Trump Could Become Even More Dangerous for Ukraine: An Interview with Uriel Epstein on the US Elections

Donald Trump is increasingly showing support for Vladimir Putin, while his attitude toward Volodymyr Zelenskyy is raising questions even in the U.S. Against this backdrop, American public opinion is shifting, and the future of support for Ukraine depends not only on the White House.

Uriel Epstein, executive director of the nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative, explained in an exclusive interview with 24 Channel why Trump, in his opinion, views Zelenskyy as a personal enemy and willingly plays the role of “peacemaker” for Putin. He also assessed how the U.S. elections might affect aid to Ukraine, whether Congress is capable of reining in the president, what the prospects are for Marco Rubio, and how likely a major summit involving the U.S., Russia, and China is.

How do Americans view Trump’s “peacemaking”?

In your opinion, the main goal of the peace talks right now is not to reach specific agreements, but to maintain the process itself, which is becoming yet another smokescreen for Putin to drag out the war. Do Americans see Trump as a peacemaker who makes concessions to Putin but fails to solve the problem?

It depends on which Americans you ask. If we’re talking about MAGA supporters or those who advocate for U.S. isolationism, they may support this position. And this includes not only radical right-wing Republicans but also some on the far left. For example, Hasan Piker, one of the most popular left-wing commentators, also agrees with Trump on this issue and supports Putin.

About half a year ago, he spoke at Yale University, where I graduated, and stated that the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is exactly what Putin used to say. Unfortunately, there are people like this in America on both the left and the right. But most Americans disagree with this view.

According to polls, more than 60% of Americans support Ukraine, while perhaps only about 3% support Russia.

According to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, these are precisely the figures. Do Trump and his administration really not take into account the level of support among Americans for Ukraine, rather than for Putin’s dictatorial regime?

It’s hard to understand. On the one hand, we see that Trump is willing to change his mind when his decisions are unpopular. For example, he wanted to publicly execute someone – an Islamist – but when he realized that over 80% of Americans were against it, he changed his mind. Why he’s acting differently on the issue of Ukraine is hard to say.

We can only speculate. I, for one, believe it’s related to Trump's business interests. Putin may be offering him and his family various business deals worth well over a billion dollars. That could be one of the motives.

On the other hand, Trump may have convinced himself of certain things, since he listens to outright nonsense and disinformation. Putin, I think, is very successful at spreading it. For some reason, Trump has decided that Putin isn’t so bad, while Zelenskyy is the worst.

He hates Zelenskyy. And, from the perspective of his own interests, it’s easier for him to support Putin, effectively throwing Ukraine under the bus.

Full interview with Uriel Epstein: watch the video

According to a poll from October 22, 46% of Americans support providing military aid to Ukraine, while slightly more than 30% oppose it. In July, support stood at about 56%. Also, 51% support sharing military intelligence with Ukraine – the very information Trump used to blackmail us again. At the same time, 45% believe Trump is more sympathetic toward Russia, and only 16% toward Ukraine. Another 45% of Americans believe Zelenskyy is more inclined to reach a deal to end the war than Putin. Could these sentiments have influenced the decision to resume intelligence sharing and the full operation of StarShield?

Yes, thank God, America is still a democracy, and there are certain limits on Trump. He cannot decide everything on his own. Not even Elon Musk can. Musk controls Starlink and can change its operating rules, claim that Ukraine is violating them, and impose certain restrictions. Starshield, on the other hand, is controlled by the U.S. government.

But even on this issue, they understand that if they go too far, they’ll run into trouble. It’s not just about public reaction, but also about Congress.

Over the past two weeks, we’ve seen not only Democrats but also some Republicans – including Fitzpatrick, who is running for office and hopes to return to Congress – begin to actively oppose such decisions. If the Democrats gain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, Trump’s options in foreign policy will be significantly limited. The Senate will play a key role here.

There are two possible scenarios after November 3. In one, Trump will become even more aggressive, stir up chaos, and blame Ukraine and Zelenskyy for the Republicans’ defeat. In the other, Ukraine will need to hold out until the election or until January 3, when the composition of Congress changes, and domestic political problems, investigations, and corruption issues will distract Trump. Will he be more dangerous, or will he still be constrained in his decisions regarding Ukraine?

Both. It won’t be easy for Ukraine either way. We mustn’t forget that a wounded tiger is the most dangerous.

After this election, Trump may find himself in exactly that position. On the one hand, he will blame Ukraine and Zelenskyy for everything. He won’t care about the consequences, and he may become even more aggressive. But at the same time, his options will be limited.

If the Democrats gain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and some Republicans realize that Trump is no longer as popular as he once was, then I believe there could be more than 60 votes in the Senate to restrict his actions on the international stage. Therefore, Trump will remain dangerous.

And that means Ukraine and Zelenskyy will have to continue playing by his rules. I believe there’s no point in attacking him too aggressively in public. It won’t help.

We need to continue engaging with him cautiously, but at the same time allow organizations like ours to work from within, counter Trump’s actions, limit his capabilities, and ensure that the U.S. government advances U.S. interests rather than Donald Trump’s personal interests.

