The Republicans’ defeat in the U.S. midterm congressional elections significantly alters Donald Trump’s political situation. The Democrats are gaining new opportunities to influence White House decisions, but before the new Congress takes office, the U.S. president may still try to implement his foreign policy plans.
In an interview with 24 Channel, U.S. public and political figure Yuri Rashkin explained why the next two months could be particularly dangerous for Ukraine and how Trump might make use of the time remaining before the political balance in Washington shifts. He also discussed the rift among Republicans, possible U.S. agreements with Russia and China, and the prospects for resuming large-scale U.S. aid to Ukraine.
popular videos
Why the Republicans’ defeat was a blow to Trump
The American media are calling the election results a historic defeat for Donald Trump. Democrats are winning even in traditionally Republican states, notably Kansas. What was the main reason for such a crushing defeat?
We are already seeing people begin to distance themselves from Trump. In fact, his vice president, J.D. Vance, was the first to do so, citing the war with Iran as one of the reasons for the defeat.
But this raises a simple question: Who started this war? After all, it was a decision made by Donald Trump’s administration. And when the vice president cites the war as the cause of the electoral disaster, he is effectively shifting the blame onto the president.
It even reminds me of the Shakespearean story of Julius Caesar and Brutus. Only now we are witnessing a similar political drama within the U.S. administration.
J.D. Vance is concerned about his own future. And for the Republican Party, the 2028 presidential election is already becoming the top priority.
To stand a chance in that race, Republicans need to gradually distance themselves from Trump. The politician who just yesterday was helping them win may now be dragging the entire party down.
Trump has become a hot potato for them – one they need to get rid of as quickly as possible. After all, the worst thing that can happen to a candidate is to be associated with an extremely unpopular politician.
Over the past two years, Americans have seen the consequences of Trump’s decisions. He promised to restore economic prosperity, lower prices, and make life more affordable for people, but instead, voters were faced with a war in Iran and rising gas prices.
And this is one of the main reasons the Republican Party suffered such a blow. People didn’t just vote for specific candidates; they also expressed their views on the president’s policies.
Why Trump Is Dangerous After Losing His Majority
Trump is already being called a lame duck. But won’t he now become even more dangerous because of his own frustration and desire to prove that he remains influential?
Yes, he certainly could. Trump is already reminding everyone that he is still the president of the United States.
In principle, this is not a new situation in American politics. After a serious defeat in midterm elections, presidents often try to demonstrate that they retain power and can set the political agenda.
Think of Bill Clinton. He was elected in 1992, and just two years later, the Democrats suffered a heavy defeat in the congressional elections. Clinton had to convince Americans that the president remained an important political player.
However, two years later, he won the presidential election again.
With Trump, the situation is different. He is already in his second presidential term and cannot simply prepare for another reelection.
That’s why I view his statements that he is still president primarily as an attempt to intimidate his opponents and force them to take his position seriously.
Who might he be trying to intimidate – his own political opponents, Europe, or Ukraine? And why have American voters changed their attitude toward him so drastically?
Trump always has certain obligations to the people on whom he depends. But American voters are primarily concerned with their own wallets.
He promised economic prosperity and spoke of huge payments to citizens. In particular, there were promises of $5,000 that Americans could supposedly receive. I very much doubt that this money will actually be paid out.
Instead, people are paying more at the gas station every day.
I specifically checked the prices. On February 28, a gallon of gas cost $2.39, and the day before our conversation – it was already $4.39.
That’s a difference of two dollars per gallon. And Americans are feeling that difference directly in their wallets.
Oil companies may be making more money. But that doesn’t make things any easier for the average American.
Trump promised that after he returned to office, everything would become cheaper. His voters expected lower prices for gas, groceries, eggs, and other goods. But now they’re seeing a completely different picture.
It was gas prices, in my opinion, that played a decisive role in his defeat. His political base voted in anticipation of economic benefits that never materialized.
At the same time, many Americans gave Trump a second chance two years ago. Some voters weren’t thrilled with him, but they had to choose between him and Kamala Harris.
Now, however, Trump is being judged by the actual results of his presidency. And for many people, those results have been a disappointment.
The president is trying to compensate for his loss of influence by threatening to veto legislation. But there’s an important point here: Congress can override a presidential veto with sufficient support from lawmakers.
And every such vote will be a test for Republicans. Are they ready to continue supporting an unpopular president, or will they start protecting their own political future?
The lower Trump’s approval rating gets, the more Republicans may distance themselves from him. And this will gradually weaken even the levers of influence he still retains.
