"The Trump administration is at a loss": An interview with Oleksandra Filipenko on the attacks against Zelenskyy and the US elections

In an exclusive interview with Channel 24, political analyst Oleksandra Filipenko analyzed Donald Trump’s latest controversial statements regarding Ukraine, explained why the U.S. leader is accusing Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and how this might be linked to his falling approval ratings in the U.S.

Separately in the interview, they discussed the topic of Lukoil’s foreign assets, a possible Kremlin barter deal involving frozen Russian funds, as well as the telling silence of J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio amid new scandals in the U.S.

Why did Trump suddenly “lash out” at Zelenskyy?

Donald Trump accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine striking Russian oil refineries and suggested that he would negotiate peace “directly with Putin.” In effect, he also admitted that the U.S. is not providing Ukraine with intelligence. Why did Trump go this far? Why is he, in effect, being accused of single-handedly acting as a sponsor of Putin’s terrorism?

Of course, we could start speculating and delving into conspiracy theories, jumping to conclusions right away, or immediately thinking about the business interests of Donald Trump’s family.

But let’s start with what we see right before our eyes. Here we see all these Donald Trump's statements, we see all these stories claiming that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to blame.

Unfortunately, I immediately have to explain to my American colleagues – with whom I had a long discussion just yesterday – why Volodymyr Zelenskyy cannot quickly end the war. I have to explain that if Volodymyr Zelenskyy were to simply self-destruct, surrender all of Ukraine, vanish into thin air, and so on – well, that’s how he could, of course, end the war.

He could end it right now by surrendering the territories that Russia doesn’t control, giving up all capabilities, demilitarizing, and handing over weapons. There you go – yes, of course, he could do that.

And then we would have to expect a new Russian attack on Ukraine immediately – literally.

People also ask me: “But what about the territories – aren’t there really very few left?” My phone is now constantly filled with screenshots showing how much Russia controls and how much it doesn’t, because I have to spell it out step by step even to those colleagues of mine who, it would seem, are very well-informed about everything that’s happening and know it all perfectly well.

I won’t even mention the American voters this is aimed at. These are the American voters all these statements are aimed at.

And Newsmax (the channel where Trump gave an interview accusing Zelenskyy, Channel 24) – indeed, this is a channel run by very close friends. It’s important to emphasize this because, as a separate issue, a bloc is forming within the Republican Party to oppose Trump. This is a man who supports the right wing of the Republican Party. Katie Zacharia, Donald Trump’s current press secretary, used to work at this very channel.

She comes from there, and so do the conspiracy theories from there. And all these statements, all these interviews with Donald Trump, are aimed at certain people in certain U.S. states who aren’t paying very close attention to what’s going on.

But in reality, there’s another way to end the war: let Russia withdraw from Ukrainian territory, pull out all its troops, and the war will end immediately. Putin, too, could end it perfectly well.

That’s the reality of the situation, unfortunately, and I have to acknowledge it. And, unfortunately – especially after my recent conversations with colleagues – I can’t guarantee that this (Trump’s statements – Channel 24) won’t influence American voters. Most likely, unfortunately, it will have an effect.

“Trump Accuses Zelenskyy and Seeks to Gain an Advantage”: Watch the Video

Who are these statements by the U.S. president aimed at?

I always explain to those who don’t understand – or pretend not to understand – that it’s all logical: if Ukraine stops firing, the killings don’t stop. If Russia stops firing, the killings stop the very same second, and that’s it. It’s obvious.

Exactly. And why are articles suddenly appearing in the New York Times about internal problems in Ukraine? These are internal Ukrainian issues. Why discuss Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s personal qualities right now? It has nothing to do with the war.

Hitler didn’t become a good person just because Stalin was executing people and carrying out repressions throughout the Soviet Union in the 1930s. I mean, these things are impossible to reconcile. There’s the aggressor, and there’s the one who was attacked.

This is an internal matter. Any questions you have – or might have – for the Ukrainian leadership, please ask them. Just not from the pages of *The Atlantic*, not from the pages of *The New York Times*, not from someone who isn’t in Ukraine. That’s not up for discussion. The situation is completely different now. It’s impossible to talk about it in absolute terms.

I mean, of course, there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But when it comes to the people this is aimed at, it can actually influence public opinion; it can really make Americans think: “Yes, Donald Trump cares about us, about our farmers and ranchers, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy is bad because he’s attacking Russian oil refineries.” All of this is aimed at people who aren’t really immersed in the serious issues related to Ukraine.

And, on the one hand, it gives them the right perspective on what all the polls are saying: here’s a country that’s been attacked, here’s a country that’s defending itself. Ukraine is defending itself; we need to support Ukraine. That’s it. There’s an aggressor; there’s a country that keeps bombing Ukrainian cities. That’s Russia – that’s all.

At the same time, when Donald Trump says, “Volodymyr Zelenskyy could have ended this war a long time ago,” people suddenly start asking, “What does he mean by that? How is that possible?” For Donald Trump, all of this is currently tied to the election.