It is important to constantly remind senators and members of Congress about Ukraine, in particular by showing photographs of the aftermath of shelling. Through his behavior, Trump is effectively destroying Ukraine’s trust in the U.S., which has been built up over decades. This also applies to our European partners. Doesn’t he understand that a confrontation with allies in Europe could harm not only him personally but also the entire U.S. economy?

But what does he care? To be honest, I think he does understand this. He just doesn’t care. Typical U.S. presidents fight for American interests. And that means supporting allies and countering enemies. That is exactly what is in the United States’ best interest. But Trump doesn’t think that way. He thinks only about what benefits him personally. We’ve talked about this several times already.

Who are his key diplomats today? Witkoff and Kushner. Even Marco Rubio, our Secretary of State, isn’t the top diplomat when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. It’s just absurd. There’s never been anything like this in U.S. history.

You can look back at the presidencies of Nixon or any other president – it’s hard to find a situation where the president’s son-in-law and his close friend Witkoff play such a key role.

And the main question is: to whom are they loyal? Not to the United States, and not to the U.S. government. Their loyalty is directed personally toward Donald Trump. And this is no coincidence – it’s part of the system he has built.

Therefore, Ukraine needs to proceed precisely from this logic. All arguments must be framed from the perspective of what benefits Donald Trump. We need to offer him specific options – A, B, and C. Unfortunately, that’s exactly how diplomacy works today.

Trump’s Personal Dislike of Zelenskyy and Russian Influence

Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, who has recently criticized Elon Musk, stated that he would personally nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize if he achieves a just resolution to the Russian-Ukrainian war. At the same time, according to Sikorski, the level of fairness will be assessed by him and Ukraine. Perhaps Trump will finally start putting pressure on Putin? After all, it is precisely pressure on the aggressor that could be the key to a just end to the war.

Yes, of course, that’s absolutely correct. But no, I don’t think Trump will ever do that. First of all, Sikorsky’s statement shouldn’t be taken too seriously. I don’t think anyone really believes he’ll nominate Trump for the Nobel Prize. They hate each other.

Still, this argument is worth making. Why not? But it’s important to understand that the probability of success is nearly zero – at best, 5 percent. I think Trump has already firmly established his position, and changing it now is nearly impossible.

There are also personal reasons here that are important to understand. In 2019, Trump tried to blackmail Zelenskyy, demanding that he hand over compromising information on Biden. Zelenskyy did what he could, but in the end, he didn’t do it because he couldn’t. However, the situation escalated into a major public scandal in the U.S.

One of our friends, Alexander Vindman, who is also Ukrainian, moved to the U.S., became a lieutenant colonel, and worked at the National Security Council. He testified that Trump had tried to pressure Zelenskyy. This scandal ultimately led to Trump’s first impeachment.

I think it was after this that he decided that Zelenskyy was his personal enemy.

A personal conflict arose between them over the events of 2019.

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, is taking advantage of this; he wrote a post in English calling for Zelenskyy’s elimination. He mentioned both Biden and the funds that the U.S. had transferred to Ukraine and which were allegedly embezzled. He has evidently also picked up on Musk’s arguments. Will Trump react at least to such calls from Medvedev, who has provoked his anger more than once? Surely he won’t want to lose even the last remnants of his authority?

It’s hard to say. Medvedev is such a drunk that everything he accuses Zelenskyy of applies first and foremost to himself. But look at how they’re playing the game. The Russians continue to exploit all the triggers that Trump reacts to in their propaganda and pick up on the corresponding talking points.

The Economist wrote that Trump is making one mistake after another. But the problem is also that he’s surrounded by idiots. I’m talking about Witkoff and Kushner, who are under the influence of Russian propaganda and fall for it. Look at how effectively this works. The Russians are even using people like Medvedev to promote what Trump likes.

So the Russians have a good understanding of which of Trump’s personal weaknesses and interests they can exploit?

Absolutely. Russia has no moral constraints and can offer them anything. I have no doubt that they can offer women and anything else they’re capable of offering. That influences them.

I also have no doubt that the Russians are investing tens of millions of dollars in influence operations through social media. Think about what Witkoff reads in the morning when he opens his computer – Facebook or other platforms. It’s possible to set things up so that he constantly sees Russian propaganda. I have no doubt that the Russians have invested significant funds to ensure precisely this kind of influence.

Ukraine must also fight on this battlefield, no matter how unpleasant it is to talk about it. For example, there is currently no Ukrainian ambassador in Washington. The Ukrainian government needs to send people to the U.S. who know how to work with the Trump administration.

Oksana Markarova is a very intelligent and successful person; I have nothing against her. But she was the right candidate for the Biden administration, not Trump’s. As soon as Trump took office, she should have been recalled and someone else appointed – preferably someone who has no corruption issues and isn’t at risk of being forced to return to Ukraine due to such allegations.

I believe Ukraine needs to play both sides. As they say in English, “good cop, bad cop.”

On the one hand, we need a tough, aggressive, strong representative – perhaps a military officer who has seen combat. Trump respects people like that. And it’s certainly sad that we’re even forced to discuss this, but this man also needs to look the part – be big, tall, and project an air of strength. Trump respects people like that.

On the other hand, a soft approach is needed; we must try to pique his interest and even entice him. An attractive woman who knows how to work with such people could help here.

If you look at Trump’s former press secretary and the one who held that position recently – for just five days – they look exactly the same. Ukraine must also take these characteristics into account.

I believe that Ukraine should do everything possible. But now, living in Washington and leading what I hope is one of the most influential pro-Ukrainian organizations in the U.S., I don’t see Ukraine itself exerting sufficient influence. I don’t see Ukraine as a state having a strong position here, even though there are plenty of opportunities.

Therefore, it is necessary to appoint an ambassador, send a special representative, and work on both fronts: bringing in both a strong, tough person with military experience and someone who knows how to explain things calmly and gently and find common ground. I also think that after the congressional elections, Ukraine will be able to find quite a few allies not only among Democrats but also among Republicans, who will understand that Trump is becoming less popular with each passing day.

The Role of Kushner, Rubio, and a Possible Trump–Putin–Xi Summit

Jared Kushner is implicated in a scandal involving alleged transfers of $2 billion. Journalists who gained access to allegedly secret financial agreements report that the leaders of the UAE and Saudi Arabia proposed creating a fund of more than $10 billion to support the Trump administration’s foreign policy goals. In particular, they considered funding the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. The initial plan was not carried out, but at least $2 billion was allegedly transferred to accounts to which Kushner had access. Should we expect an investigation into this story after November 3?

Perhaps there will be some investigations, but I’ll be frank: I view these reports with great skepticism. I have no doubt that they stole billions and that they’re being paid from all over the place. Don’t forget that Saudi Arabia has already invested $2 billion in a fund managed by Kushner.

But did they transfer another 2 billion to his personal bank accounts? I doubt it. Moreover, the story claimed that some of this money allegedly went to the Bank of Israel. But the Bank of Israel doesn’t maintain personal accounts for individuals.

So either a huge exception was made here, or something else is going on. Overall, I believe this story is false.

Why do stories like this surface? Is someone already trying to undermine Kushner?

I think there are two possibilities here. Either one of our own people hates Kushner so much and wants to discredit him that they’re willing to push anything, regardless of whether it’s true or not. Or – and this is also possible – Russia itself is behind this.

There are already so many scandals, corruption allegations, and money from Russia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Qatar, and other countries surrounding Trump, Kushner, and others that Russia could take advantage of the situation. If Russia pushes a story that turns out to be false – and this is later proven – Trump will be able to say, “See, everything else is just as much nonsense as this story.”

Human rights activist Mark Feigin does not rule out the possibility that Marco Rubio, after the midterm congressional elections, might take the lead in diplomatic negotiations regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war. Will he be given access to this issue, and will the approach change then? Or will Rubio, who has so far seemed to be biting off more than he can chew, simply follow Trump’s orders, even if Trump’s political influence wanes?

I think Marco Rubio will do whatever Trump tells him to do. We’ve seen this before. Just compare what Rubio is saying today with his statements from three years ago. It’s like night and day – as if he were two different people.

Once a person reaches the point where they’re willing to say whatever their boss tells them to, it’s unlikely they’ll change. I believe Trump has broken Rubio. He’s a completely broken man, and it’s no longer realistic to expect him to return to the role he once played. So even if Rubio takes on this issue, it’s unlikely anything will come of it.

Could the trilateral meeting between Trump, Xi Jinping, and Putin – which the Western media has been reporting on – actually take place? The Kremlin is actively discussing it, Trump has mentioned it, and Xi Jinping has not commented publicly. The meeting could reportedly take place on the sidelines of the summit in Shenzhen, China, on November 18–19. If Trump emerges from the midterm elections in a weakened position, what could he hope to achieve from such a summit, and who would actually benefit from it?

Yes, such a meeting is entirely realistic. Whether it will take place, I do not know, but it is absolutely possible. The main winners of such a summit will, of course, be Putin and Xi Jinping. After all, they will be meeting on equal footing with the U.S. president, effectively ignoring the rest of the world.

Through such a summit, Trump will demonstrate that he considers two dictators – rather than democratic leaders – to be the world’s most important leaders. Personally, he finds it more pleasant to work with dictators than with the leaders of free countries, because he envies them.

Trump wants to have the same level of control as they do, and he wants no one to dare criticize him. In Russia or China, people cannot freely criticize Putin or Xi Jinping. I think this summit would also be psychologically satisfying for Trump, especially after an election in which the Republicans might suffer a defeat.

Putin and Xi Jinping will shower him with compliments, convince him of how wonderful and intelligent he is, and assure him that the Americans who criticize him are terrible. In other words, Trump just needs to exercise his power more aggressively, as they do in their own countries. Therefore, the summit is entirely possible.

But whether it will actually take place is unknown. I think the Republicans themselves will try to convince the White House to abandon this idea, since such a meeting would not serve their political interests.

This interview has been condensed, corrected, and edited for better audience understanding.