Will Republicans begin to oppose the president?
People close to the Republicans are already saying that Trump bears responsibility for the defeat. Could they start blocking his decisions to safeguard their own political prospects?
Here, we need to distinguish between two categories of people: politicians elected by the public and officials in the presidential administration.
Senators, members of Congress, and governors are forced to think about future elections. It is important for them to remain popular; otherwise, they will lose their positions.
Ministers, advisors, and other administration officials, on the other hand, are largely personally dependent on Trump. For many of them, the end of his presidency will also mean the end of their own political careers.
Therefore, serious conflicts may arise between these groups over the next two years.
I expect Trump to try to use all the government institutions at his disposal to resist his political opponents. These could include federal law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies, and the Pentagon.
At the same time, the new majority in Congress will be able to conduct investigations, hold hearings, and demand explanations from administration officials.
Trump will most likely try to obstruct these processes. He may pressure officials not to testify and promise them pardons should they face legal problems.
This will be a serious confrontation within the U.S. government. But for Ukraine, there is one important aspect to it.
The more time Trump spends fighting Congress and defending his inner circle, the fewer opportunities he will have to support Putin’s policies.
But Congress can cut funding to the Pentagon and other agencies. To what extent will this tie Trump’s hands?
Yes, this is one of the key mechanisms. However, the decisive factor will be how the Republicans themselves behave.
It’s fairly easy for Democrats to vote against an unpopular president from the other party. Republicans, on the other hand, will have to choose between loyalty to Trump and their own constituents.
Previously, they feared his supporters, since Trump could back another candidate against them in the party primaries.
But if Trump’s own candidates start losing, that fear will gradually fade. Then even politicians who previously did his every bidding may become much more independent.
The only question is whether today’s Republicans are ready for such behavior.
For years, Trump has supported people who have shown personal loyalty to him. Among such politicians is Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.
But now, even traditionally Republican states do not seem as unshakable as they once were.
In Mississippi, the Democrats achieved unexpectedly strong results. And this is a state where Republicans have historically held an extremely strong position.
I believe one of the reasons is the increased engagement of African American voters.
Republicans tried to redraw district boundaries to reduce the Democrats’ chances and weaken the representation of the African American population. But as a result, this motivated even more people to turn out to vote.
In some districts, Democrats won despite the redistricting changes.
And this shows that Trump miscalculated not only on economic policy but also in his attempts to alter the electoral system in favor of his party.
It is also significant how diverse the coalition of Democratic voters has become.
This election produced many historic results: women and representatives of various ethnic and religious communities were elected to offices they had never held before.
Republicans may scoff at the fact that Democrats are celebrating this diversity. But I see something entirely different in it.
Different groups within American society were able to unite around a common political goal. And it was precisely thanks to this coalition that a powerful wave of democracy emerged.
For Ukrainians, this is a familiar story. When people with different views unite in the face of a common threat, they are capable of achieving results that previously seemed impossible.
The Two Most Dangerous Months for Ukraine
What will change now for Ukraine and Russia? Will Putin lose the opportunity to negotiate with Trump on terms favorable to himself?
I foresee a very dangerous period ahead. Over the next two months, Trump, in my opinion, will do everything in his power to force Ukraine to capitulate.
And he will do so primarily by easing restrictions on Putin.
The Russian dictator will have the opportunity to intensify his attacks on Ukraine, taking advantage of the time before the new U.S. Congress begins its full-fledged work.
I suspect that the Kremlin will try to deploy the maximum available forces during this period. Moreover, the sooner, the better for Trump, who wants to achieve results before he loses some of his political leverage.
The U.S. president is eager to portray himself as a peacemaker. He would like to arrive at an international summit with an agreement to end the war and showcase his own diplomatic success.
But I fear that the terms being discussed would amount to Ukraine’s capitulation to Russia.
For Trump, what matters is how his presidency will go down in history. He wants to be remembered as the man who ended a major war.
However, in such a situation, what matters most may not be the fairness of the agreements, but the very fact that they were signed.
This is especially dangerous for Ukrainians, who live under Russian shelling every day.
I speak with people in Ukraine and hear that Kyiv is once again facing problems with electricity, water, and other utilities. And this is even before the real winter cold sets in.
I am convinced that Ukraine is capable of holding out. But we must not forget the price people are paying for every day of the war.
That is why I consider the next two months to be extremely challenging. Putin may try to use them to intensify military pressure, while Trump may try to push for a negotiation scenario favorable to the Kremlin.
