"Republicans Will Remove Their Masks": Pincus on Trump, Russian Diesel, and Impeachment

Reports of U.S. agreements to purchase Russian diesel fuel have raised new questions about the policies of the Donald Trump administration. At the same time, U.S. officials are demanding that Ukraine stop striking Russian oil refineries, even as Moscow continues to attack Ukrainian cities and energy infrastructure.

Boris Pinkus, a public figure and president of the Ronald Reagan Republican Club, explained in an interview with 24 Channel why agreements with Russia could spark a new confrontation in the U.S. Congress. He also discussed possible investigations into Trump’s inner circle, the risks for Ukraine following the U.S. elections, and the conditions that Volodymyr Zelenskyy proposed to Washington.

U.S. Pressure Over Russian Diesel

According to Le Monde, on October 9, during a meeting in Miami, Steve Witkoff demanded that Kirill Budanov stop strikes on Russian oil refineries and agree to energy deals. Why is Trump’s team pressuring Ukraine, which is defending itself against Russian aggression?

I think the reasons for this pressure lie not only in diplomacy. Scandals are currently emerging around Trump’s inner circle that could have serious political and legal consequences.

First and foremost, this concerns Jared Kushner. Reports have emerged that Dutch intelligence allegedly obtained data from his phone regarding specific accounts into which funds were transferred from Arab countries. It is important to note that these reports pertain to Trump’s first presidential term.

At that time, Kushner was an official advisor to the president. He is now engaged in diplomatic contacts in a different capacity, not as a Senate-confirmed official.

This raises a legal issue. The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves. However, questions regarding his activities in a government position during the previous administration could become the subject of a separate investigation.

I believe that Witkoff’s activities should also be investigated. His approach to negotiations with Russia raises very serious questions for me.

When an American mediator demands that Ukraine not strike Russian oil infrastructure but fails to press Moscow to stop its attacks, this contradicts what we expect from American diplomacy.

It is particularly important that there are already politicians among the Republicans who openly oppose such agreements.

For example, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, who chairs the Ukraine Caucus in Congress, has initiated legislative measures against the purchase of Russian energy resources. This initiative is linked to Ronald Reagan’s principle of “peace through strength.”

For the bill to pass in the House of Representatives, a majority of votes is required. Fitzpatrick is working to build support for this initiative, particularly among members of both parties. After a vote in the House, the bill must pass the Senate.

I hope that once lawmakers return to Washington on November 9, this process will gain momentum.

There is also another issue – whether the new energy agreements comply with the restrictions on trade with Russia that were imposed after the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

In my opinion, these decisions create grounds for legal challenges to the potential import of Russian fuel.

According to reports currently being discussed, the first shipment of Russian diesel – amounting to approximately 40,000 metric tons – could arrive in New York in early November. The dates mentioned are November 7–9, but I do not know whether this shipment will actually take place.

This raises two problems at once. The first is political pressure on Trump from Congress and the American public. The second is the potential legal consequences for port operators and companies that agree to receive and unload such cargo.

Port owners may decide that risking fines and lawsuits is simply not worth it. And then even an agreement at the presidential administration level won’t guarantee that Russian diesel will reach the U.S. market.

Therefore, I do not rule out that Trump may have to reconsider these decisions under pressure from his own lawmakers.

How Zelenskyy Should Respond to the Pressure

Axios reports that investigations into Russian diesel are underway. During the meeting in Miami, Witkoff also allegedly suggested that Ukraine profit from the transit of Russian oil and gas, to which Budanov replied that Ukraine’s model is Poland, not Belarus. How should Kyiv continue negotiations with the U.S. under these conditions?

I believe that Zelenskyy is handling the situation correctly so far. He is not responding to Trump with the kind of sharp rhetoric he could have used, given the nature of the American pressure.

The Ukrainian president must be guided by the national interest and maintain relations with both American political parties. We cannot rely exclusively on the Democrats simply because they might win more seats in the election.

There are also many friends of Ukraine in the Republican Party. Furthermore, the current Congress will remain in session until January, and Ukraine needs help not after a change in administration, but every day.

Therefore, responding to Trump’s offensive statements with equally harsh words would be a mistake. We have already witnessed a sharp conflict between the presidents on February 28, 2025, and there is no need to repeat it.

It is important for Zelenskyy to maintain the ability to communicate with the White House, while at the same time not agreeing to demands that harm Ukraine’s defense.

In my opinion, Trump is already feeling political pressure within the U.S. He needs at least some results that he can present to voters as a success.

For example, Melania Trump joined an initiative for a local humanitarian ceasefire in the Oleshky area. According to reports that were discussed, it was supposed to remain in effect until the evening of November 1.

