The final days of the U.S. election campaign could determine not only the balance of power in Congress but also future support for Ukraine. The political standoff in Washington threatens to trigger new crises, including government shutdowns, and the absence of a Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. at this critical moment poses an additional challenge for Kyiv.
Ostap Yarysh, media advisor for Razom for Ukraine, discussed what influences Americans’ choices most, how the election results might affect aid to Ukraine, and why the diplomatic lull in Washington poses serious risks for Kyiv.
popular videos
What really concerns American voters ahead of the election
What could save Trump and the Republicans in the election? Will a wounded beast become even more dangerous for Ukraine and NATO? Trump and J.D. Vance are even traveling to states where Republicans have traditionally been strong. What worries American voters most on the eve of the election?
Indeed, in recent weeks, Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance have stepped up their campaign, visiting states where there may be a narrow margin between Democratic and Republican candidates. There, they need to rally voter support and encourage people to go to the polls and vote.
What are their priorities? According to polls, Americans are concerned about gas and food prices, immigration, healthcare, government corruption, and the war in Iran. They also mention these issues, but in the context of rising prices and America’s and U.S. troops’ involvement in wars abroad and conflicts.
It’s important to understand that Democratic and Republican voters may have different priorities. Some will prioritize issues such as illegal immigration or the fight against the left-liberal agenda – that is, if we’re talking about conservatives. Others will discuss government corruption, healthcare, or immigration, but from a different perspective.
While conservatives prioritize preventing an influx of undocumented immigrants into the U.S., Democrats and liberals focus more on the work of the immigration agency ICE, as well as the methods used for deportation and detention. Therefore, different contexts and perspectives are important here.
Full interview with Ostap Yarysh: watch the video
If the Democrats take both houses of Congress, will Trump be able to circumvent their decisions? To what extent will he be able to implement his own policies, and will resistance grow even among Republicans?
Indeed, we can now expect the Democrats to take the House of Representatives after all. The Senate will be more challenging for them. There’s a chance they could secure a majority there, but it won’t be as easy as in the House of Representatives.
If the Democrats do take control of Congress, I think the U.S. could find itself in a stalemate. On the one hand, the president will not sign bills passed by lawmakers and pushed through by the Democratic majority. On the other hand, Congress could block Donald Trump’s initiatives, which he needs to implement his own policies.
This could involve increasing budget spending on the war in Iran or allocating funds for the construction of the wall. These are just two examples, but there could be many such situations. Congress can also block the appointment of ambassadors, judges, and other officials as a means of putting pressure on President Trump. But for lawmakers to work effectively, they need the president to sign their bills. Therefore, they will have to seek compromises and reach agreements.
I don’t know whether the Democrats will be willing to compromise with the president or whether he will be willing to accept their political agenda. So the U.S. may find itself in a situation where, for months, Congress will effectively fail to pass any legislation. Government shutdowns are even possible if budgets to keep the government running cannot be passed. Such a scenario is entirely plausible in the U.S.
Interestingly, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that Republicans may lose control of Congress after the November 3 midterm elections. In the event of a Democratic victory, he plans to actively use his veto power to block his opponents’ bills and force them to compromise, and has already dubbed himself the future “Mr. Veto.”
Could Trump and Musk use Ukraine in their internal power struggle?
If political chaos ensues after the U.S. elections, how will that affect support for Ukraine? We’re already seeing delays in the delivery of missiles and interceptors for the Patriot system purchased by Europe. Could the situation get worse?
It may be difficult to make decisions on new support or the allocation of additional aid. But it could also go the other way: Congress is capable of blocking initiatives that could harm Ukraine, or those we’ve seen from Donald Trump regarding Russian diesel fuel or the lifting of sanctions.
Congress can use the mechanisms I’ve already mentioned: blocking appointments or refusing to allocate funds for the president’s initiatives.
But I wouldn’t count too heavily on seeing many new bills in support of Ukraine or initiatives to allocate aid as early as January, after the new Congress begins its work. It won’t be that simple.
Most likely, we’ll see potential investigations by lawmakers, particularly into the actions of administration officials or people in the inner circle regarding Ukraine. Take Elon Musk, for example. I know that lawmakers are currently very interested in summoning him to hearings and launching an investigation, particularly regarding the Starlink issue.
Lawmakers also want to learn more about how the Pentagon made decisions regarding delays in the delivery of air defense systems or disruptions in intelligence data. What actually happened? Was it really a technical error due to weather conditions, or was there another decision behind it? I think lawmakers will demand answers to these and other questions from administration officials.
But if we reach an impasse – where new aid to Ukraine requires a bipartisan majority in both chambers and the president’s signature – it could be difficult.
Theoretically, the situation could be resolved with a supermajority – more than 60% of the votes. Then Congress would be able to override the president’s veto. But the path to that could be very difficult.
I spoke with Uriel Epstein, executive director of the nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative, who is in active communication with both Democrats and Republicans. He fears that, following a potential failure and the launch of investigations, Trump and Musk might use Starlink and Starshield to blackmail Ukraine or block their operations. Could they personally create obstacles for us? Could Trump also blame Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the Republicans’ defeat, even though Ukraine is not the cause of American voters’ main concerns?
That’s a possibility. If the Democrats focus their investigations specifically on Ukraine and on what they believe Donald Trump did illegally, the president could act against them and use the situation to his advantage.
It seems to me that a situation where the Democrats’ rhetoric in these potential investigations focuses on the claim that Donald Trump betrayed Ukraine would be potentially dangerous for Ukraine. Then it might sound something like this: “You’re either with Ukraine or with President Trump. You’re either with Ukraine or with America.”
This is exactly how a significant portion of Republicans – both the president and voters – might perceive it. I think it’s important to prevent such rhetoric from taking hold. We saw a glimpse of it in the fall of 2019, during Donald Trump’s first impeachment proceedings following his phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
At that time, the Democrats also tried to use the situation to their advantage. Ukraine became a pawn in political games and internal party disputes. A significant portion of Republicans were turned against Ukraine then – and perhaps Donald Trump himself as well.
Now it is important for Democrats to understand this and not put their own party interests above helping Ukraine and addressing its real needs. We must not find ourselves once again in a situation where Republicans frame the issue as follows: “You’re either with Ukraine or with America, Trump, or the Republican Party.” This is another risk worth paying attention to.
Republicans willing to defy Trump, and the election factor
You mentioned the debate in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, where the Republican candidate spoke out against Trump’s diesel deal with Moscow and promised to push for the reinstatement of sanctions. How many Republicans might take this stance, emphasizing that this is not just about Trump but also about the image of the United States?
In the case of Pennsylvania’s 8th District, it was important to hear this because there is a large Ukrainian community there, as well as Polish and Lithuanian diasporas. These issues are important to them. Therefore, the incumbent congressman is counting on the votes of these constituents, and their opinion matters to him.
As for whether there will be enough Republicans to stand up to Donald Trump – that’s an important question. I think there will be such people, and we’ll see them before January.
On the one hand, these will be Republican members of Congress and senators who are ending their political careers and will no longer be members of Congress after January. They may use their remaining political capital to undo the damage done, reinstate sanctions against Russia, or halt the diesel deal.
We’re already seeing this with lawmakers who are actively writing letters to the Pentagon, the White House, and private companies. Many of these Republicans are ending their careers in January and are ready to focus on these issues now.
On the other hand, there are lawmakers who will continue to serve in Congress and remain members of the Republican Party, but for whom the issue of Ukraine is also of fundamental importance. I hope we will see more of these voices.
Both the election results and the Republican Party’s behavior will be important. We cannot rule out the possibility that, in the event of a defeat, some lawmakers will ask themselves: Donald Trump was unable to secure a victory for us in the election, so how much influence does he really have overall?
I’m not talking about Trump’s core electorate, but about independent voters and those who are undecided and might change their minds. Perhaps after the election, the Republican Party will have to decide which direction to take: to broaden its horizons a bit, or to remain fully committed to Donald Trump and build its party platform around him. I think this is one of the important questions Republicans need to ask themselves.
Could the Republicans’ fear of Trump disappear after a possible election defeat?
This is a hypothetical scenario. On the one hand, this is possible if they see that Donald Trump was unable to secure a victory for them. On the other hand, when it comes to districts or members of Congress from very “red” areas where Trump has strong support, I think they’ll take that into account.
Situations can vary. Take, for example, Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who represents the 1st District. He is currently running for reelection in a district with many Kamala Harris and Democratic voters. Obviously, he needs to appeal to these people, to independent voters, and even to members of the opposing camp who may not like the Democratic Party’s liberal or left-wing agenda but also don’t like Donald Trump. They’re looking for a middle ground.
There are other members of Congress as well, such as Anna Paulina Luna from Florida. In her district, support for Donald Trump is strong, and she relies on the views of voters who expect their congresswoman to advocate the same policies as those proposed by the administration. So the situations are very different. Each district can be examined literally under a microscope to understand the big picture.
Oleshky, the Negotiation Track, and the Miami Summit
The humanitarian mission in Oleshky, with Melania Trump in attendance, marked the longest ceasefire since the full-scale war began. At the same time, Donald Trump has stated several times that the end of the war is closer than ever. Did he expect this operation to help him on the eve of the election?
Donald Trump has probably said more than a hundred times over the past two years that the end of the Russian-Ukrainian war is closer than ever. In other words, these are not new arguments. We heard them in the summer, in the spring, in the winter, and many times last year as well.
I don’t think Donald Trump was counting on this operation as an event that could end the war. But, as far as I know, the people on the American side who worked on this see it as a potential start to expanding such operations.
We’ve heard statements from the Ukrainian and Russian sides, as well as from the First Lady’s office. Melania Trump herself views this as a success, since people were saved.
Incidentally, U.S. First Lady Melania Trump summarized the humanitarian operation in Oleshky, which concluded on the evening of November 1. According to her, necessary aid was delivered to the region and nearly 800 people were evacuated, and the operation itself was a success. Trump expressed hope that this experience would serve as a foundation for establishing lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
As I understand it, there is a desire to conduct similar operations in the future. This is an example of how, if the war cannot be ended, America can at least act as a mediator in such matters.
I’m often asked whether this was an election-year move and whether the decision was driven by the fact that the U.S. election is just a few days away. I don’t think that was the intention. The operation in Oleshky is not the kind of factor that would cause undecided voters to change their minds or encourage those who are hesitant to go to the polls.
Perhaps it boosted the First Lady’s image among people who follow her work and Ukraine. But it wasn’t a decisive factor ahead of the election.
Could the Trump administration’s approach to negotiations change after the election? Witkoff and Kushner may also become subjects of investigations. Will this affect the negotiation process?
The names Kushner and Witkoff are also coming up in conversations in Congress when it comes to possible investigations or hearings. There is also interest in these individuals. As for whether the negotiation track will change, we should remember that there will be two months between Election Day and the start of the new Congress.
The election will take place on November 5, and Congress will convene in early January. That means we still have the entire months of November and December ahead of us. A lot can happen in those two months.
We should note that the summit in Miami is scheduled for mid-December, to which the U.S. has invited Russia and may likely also invite Volodymyr Zelenskyy. We don’t know whether Putin or Zelenskyy will attend, but the possibility of such a trilateral meeting is currently being actively discussed in the United States.
We should also keep in mind that Donald Trump is planning a trip abroad, during which he may meet with Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. This has also been discussed. But we do not know if such a meeting will take place. So far, Trump has only stated that he is potentially interested in it, but there has been no confirmation.
Therefore, over the next two months, while the current composition of the House of Representatives and the Senate is still in session, I think we will see many changes. The situation could develop in various directions.
Lavrov traveled to the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting in the U.S., where preparations for the Miami summit were discussed. How do Americans view the presence of a representative from an aggressor country at such events? Are they paying attention to this?
I think this event was followed mainly by international affairs journalists who were covering it. In general, I didn’t see much coverage of it in the American media. In recent days, there has been a lot of political discussion, particularly regarding the situation in several key states where the race is very close and it is still unclear which candidate will win – the Democrats or the Republicans.
Based on my analysis of the American media, over the past few weeks, the coverage has focused primarily on the U.S. elections, the campaign, and scandals. Particular attention is being paid to Michigan, Alaska, and Texas – states that could ultimately prove decisive in determining who will control Congress.
That’s why there’s much more talk about the election and less about Lavrov and international politics. Even the situation in Oleshky, with the exception of Newsweek and a few other American media outlets, has not attracted the attention it might have received, say, outside of the election season.
Why is the absence of a Ukrainian ambassador in Washington a major problem?
How important is it for Ukraine to have an ambassador to the U.S. right now? Could his presence strengthen our position in Washington?
It is extremely important to have a Ukrainian ambassador in Washington right now. Of course, there is the head of the diplomatic mission, Denys Senik, who, together with his team, is doing everything possible to communicate about Ukraine on American television channels and with congressional offices. But there is still a lack of leadership.
It’s also a matter of resources. With an ambassador in place, Denys Senik could focus on other important tasks and strengthen areas where support is needed. Therefore, the absence of an ambassador right now really doesn’t work in Ukraine’s favor.
I think it would be good to resolve this issue as soon as possible so that support for Ukraine on this front remains strong. In November, and especially in the months that follow, that support will be desperately needed.
So it’s important to work not only with the Trump administration, but also with voters, members of Congress, and various interest groups?
Of course. This involves working with Congress, the public, key states, and various groups – conservatives and liberals alike. It also involves working with the American media, the administration, key agencies, the Office of the President, the State Department, and the Pentagon. There are so many areas to focus on, and with limited resources, it’s very difficult to cover them all.
This interview has been condensed, corrected, and edited for the audience’s better understanding.
If you find an error on this page, select it and press Ctrl + Enter