But how can Trump ease restrictions on Putin if the Republicans have already suffered a defeat and some politicians are distancing themselves from the president? Where will he find support?
I see two main approaches that, in my opinion, Trump is trying to take in his dealings with Putin.
The first is putting pressure on Ukraine to force it to agree to the Kremlin’s terms. I believe Trump is doing everything he can within his authority to achieve this.
But we must take into account that this pressure has been going on for quite some time and has not yet yielded the desired result. Ukraine has not agreed to capitulate.
The second approach is Russia’s return to international politics and economic cooperation with the West.
And here, Trump has significantly more options.
We are seeing attempts to involve Russian representatives in international meetings, discuss Russia’s participation in various organizations, and reestablish contacts with its leadership.
Specifically, this involves attempts to bring Russian officials – including Sergey Lavrov – back to international forums where their presence was previously unwelcome.
In my opinion, Trump is interested in such agreements not only for political reasons. I suspect he is also interested in opportunities for personal financial gain.
When a president is in his first term, he often thinks about re-election. In a second term, the question arises of what will remain after his presidency ends.
For many presidents, this means striving to achieve significant international agreements or to leave a political legacy.
But in Trump’s case, I see, above all, an interest in the financial opportunities that may arise from his political power.
That is precisely why he may try to push through economic agreements with Russia while he still has sufficient authority to do so.
However, once the new Congress takes office, it will become much more difficult to carry out such plans.
Why Russian Diesel Might Not Make It to the U.S.
But American politicians and energy industry representatives are already speaking out against the supply of Russian diesel. The governor of New Jersey has warned of possible sanctions against companies that unload such ships. How will Trump be able to push through agreements with the Kremlin in the face of such opposition?
He will try to strike deals wherever he has the opportunity to do so.
I am very pleased with the stance taken by representatives of U.S. states who oppose Russian shipments. They can use available legal mechanisms to prevent such agreements from being implemented.
Lawmakers also play an important role.
For example, Senator Richard Blumenthal and Congressman Jamie Raskin have drawn attention to potential legal violations in transactions involving Russian goods.
Such warnings force companies and their executives to consider the legal consequences of cooperating with Russia.
I am confident that these efforts will yield results. After all, even if the Trump administration supports a particular deal, that does not mean that all American companies are willing to participate in it.
At the same time, the president will seek other options for economic cooperation.
We’ve already heard about the case involving the Russian company Novatek and its activities related to Alaska. In my opinion, such cases show that the administration may try to circumvent political and economic obstacles.
But this won’t work everywhere.
As for the diesel deal, I consider it primarily a Kremlin initiative designed to help Russia generate additional revenue.
It was important for Putin to at least partially restore economic ties with the U.S. and set a precedent that would allow for negotiations on new shipments.
However, following the election results, the political significance of this story has largely disappeared.
The attempt to open the American market to Russian energy resources has met with resistance. Now the Kremlin and the Trump administration will have to look for other avenues.
I am glad that there are politicians and business leaders in the United States who are prepared to oppose such agreements.
However, I do not think that Trump and Putin’s attempts will stop there. They will continue to try to reach agreements wherever opportunities remain.
China may take advantage of Trump and Putin’s weakness
Putin may not attend the G20 summit in Miami, although Trump is interested in his return to international politics. At the same time, Xi Jinping is ready for new engagements with the U.S. and Russia. Can China capitalize on the weakened positions of both leaders?
This is a very interesting situation. We have discussed at length the possibility of a meeting between the three leaders, who would like to negotiate the future world order among themselves.
China traditionally takes a long-term view. But that doesn’t mean Beijing can’t take advantage of short-term political circumstances.
I found it interesting that Xi Jinping publicly agreed to new contacts following the Republicans’ massive defeat in the U.S. election.
I suspect that the Chinese leadership saw an opportune moment for negotiations.
Trump has just suffered a serious political blow. He desperately needs an opportunity to address the American people and declare that he has secured a major international agreement.
He would like to present this as a personal victory that would at least partially offset his party’s defeat.
And in Beijing, in my opinion, they understand this very well.
Right now, China may try to extract more concessions from Trump than it could under different political circumstances.
However, it is important to distinguish between decisions the U.S. president can make on his own and those that require congressional approval.
Following the change in the congressional majority, such constraints may become significantly more pronounced.
Putin, too, is approaching potential negotiations from a position of weakness.
Russia continues its war against Ukraine, is suffering losses, and is unable to achieve its stated military objectives. At the same time, the Kremlin is trying to regain its international influence.
