"He's Upset Because He's Losing": An Interview with Fursa on Trump's Disastrous Election and His Rapprochement with Russia

Donald Trump is heading into the U.S. midterm elections amid economic problems that are increasingly taking a toll on his approval ratings. At the same time, the U.S. president continues to draw closer to Russia and leaves Ukraine at the mercy of his own decisions. However, these moves are not necessarily part of a well-thought-out strategy – Trump’s policies are driven by his personal interests and the fight for his political future.

How the results of the November 3 election might influence the U.S. president’s next moves, what benefits Vladimir Putin derives from high oil prices, and why Ukraine risks facing funding problems in 2028 – 24 Channel discussed these issues, as well as the situation in the energy sector on the eve of winter, with investment banker Serhiy Fursa in an exclusive interview.

How are the U.S. elections going for Trump – with a bang?

Let’s start with U.S. politics. What’s your take on everything that’s happening – is it a roller coaster that might take another turn after November 3? Or is the worst-case scenario for Ukraine actually unfolding?

I don’t know what scenarios you’re talking about or who’s preparing them. There are no scenarios. There’s just an unpredictable Trump, who’s getting desperate because they’re losing by a landslide in the election on November 3.

And the probability that the Democrats will take the Senate is already above 60%. That’s very high – 63%, I think. And it’s all caused by the economic problems that Trump himself created. Actually, that’s all there is to it.

Trump was elected president because of the economy. And it’s because of the economy that he’s now losing this election.

And, in fact, that’s where his rhetoric – which is very reminiscent of dementia – comes from.

But what kind of huge windfall could the United States possibly reap from a deal with Russia that would pull them out of the economic abyss they’ve found themselves in? If you’re saying it’s economic problems?

No, Russia can’t help solve economic problems at all. Russia is herewas needed to make a verbal intervention in the market through diesel. That didn’t work.

And we see that Brent is now trading above $111 per barrel, while diesel is also close to record highs.

Additionally, Carlson just flew to Russia to bring in an American, who had been held hostage by Putin since 2022. And, in fact, the plan was to bring an American back before the election and show how you rescued a U.S. citizen.

At the same time, what Carlson said there – and he spoke like a real estate developer, not someone who understands anything about politics – neutered the entire positive effect of the hostage’s release. Because “ to call Putin a humanist ” is too much even for America.

But, I repeat, the U.S. election is first and foremost about the economy. And since Trump has absolutely no way of fixing the economic situation, he’s only making it worse. He makes it worse every day, and as a result, his chances are getting worse too.

Full interview: watch the video

Perhaps the U.S. president wants to put pressure on Iran through Russia?

We don’t see him putting pressure on Iran. We don’t see it directly. Moreover, doing so through Russia. Russia has an interest in prolonging the war because it benefits from the current sky-high oil prices.

And Iran sees itself in a strong position right now. So no one is putting pressure on anyone. It’s just – again – chaos.

And sometimes there’s no need to look for a rational explanation. You can rationalize it – okay – within the framework of Trump’s logic, but there’s no strategy; there simply isn’t one.

Russia is currently suffering massive losses on the front lines, while we’re rebuilding dozens of towns and villages. Why, at this very moment, is Washington extending a helping hand to Moscow?

Trump doesn’t follow that kind of logic. He acts solely in his own interests. He doesn’t care what’s happening. He doesn’t care about Ukraine.

He’s in the middle of an election right now. And all of this is happening because he needs a lifeline during the election. That’s all there is to it.

Could it be that by the end of this year we’ll hear the American president say, “The Ukrainian army is very strong; I’m proud of these soldiers,” and so on?

With Trump, anything can happen. Then again, just as he could come up with the story about the downpour that happened before the invasion – the heaviest rain in 10 years in Kyiv in February – he could say just about anything afterward.

Right now, he’s offended by Zelenskyy because he’s in a very vulnerable position. He’s losing the election; he knows it, and that resentment is taking over.

What will dominate, what his personal interests will be in a month – no one knows at all, and no one can imagine. Not even Trump himself can imagine it.

What is he upset with Zelenskyy about? Because Zelenskyy snapped back at him, or what?

In part, yes – for “ initial emotional reaction” after the diesel deal. That was a mistake. They also got away with a lot in the Oval Office. But they’re them, and we’re us.

The thing is, our position still depends on them, and they have President Trump – someone you’d better not upset. And we have to live with that reality.

Yes, it’s very unpleasant. It’s, you know, like having a multimillionaire grandfather in a large family who’s supposed to leave you an inheritance, and you’re forced to please him. He’s already driving you crazy, you hate him, but you have to say nice things to him because you don’t want to be left without your $10 million.

And who will get the inheritance?

Maybe everyone, maybe no one. Maybe he’ll donate it to save wild animals in Africa. Anything is possible. But right now we need these supplies from America, we need this intelligence, we need Starlink.

And yes, we need this from people we don’t like – and who certainly don’t like us. But we’re forced to act this way, and they’re forced to act this way.

In addition, there is a certain mercantile interest, including through the sale of weapons. Therefore, we have no right to react emotionally. Emotionality was sometimes a strength for Zelenskyy, as at the start of the invasion, when it helped a great deal and created the right image and led to certain decisions. But over time, it has become a weakness.

An ABC journalist asks Trump: “You eased sanctions against Russia to secure the release of an American. Isn’t that giving in to Putin?” And he replies: “You’re a stupid person – which outlet do you work for?” Is this simply a question he doesn’t want to answer because he knows the reporter is right? Or is it just a silly question, given that everyone should have gotten used to the fact that this is exactly how the American president conducts himself?

Most likely, the first option. Then again, we’re not Trump’s psychiatrists – you could write a dissertation on that – but he probably understands this. He doesn’t like feeling weak.

And he reacts with aggression even to the slightest hint of his own weakness or mistakes. It’s the same as when Zelenskyy spoke of a “weak decision,” and Trump was told that Zelenskyy had called him weak. That’s all it took. It’s the exact same reaction.

What privileges has Putin received from the U.S.?

It now appears that the Russians are making a lot of money from oil, but at the same time, we see a hole in the budget. Does this mean the war is already so costly for them that all the money is going into it?

Of course, the war is expensive. What’s more, Russia’s oil production has dropped significantly since the beginning of the year. They’re selling less oil than they could and producing less. There are also our strikes on oil refineries, which are causing major losses.

Part of the excess revenue Putin is receiving goes toward compensating the owners of oil refineries. But yes, the war is the main factor putting pressure on the Russian economy.

War is very, very expensive, and it is significantly draining the economy.

Simply put, without high oil prices, the war would be draining the Russian economy much more severely and at a much faster pace. As it stands, unfortunately, Putin has gained this buffer, this safety net, thanks to Trump’s actions.

Do the sanctions proposed by the late Lindsey Graham have a chance of being revived?

In reality, from the very beginning, these sanctions against Russia had no chance of being implemented. Let’s be honest.

We could hardly have expected that 100% or 500% tariffs would be imposed on buyers of Russian oil – namely, India and China. That was simply unrealistic.

The reality is that we were right not to expect it. It was hard for me to imagine a world where Trump would impose 100% tariffs on China and India. I just can’t picture that world.

He’s already played his hand in trade wars with China and taken a beating. India is now important for cooperation with the United States and is a key element in the confrontation with China – as a counterweight to China. So I couldn’t imagine such tariffs being imposed.

Just as I can’t imagine China completely cutting off Russian oil right now. Russia is currently a raw materials appendage for China. This is also important for India. And it was unrealistic to try to force them into a corner like that on the spot.

So, in reality, these sanctions had no chance of being imposed in this specific area, which Trump postponed. This creates a very negative political backdrop for him. And that works in our favor. It’s good for us that all this talk, these attacks, and so on continue, because it diminishes the reality of any actual concessions to Putin. That was part of the deal, so to speak.

We expected him not to impose them, but perhaps instead he wanted to make things even more pleasant for Putin. But he can’t, because he’s already in hot water here.

Do Trump, Xi, and Putin really want to “divide the world”?

If a meeting between Putin, Trump, and Xi Jinping takes place – how will they divide the world?

They can do whatever they want. You and I could meet and start dividing the world. The world wouldn’t really be divided by that. Who are they to divide the world? Seriously, who are they?

For me, this meeting is actually an illustration of the failed strategy of Trump and some Republicans, who wanted to drive a wedge between Russia and China and pull Russia into the Western world. And in the end, Putin says, “Well, let’s the three of us sit down together.”

They didn’t really succeed in driving a wedge between Russia and China.

And this meeting is economically unprofitable. The United States and China have much stronger economies than Russia does right now. Isn’t that right?

Absolutely. And so, if the world is to be divided, Russia doesn’t belong there.

In fact, Trump was being rational here, because he said he was ready to meet in this format to discuss nuclear disarmament, since these are the three largest nuclear arsenals. In this context, this meeting makes sense. In all other contexts, this meeting makes no sense at all.

The USSR and the U.S. negotiated for a very long time and very often about reducing nuclear arsenals, about limitations, and so on. So I wouldn’t say that the outcome is predictable specifically on this issue.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton has rarely appeared in public lately. But now he has spoken out, saying that he is deeply saddened by the behavior of his country’s leaders, and that Trump is, in fact, betraying an ally – betraying Ukraine. What interest could Bill Clinton possibly have right now? He’s not a businessman. Why would he do this?

Look, sitting here in Kyiv, I have no idea what Bill Clinton’s priorities are right now. I don’t think he has anything to atone for, because Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear arsenal – just like Kazakhstan’s – was a condition for the recognition of our independence.

It was impossible to avoid this. It was simply impossible. We didn’t have the money; we didn’t have the capacity to maintain that arsenal. Could we have gotten more? Theoretically, yes, but would Ukraine’s leadership in 1993–1994 have even considered raising the issue of NATO membership? No, they wouldn’t have, and that’s that.

So there’s really nothing here for Bill Clinton to atone for, in principle. But taking a jab at the Republicans right before the election – why not? Because, just like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton is stepping out and effectively participating in the election.

Is Ukraine’s energy sector ready for winter?

Russia allegedly plans to completely knock out our energy sector by mid-November. How prepared are we for this?

Russia has wanted to cripple our energy sector by November ever since November 2022. I advise you to keep that in mind.

Right now, we’re no longer talking about Ukraine’s energy sector, but exclusively about Kyiv’s, where they want to turn Kyiv into an “island” and cut off its power supply. Again, this is a contest. The Russians will knock things out, and we’ll rebuild them.

They aren’t targeting power generation right now – that’s important to understand. They’re targeting the substations that help deliver electricity to Kyiv.

Is there a chance they’ll succeed? I don’t think so. Will our electricity situation get worse than it is now? Yes, it will.

But this isn’t the first winter we’ve gone through like this, as last winter demonstrated. First of all, Ukrainians are already very well prepared when it comes to electricity. A much more sensitive issue is heating. But here, everything really comes down to the weather.

And just how critical the situation with attacks on heat generation will be for us depends entirely on the weather. That is, if we have a winter like last year – with temperatures of -20 – then yes, Klitschko is right, and it would be better to be somewhere in Uzhhorod at that point.

But if it’s a typical winter like we’ve had for the past 15 years – around zero and gray – then it’s not life-threatening, again.

Russia is currently taking full advantage of the fact that we lack proper ballistic defense. I take it we’re no longer even discussing a license for the Patriot system? Is that simply unrealistic?

It was never realistic. We’ve never had the capacity to manufacture it, at least not in the coming years. We just didn’t have it. Maybe in 5 to 7 years, someone might be producing something in a joint venture with the Poles.

But when we talk about the Patriot, we need to understand that it’s a high-tech weapon, and it contains very sophisticated components. And very few of these components are actually manufactured.

Take the homing head itself, which is made by Boeing. They produce a very limited number of them per year. And so far, they have no plans to significantly increase that number, because it’s not their core business – they don’t want to get bogged down in it and so on.

So we’re still talking about the very, very long term. Any cooperation regarding a Patriot license.

What risks does Ukraine face because of France?

Who do you think is economically more resilient right now? Ukraine, with the support of its Western partners and their money, or Russia, with the support of its oil revenues?

Ukraine, without a doubt.

And will this remain the case in the future, given our budget shortfalls?

Our budget shortfalls depend entirely on the political will of Parliament and the Office of the President to vote to close them. That’s all.

So for us right now, the biggest risk is the elections in France and potential funding issues in 2028. We’ll be able to cover our own expenses for 2027.

But there’s a very positive aspect here: so far, Europe has refused to consider confiscating Russia’s frozen assets because, in a sense, they’re keeping that option open for a rainy day while funding us from other sources.

They aren’t doing this on purpose. It’s a difficult decision that needs to be implemented somehow – putting pressure on Belgium and so on.

But it turns out that they are effectively setting this money aside for a rainy day. Because, again, today the yield on the French 10-year bond exceeded 5%. That’s very high. France has enormous budget problems.

France is the leading G7 candidate for a fiscal crisis, where people will be talking about a French default, just as they once talked about a Greek default.

France isn’t Greece – it’s a much larger market, and this would put much greater strain on the economy. But France’s debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 118%. And they can’t keep this up anymore.

It was fine when money was free, but now interest rates are already at 5% or higher. That’s why these budget problems – and the related challenges posed by populists, as well as the opportunities for populists to gain ground – are so significant. Because economic problems create demand.

And “Alternative for Germany” isn’t about migration, and Le Pen isn’t about migration. It’s about economic problems, economic challenges – the so-called cost-of-living crisis.

Have “Alternative for Germany” and Marine Le Pen simply found a scapegoat, claiming that Ukraine alone is to blame for all these problems?

They’ve also concluded that migration is to blame for all problems. But they’re blaming Ukraine for this. “Alternative for Germany” does so a bit more than Le Pen.

Le Pen simply says they don’t have money for Ukraine, and they really don’t have any. As for cutting spending within France – we can see where that leads. France is in huge trouble.

Things are a bit easier in Germany, but they’re dealing with inflation there too – it’s just as much of a burden – and that inflationary pressure is fueling demand for populists who come along and say, “It’s the migrants’ fault.” For example, they blame migrants and Ukrainians.

But this is just a search for a scapegoat, as always, when someone needs to be blamed, when people feel their standard of living deteriorating. And they feel this deterioration in their standard of living because of inflation.