But such initiatives do not change the overall picture. Russia continues to shell Kyiv, Odesa, and other Ukrainian cities. In particular, reports are now coming in again of ballistic attacks and the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

And I am outraged that, under these circumstances, American mediators continue to discuss economic agreements with Moscow.

I would like to see Witkoff’s activities scrutinized much more thoroughly. We need to find out what business ties he had, how he made his money, whether he complied with tax laws, and with whom he entered into agreements.

If a person is involved in decisions regarding war and peace, they must be prepared for the utmost transparency. Especially when their proposals can directly affect Ukraine’s security.

After the election, the Republicans will drop their masks

Do such agreements mean that Trump has no objection to Witkoff’s and Kushner’s business interests in relations with Russia?

I believe the Trump administration is creating more and more problems for itself. After the November 3 election, the situation could change dramatically, and serious disputes will begin within the president’s inner circle.

We had previously hoped that the Republicans would at least be able to retain control of the Senate. Now I am no longer so confident. The possibility of losing the majority in both chambers has become a very serious threat to the party.

At the same time, I don’t want Ukrainians to view a potential Democratic victory as an automatic guarantee of aid. There are politicians in the Democratic Party who advocate for significant cuts to foreign military spending.

Part of the left wing wants to direct more government funds toward domestic social programs, aid for the homeless, and other American needs. This could create difficulties for funding Ukraine and Israel.

There are also disputes over immigration policy. I support some of Trump’s decisions to strengthen border controls, but I fear that a shift in the political balance could lead to a reevaluation of these measures.

Therefore, the situation for Ukraine’s friends within American politics is not easy. We need to seek support from both parties, rather than relying on just one of them.

I have particular hope for the bipartisan cooperation between Brian Fitzpatrick and Senator Richard Blumenthal. Despite belonging to different parties, they are working on legislative initiatives designed to limit the administration’s ability to enter into energy agreements that benefit Russia.

In addition, Congress can hold hearings and demand explanations from executive branch officials regarding such decisions.

And here I want to make a very important point. After the election, many Republicans will drop their masks.

Right now, some members of Congress are dissatisfied with Trump but don’t dare to criticize him openly. They’re afraid of losing voter support – and, along with it, their seats.

Once the election is over, this dependence will no longer be as strong. I expect that there will be significantly more public critics of the president among Republicans.

And they won’t necessarily have to wait until January to do so. Lawmakers can voice their positions immediately after the election, even if the current Congress remains in session for several more months.

We are already seeing examples of cooperation between Republicans and Democrats on issues related to support for Ukraine. And I expect that after the election campaign ends, this cooperation will intensify.

At the same time, Trump is facing challenges in foreign policy. In particular, in the Middle East, countries that previously looked to Washington are beginning to seek agreements with Iran on their own.

I am referring to contacts involving Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. This indicates that regional states do not want to be entirely dependent on the decisions of the U.S. president.

Such developments are diverting Washington’s attention away from Ukraine and creating additional foreign policy challenges for the administration.

Will Trump Increase Pressure on Ukraine?

After the election, there will be about two months left before the new Congress begins its work. Won’t Trump use this time to put even more pressure on Ukraine and help Putin?

I don’t think so. The U.S. has a system of checks and balances: Congress, the judicial system, and the Supreme Court. The president has broad powers, especially in foreign policy, but they are not unlimited.

Right now, the system isn’t working as well as we’d like. Some Republicans aren’t ready to openly oppose Trump while the election campaign is still underway.

But after the election, the situation may change. I expect lawmakers to begin using mechanisms of congressional oversight much more actively, particularly bipartisan decisions.

There is another factor. Trump is very concerned about what his political legacy will be. He wants to go down in history as a successful president, not as someone whose administration was the subject of numerous investigations.

Therefore, the prospect of new scandals may deter him from making decisions that would provoke even greater opposition within the U.S.

I do not rule out that investigations into people in the president’s inner circle could lead to serious political consequences. But everything will depend on what information is uncovered and what decisions American institutions ultimately make.

But the new Congress won’t begin its work until January. What might hold Trump back immediately after the election?

The very threat that Republicans will stop defending him.

Lawmakers may make it clear to the president that they will not support any of his decisions, especially if they lead to new scandals or violate existing laws.

And this will matter even before the new Congress formally begins its work.

In addition, scrutiny of the Trump family’s business ties is intensifying. I believe that these very issues could become one of the most powerful tools for exerting political pressure on the president.

Reports are currently circulating about the substantial revenues earned by companies linked to his sons from operations in Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The figures cited exceed two billion dollars over the past year and a half.

This raises questions about whether members of the president’s family are using their political influence to gain business advantages.

There have also been reports of contacts between one of Trump’s sons and Umar Kremlev during a hunting trip in Mongolia. Kremlev is linked to Russian government circles, and among the other participants mentioned were a businessman subject to U.S. sanctions and longtime Republican Party donor Kevin Small.