Trump also appears significantly weaker after the election than he had expected.
And China has its own interests, particularly regarding Taiwan, and may exploit the disagreements among other nations to secure more favorable terms.
Xi Jinping finds himself in a situation where two potential partners are interested in reaching agreements but do not have as strong a position as they would like.
But there is another important point: Trump needs quick results.
He has two years left in office, and once the Democrats take control of Congress, his ability to push through controversial decisions may be limited.
We cannot rule out new investigations, which would create additional political difficulties for the president, potentially leading to attempts to initiate impeachment proceedings.
Therefore, in my opinion, Trump will try to reach an agreement quickly, without worrying too much about the long-term consequences for the Republican Party.
He will be interested in demonstrating success as quickly as possible and reaping the benefits of the agreements.
It is precisely this weakness that China may try to exploit.
The new Congress may restore direct aid to Ukraine
After January 3, when the new Congress begins its work, can Ukraine count not only on purchasing American weapons with European funds but also on the resumption of direct U.S. aid? Perhaps even the supply of offensive weapons?
I think such opportunities will arise.
It’s worth recalling a legislative initiative that was previously pushed in the House of Representatives, bypassing Speaker Mike Johnson.
It concerned direct financial aid to Ukraine – without being tied to tariffs, the war with Iran, or other issues that were later added to U.S. legislative initiatives.
In my opinion, this idea was gradually transformed into an entirely different legislative mechanism linked to Senator Lindsey Graham’s initiatives.
But I believe it is possible to return to the original proposal.
The new Senate could reconsider the relevant bill and try to ensure its passage.
It is important, however, that the bill provide for specific assistance to Ukraine rather than leaving everything to the president’s discretion.
After all, we have already seen how Trump can use his own powers to delay or limit military support.
Therefore, lawmakers may try to create a mechanism that would compel the administration to implement specific decisions.
Ukraine remains a key issue for U.S. foreign policy. This is especially true as Russian attacks continue and Ukrainian cities need protection.
I think there will be a growing understanding in Congress of the need to act more quickly.
But we shouldn’t expect Trump to quietly accept new laws.
He will try to drag out the process, use his veto power, and seek legal avenues to block decisions.
I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that some issues will be heard in the courts, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court.
This means that even with a Congress favorable to Ukraine, the fight for actual arms deliveries will continue.
The votes of Republicans who previously supported aid to Ukraine but remained members of Trump’s party will be particularly important.
Who Will Replace Ukraine’s Supporters in Congress
In the election, some Republicans who supported Ukraine lost their seats. Will the new lawmakers be able to make up for their absence?
This is a very important question, because the new Congress cannot be assessed solely by the number of Democrats and Republicans.
We need to look at specific individuals and their positions.
For example, I’m very glad that Victoria Spartz lost the election.
For many people who worked to support Ukraine, her stance was particularly painful. After all, Spartz herself is from Ukraine, yet she later began to support decisions that I consider anti-Ukrainian.
She explained her actions as a fight against corruption and criticism of the Ukrainian leadership. But to me, her political stance increasingly aligned with that of Trump’s closest supporters.
At the same time, there are losses that I regret.
As far as I understand, Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick also lost his election. And this is a regrettable outcome for those who support Ukraine.
Fitzpatrick was one of the few Republicans who, while remaining in the party, regularly demonstrated a willingness to disagree with the president.
In about 70% of votes, he supported Trump’s position. But in other cases, he was able to act independently, particularly on issues important to Ukraine.
In my opinion, this made him one of the most responsible members of the Republican Party.
Especially when compared to politicians who began openly criticizing Trump only after announcing the end of their own careers.
For example, Don Bacon and Tom Tillis became much bolder in their statements after they decided not to run for re-election.
That’s why I’m grateful to Fitzpatrick for his stance, even though the election results turned out to be unfavorable for him.
But now the Democrats will have significantly more influence in Congress. And this partly changes the weight of individual Republicans’ votes.
Their support will still be needed to override a presidential veto. However, Democrats will have more opportunities to shape the political agenda on their own.
I expect that American politicians will begin to speak out more actively in support of Ukraine, propose new legislative initiatives, and demand concrete decisions from the administration.
At the same time, public statements will not automatically mean the delivery of weapons. The struggle to ensure that Congress’s decisions are actually implemented will continue, even if Trump tries to obstruct them.
Trump will try to force Ukraine to capitulate within two months: watch the video
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter