Channel’s YouTube channel