All of this, in my opinion, provides grounds for demanding a detailed investigation into the nature of such contacts and potential conflicts of interest.

I don’t think that under these circumstances Trump will want to further escalate the confrontation with Congress. On the contrary, he may begin to soften his rhetoric.

We are already hearing statements from him claiming that he supposedly said nothing negative about Ukraine. And I do not rule out that there will be more such positive statements in the future.

This could also influence the nature of U.S. demands to halt strikes on Russian oil refineries.

Scandals Surrounding the Trump Family

On the eve of the election, new allegations have surfaced against Trump – including from a former Miss Switzerland – which Republicans call false. Questions are also arising regarding the business dealings of his sons and Kushner. Could these stories lead to criminal investigations and impeachment?

I believe there are grounds for investigations, and they are not limited to a single story.

For example, there is currently discussion about the behavior of one of Trump’s sons at an event in the Bahamas. According to reports I’m citing, the event may have been financed by businessmen in Putin’s inner circle. It’s also alleged that a representative of the Russian intelligence services may have been among those present.

These circumstances need to be clarified. Who paid for the event, for what purpose, what contacts took place, and were there any agreements behind them?

Another story concerns a plane worth approximately $400 million that Trump received from Qatar. I believe that such gifts and their potential implications for public policy should also be a matter of concern for Congress.

There are questions regarding Kushner’s financial ties, Witkoff’s activities, and the presidential family’s business interests in the Middle East.

Taken together, all of this could provide grounds for large-scale congressional investigations. If violations of the law are uncovered during such investigations, further legal consequences are possible.

I also do not rule out that the political confrontation surrounding Trump could lead to impeachment. But that will depend on the results of the investigations and the stance of U.S. lawmakers.

I do not believe the president can indefinitely develop relations with authoritarian leaders without facing opposition within the U.S.

Added to this are the problems with U.S. policy toward Iran. Some Middle Eastern states are beginning to seek their own agreements with Tehran, while Washington is spending more and more resources on resolving the regional situation.

All of this matters for Ukraine, as the U.S. administration’s attention is divided among several serious international crises.

That is why I return to Zelenskyy’s conduct. In this situation, he needs to exercise restraint, avoid entering into a personal conflict with Trump, and maintain working relationships with representatives of both parties.

After all, following the next U.S. presidential election in 2028, the political landscape may shift once again. Ukraine must have allies regardless of who is in the White House.

Zelenskyy’s Three Proposals to the U.S.

Recently, there have also been positive reports regarding U.S. aid. Zelenskyy announced the restoration of Starlink and Starshield satellite communications, which is of great importance to the Ukrainian military.

At the same time, the possibility of a new trilateral meeting between Ukraine, the U.S., and Russia is being discussed. The Ukrainian president does not rule out such a format but continues to insist on reciprocity in any agreements.

And I like how he responds to Trump’s demands to stop attacks on Russian oil refineries.

Zelenskyy has effectively offered the Americans three options.

The first is a mutual cessation of strikes on energy infrastructure. Ukraine is ready to discuss refraining from attacks on Russian oil refineries, but Russia must also stop striking Ukrainian energy facilities.

Otherwise, it amounts to a one-sided concession: Ukraine gives up its capabilities, while the Russian army continues to destroy our infrastructure.

The second option is to expand the use of Starshield to strike Russian positions from which ballistic missiles are launched at Ukraine.

This is primarily about protecting Ukrainian cities. If we have the ability to strike enemy launchers, this could reduce the number of missiles that would need to be intercepted over Ukrainian territory.

The third proposal is to increase deliveries of interceptor missiles for the Patriot systems.

Ukraine has an urgent need for such weapons. These missiles are needed to protect people, residential buildings, and critical infrastructure from Russian ballistic missiles.

I fully support Zelenskyy’s position on this. It allows for negotiations with the U.S. administration without agreeing to terms that would leave Ukraine defenseless.

It is particularly important that these proposals do not mean abandoning the diplomatic process. Ukraine is ready to discuss agreements but insists on concrete security guarantees and real means of protection.

And I am convinced that there are enough politicians among American Republicans and Democrats who understand the need for such assistance.

But don’t European partners understand that the transfer of Patriot missiles may depend on Trump’s approval?

I disagree that European countries cannot do anything at all without the permission of the U.S. president.

Europe has its own capabilities, resources, and mechanisms to support Ukraine. And I believe that our allies should make more active use of them, especially when it comes to protecting the Ukrainian population from missile strikes.

Ukraine needs to continue demanding the necessary weapons while maintaining contact with the U.S. administration, Congress, and European partners. Support for Ukraine should not depend solely on the personal stance of a single politician.

Boris Pinkus on the Trump team’s pressure on Ukraine, Russian diesel, and the investigation into Kushner: watch the video