And what saddens me even more is that within the Republican Party, there are both Democrats and Republicans – there are forces that want to oppose this, that want to oppose the diesel deal with Russia. Politicians, Republicans, are speaking out about this.

But here’s the big “but.” What can these Republican politicians actually do? They speak out, they take a strong stance, they write letters, and so on. But they aren’t in Washington – because ahead of the election, they’re back in their home states meeting with voters.

In other words, to stop Donald Trump, you need to vote for a bill or to declare that his decision violates one law or another. The next vote is on November 9. That’s when they’ll convene.

Can they be convened on an emergency basis? Yes, they can. Who should do this? House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Trump supporter. And this is the very same Mike Johnson we’ve discussed many times – the one who, held up the bill to provide aid to Ukraine, served under Joe Biden for half a year. Mike Johnson deliberately didn’t bring him up for a vote.

And now this person is going to specifically convene a session of Congress to stand up to Trump? Never in a million years. What’s in it for him? That, too, should be the subject of a separate investigation by the Democrats.

And regarding the articles that are popping up, I’d really like to know more details – who’s behind them and how they’re being written – or why is Yulia Mendel appearing on Tucker Carlson’s show from morning till night? What’s going on here?

All of this ties into the question of whether investigations are necessary. And, of course, it all raises very serious questions, because it plays right into the hands of certain forces, so to speak.

And, by the way – though I can’t confirm this, of course – a lot has been written about how the bots supporting the cessation of aid to Ukraine somehow disappeared for a while, but now they’ve supposedly returned, they say. But there was a moment when this somehow coincided – you know, by chance – with the attacks on “Yandex.”

But in any case, whatever the situation may be, again, based on what we have, based on what we know, based on what we see, I can’t guarantee that all these statements by Trump won’t have an effect on Americans. It’s entirely possible they’ll have the effect he wants, because this is an agricultural issue.

Remember, Donald Trump promised $5,000 to everyone if the Republicans won? Journalists surveyed people standing in lines wearing MAGA caps and Trump T-shirts.

Journalists approached them and asked, “Do you believe that Donald Trump will send you $5,000 if the Republicans win?” And these people – Trump’s fans – said, “No, we don’t believe it. But we’re so glad that Donald Trump is thinking about this. He’s thinking about us; he wants to.”

There’s also the story about diesel, because supposedly “Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to blame.” Okay, there are no strikes on oil refineries. Does that lower prices? It doesn’t lower prices. “But it’s so nice that Donald Trump is thinking about the people.” That’s the approach.

How is Trump hurting himself on the eve of the election?

Right now, Trump is touring the states giving speeches. How true is it that his tour is actually a bit of a flop? Because I read that not everyone showed up in Ohio. And in the traditionally Republican state of Texas, they’re saying he’s a major corrupt official.

That’s why I’m saying there are these sudden shifts, like “Volodymyr Zelenskyy is to blame, and we need to strike a deal with Russia right now.” It’s to show how Donald Trump cares about everyone and how everyone obeys him.

And all of this, it seems to me, is linked to low approval ratings and the fact that they don’t know what to do right now. Now they’ve had to put out a scandal related to the execution of a former U.S. servicemember who shot and killed thirteen people in 2009.

Because the Trump administration, represented by Pete Hagseth, proposedto broadcast a human execution live. Yes, he shot and killed thirteen of his fellow service members while shouting. Trump initially allowed the execution to be broadcast, but then had to cancel it. It’s a PR disaster.

Although most Americans support the death penalty if a person is convicted of murder with aggravating circumstances, broadcasting it – even for a terrorist-related murder like this – is still horrific; it’s very bad.

In other words, all the actions being taken right now are actually making the situation worse and eroding support for the Trump administration.

And that’s why we’re seeing these hysterical reactions and speeches. Right now, Donald Trump has gone off to give a speech. To be fair, just as the polls have deceived us in the past, they’re deceiving us now, and they’ll continue to deceive us.

Of course, there will be many mistakes; there are always many factors at play. Why do people, for example, say, “We don’t know who we’re going to vote for. We haven’t made up our minds yet,” even though they made up their minds a long time ago. Or in California, there were many polls where people said, “Oh, we’re going to vote for the Democrats,” but in reality, they went and voted for the Republicans.

The same thing happened in Texas – on the contrary, they said, “Yes, yes, we’re for the Republicans,” but voted for the Democrats. This happens in polls; it’s a reality. But we now understand that the Trump administration is also taking action – these hysterical moves – based on those very same polls, which show low approval ratings for the Republican Party and for Donald Trump.

And that’s why we’re seeing all of this unfold right now – Trump needs to shift the blame onto someone. There he is, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, somewhere far away, “to blame for everything.”

Why is Donald Trump talking about this? Why does he go on from morning till night about the need for elections (in Ukraine – Channel 24) and then immediately, instantly, shift the topic to talk about how the Pacific Ocean should be renamed the Donald Trump Ocean? Because this is an election issue; it’s in the DNA of the American people.

But what do the claims that “Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a dictator without elections” actually mean? What does “there were no elections” mean? According to Ukrainian law, that’s impossible. And I won’t even get into the issue of ensuring election security.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy offered a “solution”: “Please ensure there are no attacks on Ukraine for 60 days, and then we will, of course, hold elections – we are interested in holding elections.”

What game is the Kremlin playing with the U.S. regarding “Lukoil”?

Trump, realizing the difficult situation awaiting him, is trying to jump on the last car of this train to reach an agreement with Putin regarding “Lukoil.” Meanwhile, some in the American political establishment are demanding sanctions against Russia. Additionally, regarding the elections. You previously said that the system of checks and balances in the U.S. would prevent Trump from rigging the election, but he could still lead people to the Capitol again, as he did before. Is that realistic?

Rigging the results is very, very difficult. On the contrary, state secretaries are now calling on Americans to come as observers – especially in states like Georgia and South Carolina, which are Republican states.

And they, on the contrary, are saying: “Please come as observers; we’re waiting for everyone to ensure transparency.” Of course, you can’t take pictures when the ballots are being opened, but it’s important to show that everything is proceeding in accordance with the law and so on.

Donald Trump is now fighting tooth and nail to hold on to at least the Senate. Because there are all these investigations that could lead to all sorts of interesting conclusions.

We’ve also discussed this “Lukoil” deal. First of all, here, according to economists specializing in the Russian economy, there’s a theory that the Russian side long ago wrote off its foreign assets, its frozen assets, and all of that, realizing they’d be confiscated.

And the goal now isn’t to get them back, but to sell them, so to speak, for a higher price. They’ve given up on the money itself, on the funds, but they’re now trying to dispose of it – to sell or transfer it – as profitably as possible.

We were just discussing Lukoil with you, and at one point we talked about Todd Boeli, a man who had never been involved in oil and gas, but for some reason suddenly decided to “kick open the door” to the world of oil and gas, to get involved in such a risky – let’s put it that way – deal, and to lead a group of people who will be buying Lukoil’s assets abroad. Boeli invested $2 million in Donald Trump’s election campaigns.

At the time, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the surname sounded familiar to me. And then I remembered March 2022. Back then, Abramovich announced that he would donate all the proceeds from the sale of “Chelsea” to the victims of the war in Ukraine. And who was the buyer of the soccer club’s assets? Boeli.

But the money wasn’t transferred to Ukraine because Abramovich’s lawyers are now arguing that this promise was made before the sanctions were imposed, meaning it isn’t legally binding. He didn’t sign any documents, and so on. So the money is currently frozen. That’s why the Democrats have plenty of opportunities to investigate.

Why have Rubio and Vance “gone quiet”?

Meanwhile, J.D. Vance has simply vanished and isn’t commenting on anything, while Marco Rubio is on a tour of various countries. It seems to me that everyone realizes that “the old man has lost his mind” and is avoiding this story.

J.D. Vance is in a very advantageous position right now – his wife recently gave birth to their fourth child. He says, “I need to be with my family, I need to be there for my wife, I need to help her. I need to be there.” Indeed, good for him. Very good, absolutely wonderful. From a woman’s perspective, this is wonderful – I applaud J.D. Vance.

However, of course, he’s using this for political gain. And who’s going to judge him? Who’s going to throw a stone at J.D. Vance, who wants to be there for his wife? Of course, no one. It’s very convenient.

As for Marco Rubio, he’s currently in Uzbekistan, India, and so on. Indeed, “it’s the perfect time” for this. It’s a telling silence.

The only thing worth mentioning here is that Politico and Bloomberg reported that Marco Rubio has repeatedly said over the past few months that the position of Secretary of State has become his dream job, and that he is also a national security advisor.

He has indeed been a high-ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many, many years. Indeed, all of this is very important, without a doubt. And he has been involved in foreign policy. In other words, he finds it interesting; he enjoys it. It’s likely that he truly derives satisfaction from it.

And here’s the question: will he give all that up now, if this really is his dream job and he’ll have to go up against Vance and take a beating from Trump? He also has an enemy in the form of Elon Musk.

Elon Musk is this massive, financially secure, richest man in the world. And he was the one who previously lobbied against Marco Rubio’s nomination. So the question is: what will Marco Rubio be up against in 2028?

Perhaps his ambition to become U.S. president will prevail. He’s currently waiting for the midterm election results to see whether the MAGA movement remains strong or not. If not, he’ll probably give it a shot.

Or, on the contrary, he might say, “I’ll serve out my term as Secretary of State, and in 2032, I’ll run.” That’s entirely possible.

With Vance, too, it’s unclear what will happen now. Perhaps they’ll all realize that a Democrat will definitely win in 2028. And why waste their political capital then? Better to try later.

They’re very young people, especially by American political standards. And, unfortunately, once again we have to understand that they’re thinking first and foremost about themselves and their own political gain.