The U.S. midterm congressional elections resulted in a heavy defeat for the Republicans and Donald Trump, who until recently had hoped to retain political control over Washington. According to preliminary results, the Democrats have gained control of both chambers of Congress, which could significantly limit the U.S. president’s influence during the final two years of his term.
Political strategist Mykhailo Sheitelman, in an op-ed published by 24 Channel, analyzed the reasons for Trump’s defeat and the possible consequences for his political inner circle. He also explained how the new balance of power in the U.S. could affect support for Ukraine and Israel, negotiations with Russia, and the security of European countries.
popular videos
Trump Turned the Election into a Referendum on Himself
The Republicans’ defeat in the midterm elections was one of the most severe for a sitting U.S. president in recent decades. This conclusion was reached by CNN commentator Stephen Collinson, whose analytical column was examined by Sheitelman.
American voters had the opportunity to assess the first two years of Trump’s second presidential term. Among the reasons for dissatisfaction were the rising cost of living, the war with Iran, corruption scandals surrounding the administration, and the president’s attempts to expand his own powers.
At the same time, ahead of the vote, there were fears that Trump might refuse to accept unfavorable results and try to contest them. Sheitelman recalled that he had previously predicted a different outcome.
“I said that Trump wouldn’t do anything. He’s retiring in two years; he can’t afford to do that. And look: he didn’t do anything. He accepted everything,”
After the results were announced, the U.S. president began giving interviews to the media and declared his willingness to cooperate with the Democrats. This was a marked departure from his previous rhetoric, when he had called his political opponents communists and a threat to the United States.
The political strategist compared this behavior to Trump’s previous decisions regarding Ukraine. Following the conflict with Zelenskyy in February 2025, the U.S. president subsequently returned to discussions of cooperation and economic agreements.
“He uses everything he can to defeat his rivals – any dirty tricks. But if that doesn’t work, he’s ready to cooperate with them. Just as it was with us,”
The Republican election campaign was largely built around Trump’s persona. He held numerous rallies, convinced Americans that a new golden age was dawning, and supported candidates even in traditionally conservative regions.
However, rising fuel prices and the cost of living contradicted the White House’s optimistic statements. The Republicans’ attempts to redraw electoral district boundaries in their favor through gerrymandering also failed.
The results in Texas and Iowa were particularly telling, as Democrats were able to secure important victories there. According to Collinson’s assessment, as cited by Sheitelman, Trump single-handedly turned the election into a popularity contest, and the Republicans paid for it with a loss of political ground.
The New Congress Poses Challenges for the White House
A Democratic majority could significantly alter the workings of the U.S. government. Congress will have greater opportunities to oversee the Trump administration, hold congressional hearings, and investigate the decisions of the president and his inner circle.
Possible areas of scrutiny include the war with Iran, the activities of White House officials, corruption scandals, and business ventures that may have increased the president’s personal wealth. The new Senate composition will also influence the confirmation of cabinet members and potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There have been instances in U.S. history when presidents lost congressional support midway through their terms. Barack Obama faced a crushing defeat for the Democrats in 2010, George W. Bush in 2006, and Bill Clinton in 1994.
However, Trump’s political image is largely built on the belief that he always wins. That is precisely why this defeat may prove particularly painful for him.
I think Trump has come to terms with it himself. He’ll say all sorts of things, but I believe he realizes what has happened. This is his monumental political miscalculation
In a CNN column, the U.S. president was called a “lame duck.” At the same time, the columnist cautioned that Trump’s unpredictable nature means one cannot expect him to exercise the political restraint that is customary in such a situation.
Before the new Congress takes office, the president will still have some time to carry out his plans. Because of this, disputes over the budget, the war with Iran, and the division of powers between the White House and the legislature may intensify.
These changes will also affect the future of the Republican Party itself. J.D. Vance, who was considered one of Trump’s most likely political successors, may find himself needing to distance himself from the president.
At the same time, Marco Rubio could potentially attempt to forge a new coalition between MAGA supporters and traditional Republicans. Among other possible contenders for the presidential nomination, Shtelman mentioned Ron DeSantis.
The Democrats, for their part, will have to take responsibility for their own decisions. Having gained greater influence in Congress, they will no longer be able to attribute all economic problems solely to Republican policies.
No political victory lasts forever, and no majority lasts forever. And no president, no matter how powerful he may consider himself to be, is invincible
The political strategist noted that as early as 2024, Trump pulled off one of the most successful political comebacks in American history. Two years later, the very same party that he had reshaped in his own image suffered a massive defeat.
Musk spent hundreds of millions to ensure the Republicans’ defeat
Elon Musk remains one of Trump’s biggest financial backers. After the 2024 presidential election, the billionaire celebrated the Republicans’ victory and publicly declared the beginning of a new political era.
Sheitelman recalled how Musk took the stage during Trump’s victory celebration and exclaimed in English that this was what a real victory looked like. The political strategist pointed out the difference between the words “win” and “victory.”
The first refers to winning a specific contest, after which there may be new wins and losses. The second is often used to mean a major historical victory that permanently changes the situation.
“I told Musk then: ‘This isn’t a “victory,” it’s a “win.” You won the election, but in four years there will be a new president.’ And it turned out that everything happened much faster – in just two years,”
According to data cited by the political strategist, Musk spent approximately $290 million in support of Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. During the current midterm elections, his spending on Republicans, according to this estimate, reached $446 million.
Sheitelman compared this amount to the approximate cost of 150 Patriot missiles, which Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian attacks. At the same time, Musk’s political investments did not help the Republicans retain their majority.
The richest person in the world made the worst political investment in human history. There has never been a political investment on this scale before. And Elon Musk did it – and lost
The new Congress could create additional problems for the billionaire. Sheitelman suggested that Democrats would launch investigations into Musk’s activities and his cooperation with the Trump administration.
Some Republican politicians who had previously supported Ukraine but later changed their positions also suffered defeats. Among them is Congresswoman Victoria Spartz, who is of Ukrainian descent and voted against the U.S. aid package for Kyiv in 2024.
According to preliminary results cited by Sheitelman, Spartz trailed Democrat J.D. Ford. With 93% of the ballots counted, Ford had received approximately 51% of the vote, while Spartz had 48%.
The political strategist also drew attention to Trump’s interview with Fox News. The U.S. president admitted that he was surprised by the election results, as he had expected the Republicans to perform better.
However, Sheitelman considers the president’s choice of words particularly telling. Trump said he thought “they would do better,” using the third person instead of referring to his own political team.
“They,” not “we.” You see, he’s not ready to take responsibility for the defeat. When there’s a victory, he’s the first to take credit, but when there’s a defeat – well, then it’s “them,” the Republicans. He has nothing to do with it
Such a reaction, according to the political strategist, demonstrates the president’s attempt to shift responsibility onto his party’s candidates. At the same time, it was Trump himself who played the leading role in the campaign and personally supported many Republicans who lost the election.
A meeting at the White House could help the Kremlin
After the U.S. election, First Lady Melania Trump’s activities also caught Sheitelman’s attention. On November 4, Volodymyr Zelenskyy awarded her the Order of Princess Olga, First Class, for her contribution to humanitarian support for Ukraine and her assistance to children affected by Russian aggression.
An event related to humanitarian agreements concerning the residents of Oleshky is scheduled for November 5 at the White House. Among the expected participants are representatives from Ukraine and Russia, including human rights commissioners.
The political strategist does not object to contacts between ombudsmen, as their work involves cooperation to facilitate the return of people and resolve humanitarian issues. However, reports of the possible presence of political representatives caused him significantly more concern.
In particular, Davyd Arakhamia and Kirill Dmitriev, head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, were named among the likely participants. Sheitelman fears that their joint appearance in front of the cameras could be exploited by the Kremlin.
“If our politicians pose for a photo with Kirill Dmitriev, it would effectively signal Russia’s return to the political arena. Why, then, would the German foreign minister refuse to be photographed with Lavrov?”
Since the start of the full-scale invasion, representatives of a number of Western countries have avoided appearing in photos with high-ranking Russian officials. Therefore, even the mere presence of Ukrainian politicians alongside Kremlin representatives could create an undesirable media impression.
Sheitelman also questioned the appropriateness of the event’s ceremonial format. Although aid to civilians in the temporarily occupied territories is an important humanitarian achievement, the situation in Ukraine remains extremely difficult due to Russian shelling.
“Hosting a ball at the White House when a significant part of Ukraine is without electricity, heat, and water? Are you serious? When children are studying in underground schools and people can’t live normal lives?”
In his opinion, it would have been far more appropriate for Melania Trump to meet directly with the rescued Ukrainians. Such an event could have been held in territory controlled by Ukraine, where the evacuees are currently staying.
Sheitelman considers the main goal of such initiatives to be helping those affected by Russian aggression. In contrast, the participation of Russian political representatives in a public ceremony could divert attention from the humanitarian outcome and give the Kremlin an opportunity to demonstrate its return to international engagement.
The New Congress Poses Challenges for Netanyahu
The shift in the political balance in Washington could affect not only Ukraine but also Israel. Sheitelman believes that the greatest difficulties lie ahead for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has largely tied his policies to Donald Trump’s personal support.
According to the political strategist, on the eve of the vote, Trump unexpectedly announced his intention to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel. This amounted to approximately $4 billion a year, which the country had been receiving for decades.
Existing agreements provided for the continuation of this support through 2028. However, the U.S. president stated that as early as 2027, Israel would allegedly no longer need these funds.
Sheitelman compared the situation to Ukraine’s experience, which also faced the non-fulfillment or revision of U.S. security commitments. Among the examples he cited were the Budapest Memorandum and subsequent agreements on security guarantees.
“Trump decided to renege on his agreement and reject U.S. security guarantees to Israel. We went through this in Ukraine, too. We were also promised guarantees, and then they were simply reneged upon,”
Additional difficulties may arise due to the stance of the new Congress. Some Democrats are critical of Israel’s military operations in the Gaza Strip and advocate restricting the supply of certain types of U.S. weapons.
Among the representatives of this political wing, Sheitelman named Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, who has sharply criticized the Israeli government’s actions and U.S. military support.
At the same time, aid to Israel had previously relied largely on bipartisan support. Both Democrats and Republicans considered the country an important U.S. ally, regardless of who headed the Israeli government.
The political strategist suggested that Netanyahu had undermined this principle by relying on his personal friendship with Trump. According to Sheitelman, the U.S. president even linked continued support for Israel in the war against Iran to Netanyahu’s re-election.
Such dependence on specific politicians also poses risks for Ukraine. After all, a change in the party majority in Washington should not automatically mean a change in the U.S. attitude toward countries in need of assistance.
“I don’t want Democrats to support Ukraine just because they’re Democrats, or Republicans to support Israel just because they’re Republicans. I want them to support our countries because it aligns with American values,”
He advocates for maintaining bipartisan support for both countries so that future U.S. presidential elections do not become a constant source of uncertainty for them. In his view, long-term relations with Washington should be based on shared interests and values, rather than on the personal sympathies of the American president.
Trump promises peace, while Lukashenko again predicts an end to the war
The next important international issue will be the negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, scheduled for November 10–11 in Abu Dhabi. Donald Trump stated that he is optimistic about the prospects for diplomatic contacts and believes both sides are ready to reach agreements.
At the same time, Moscow continues to hope for U.S. mediation. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed his expectation that Trump will continue to make efforts to end the war.
However, Sheitelman sees no signs that Russia is ready to make real concessions. He also noted that following the Republicans’ defeat, Trump’s political options have changed significantly.
“Trump says that both sides are ready to say, ‘Let’s negotiate.’ That’s something he sees from his White House that I, up close, don’t see. Which sides? What are they ready to do?”
Moscow has long been trying to use the negotiation process without ceasing hostilities. Sheitelman suggested that it will now be more difficult for the Kremlin to count on new concessions from the U.S. administration, since Trump will have to pay closer attention to Congress.
Meanwhile, Alexander Lukashenko made yet another prediction that the war would end soon. On November 3, he stated that hostilities could end within the next few months.
Sheitelman analyzed the Belarusian dictator’s previous statements and noted that similar promises had been made even before the full-scale invasion began. Specifically, on February 6, 2022, Lukashenko claimed that a possible Russian war against Ukraine would last no more than three to four days.
In March of that same year, he spoke of a swift end to the invasion, and in May, he asserted that the U.S. and the U.K. could halt the fighting within a week. Similar predictions were repeated in 2023, 2025, and 2026.
He said it nine times – and not once did it come true. But on one occasion, Lukashenko made a prediction that came true exactly as he said. In October 2024, he stated that the war would not end in 2024. And indeed, it didn’t
According to the political strategist’s calculations, of the ten predictions by Lukashenko examined, only the one in which he denied the possibility of a quick end to the war came true. The rest of his statements about an imminent peace did not correspond to subsequent developments.
Sheitelman considers the actual situation on the front lines to be far more important. As of November 4, the full-scale invasion had been ongoing for 1,715 days, and the Russian army’s daily casualties, according to Ukrainian data he cited, stood at approximately 2,180 servicemen.
Total Russian losses were approaching 1.6 million people. At the same time, the Ukrainian military continued to strike targets on Russian territory, particularly its industrial and logistical infrastructure.
Ukrainian strikes are crippling Russian oil refining
On November 4, news broke of a fire at the Ozon warehouse complex in Adygeysk, Russia. Reports indicated a major blaze and a partial collapse of the building’s roof.
Sheitelman noted that fires had previously occurred at other facilities belonging to this company in Russia. Among them, he mentioned warehouses in Omsk, Saratov, Taganrog in the Rostov region, and the Kolpino district of St. Petersburg.
However, strikes against oil refineries remain far more significant for the Russian economy. Ukrainian attacks in recent days have targeted several facilities at once that support the production of fuel and other petroleum products.
According to an assessment by Dnipro OSINT analysts cited by Sheitelman, a significant portion of Russia’s oil refining capacity was taken out of commission during four days of Ukrainian strikes.
“During the four days of strikes on oil refineries that we carried out before the U.S. election, 16% of Russia’s oil refining capacity was put out of commission. Sixteen percent of primary and secondary oil refining capacity,”
This refers to equipment necessary for various stages of raw material processing. Damage to such facilities can affect the production of gasoline, diesel, and other types of fuel, as well as the ability of enterprises to quickly resume operations.
Sheitelman also mentioned the strike on the military airfield in Gvardeyskoye. Footage released showed fire and smoke, but the specific results of the attack, he said, remained unclear.
The political strategist views the continuation of Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure as a key factor in weakening the Kremlin’s ability to wage war. At the same time, Russian aggression poses increasing risks not only to Ukraine but also to other European countries.
The Kaliningrad Region Could Become a Source of a New Threat
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reported that a potential provocation near the border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Oblast had been prevented. Shortly after midnight, Polish border guards noticed suspicious activity near the town of Sempol in the Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship.
According to the Polish side, people carrying flashlights were near the border. The Border Guard promptly deployed the necessary forces, after which the suspicious individuals were unable to cross into Polish territory.
The incident occurred after NATO allies were warned of a possible sabotage attempt or provocation on the Polish-Russian border in early November. As a result, Warsaw had already stepped up security along that section of the border.
Sheitelman linked this incident to the broader risks of Russian aggression against Europe. He recalled the position of former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who had previously expressed concern about the possibility of a future war between Russia and European states.
“I, too, believe that if Putin survives, this war is absolutely inevitable. And such actions at the border, unfortunately, show where we are gradually heading,”
He paid particular attention to the geographical location of the Kaliningrad Oblast. The Russian enclave is located between Poland and Lithuania, has access to the Baltic Sea, and hosts one of the main bases of Russia’s Baltic Fleet in Baltiysk.
From this region, Russian troops could potentially threaten the land territories of Poland and Lithuania. Its naval capabilities also raise concerns about threats to the Polish ports of Gdańsk, Gdynia, and Sopot, the Lithuanian port of Klaipėda, and the Swedish island of Gotland.
The political strategist drew attention to repeated statements by Vladimir Putin, Sergey Lavrov, and other Russian officials regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons in response to a threat to the Kaliningrad region.
In his view, such threats may serve a preventive purpose: to deter NATO in advance from responding in the event of new Russian aggression.
“They say they’ll launch a nuclear strike if Europe invades the Kaliningrad region. And why are they saying this? I think that’s exactly where they’re planning an attack on Europe – on Poland or Lithuania,”
He also drew attention to statements by NATO military commanders regarding a possible response in the event of a Russian attack. In particular, General Alexus Grinkevich spoke of the need to strike enemy forces if Russia launches an attack against Alliance countries.
In such a scenario, according to estimates cited by Sheitelman, military facilities in the Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions, Russian forces in Belarus, as well as ships and airfields involved in an offensive operation could become targets.
The political strategist suggested that the Kremlin is aware of the risk of such a response and is using nuclear threats in an attempt to limit NATO’s freedom of action. That is precisely why, in his view, further incidents near the borders of Poland and Lithuania could have far more serious consequences than isolated border provocations.
Sheitelman on Trump’s defeat: watch the video
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter