"Trump Is Trying to Plunder the Treasury": An Interview with Paul Leandowski on Ties to Russia, Scandals in the US, and Threats to Ukraine

Donald Trump is making decisions that could change the course of the war in Ukraine, while his inner circle is increasingly finding itself at the center of scandals and high-profile controversies. Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s actions regarding Starlink, Russia’s financial capabilities, and the risk of escalation in the Black Sea are creating new threats for Ukraine.

U.S. combat veteran and host of the YouTube channel Combat Veteran News, Paul Leandowski, explained in an exclusive interview with War & Politics 24 what motives might be behind Trump’s decisions ahead of the election, what the stories surrounding Pete Hagseth, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff might lead to, whether Russia can financially sustain a protracted war, and what an escalation in the Black Sea might lead to.

Why is Trump making unpopular decisions ahead of the election?

Donald Trump knows that the midterm elections are just days away, and Americans are angry about rising prices and other issues. At the same time, he continues to make decisions that could worsen his own party’s position day by day. What’s going on? Is he trying to win the election, or is he seeking something more?

This is the key question everyone is asking right now. July poll data show that even among Republicans, 70% want tougher sanctions against Russia. However, last week Trump, on the contrary, eased sanctions against Russia. Forty-five percent of Republicans support additional aid to Ukraine; specifically, 48% want weapons and military supplies to be sent directly to the Ukrainian government.

Among independent voters, this figure is even higher, as it is among Democrats. From an electoral strategy perspective, Trump’s actions don’t make much sense. This issue is not a deciding factor for American voters. Polls do not explain his decisions.

Ukraine is a bipartisan issue, and support for our country among Americans remains strong and has been so for most of the war.

We have repeatedly noted that Trump does not seem to be guided by a consistent policy. I think the best explanation for his behavior is a transactional approach. My model for understanding his actions is this: perhaps he has already come to terms with the likelihood of a major “blue wave” that will prevent him from taking any action over the next two years.

The last time the Democrats gained control of Congress, Trump faced impeachment hearings and investigations. If the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives – and possibly the Senate – they will have the authority to issue subpoenas.

Administration officials and documents could find themselves at the center of investigations, and officials will be required to appear at hearings and testify. And there’s no telling what that might uncover.

My theory is that Trump is trying to reward the people who have enriched him – essentially providing favors to those who have paid him.

This is also evident in the case of Israel. Trump has openly stated that his campaign was largely funded by pro-Israel donors. He also endorsed Netanyahu – a move that no U.S. president before him had taken, openly backing a foreign candidate in an election.

We are also seeing a crackdown on Iran. This is extremely unpopular and creates problems for Republican candidates running alongside Trump. Such behavior makes sense when viewed as a series of transactions.

A recent report mentioned significant sums of Saudi and Israeli money directed to Jared Kushner. It was also alleged that the wedding of Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, was paid for by a Russian oligarch.

In addition, money linked to Russia appears to be flowing – or may flow – into the president’s son’s cryptocurrency project, which will likely receive a banking license in the future. So it seems to me that the best explanation is that Trump is trying, so to speak, to raid the public coffers – to take a series of steps that will benefit the people or groups from whom he has received compensation. And Russia is undoubtedly one of those groups.

Full interview with Paul Lewandowski: Watch the video

What will change if the Democrats take control of Congress?

So, you’re saying that Trump is essentially doling out favors to those he owes something to in the run-up to the election. What happens next? If the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, will we see an investigation into his family’s finances, his dealings with Russia, and perhaps even an impeachment attempt? How far could this go?

It’s hard to say, because it will depend on several factors. First and foremost – on how successful the Democrats are. Even if they gain control of the Senate, there is no scenario in which they will hold 60% of the seats – and that is precisely the majority needed to convict the president during an impeachment trial and remove him from office.

At the same time, I never rule out the Democratic Party’s ability to act ineffectively. Its fatal flaw is a tendency to get bogged down in procedural disputes, gestures, and symbolic actions without achieving substantive results. We saw this during Trump’s first presidential term.

Even after four years of the Biden administration, the investigations into the president that were supposedly underway have, for the most part, remained unresolved. And the few that appeared to have been brought to a conclusion were dismissed by the Department of Justice after Trump returned to power.

Therefore, I do not rule out the possibility that the Democrats will once again be unable to hold the administration accountable – regardless of what steps they take.

However, if the Democrats gain control of at least the House of Representatives, they will have an important lever of influence. It is the House of Representatives that plays a key role in the budget process, particularly in passing appropriations bills. This means that Democrats will have the opportunity to influence the allocation of funds, including aid to Ukraine.

Another advantage of a close election race is that many Republicans may win in districts by a narrow margin. And then they will have to distance themselves from Trump on a number of unpopular issues.

For example, Republicans may decide that supporting Ukraine will help them win over independent voters, as this position enjoys broad support.

Similarly, they may oppose a war with Iran, as this is what a significant portion of voters wants, especially in districts with fierce competition. Trump’s own behavior demonstrates just how little he thinks strategically. He has advocated for redrawing Republican district boundaries, which were specifically designed to be almost entirely Republican. In effect, he supported including more Democratic voters in these districts, hoping to improve the Republicans’ overall results.

However, this could result in the creation of more moderate districts. I live in one such district. A strong Democratic stronghold in the suburbs of Austin was added to a predominantly conservative oil-producing region.

As a result, in terms of its demographic makeup, this district has become significantly “bluer” than ever before. And that means its representatives may have to soften their positions and not support MAGA as fervently.

Starlink, Elon Musk, and SpaceX’s $40 Billion Loss

Well, Starlink is back up and running, but, as we say in Ukraine, after everything that’s happened, there’s still a bitter aftertaste. Especially after Elon Musk recently expressed sympathy for the Russian soldiers who invaded our country and are killing Ukrainians. Who, in your opinion, is actually responsible for all this mess? And will Congress hold anyone accountable? It seems that neither Democrats nor Republicans want to let this situation slide.

I think Elon Musk is in big trouble. First, if you look at his X account, he’s, in my opinion, literally losing it over the elections – specifically the Senate race in Texas, where Democratic candidate James Teliko’s chances of winning are currently estimated at about 65%.

Besides, I think Musk is very afraid of the investigative authorities. They’re going to ask a lot of questions about his DOGE initiative, which, at first glance, was almost illegal in many respects. And that’s probably causing him quite a bit of anxiety.

But his “ Decision Regarding Starlink ” still make no electoral sense. They’re illogical. If he really wanted to restrict Starlink’s operations and punish Ukraine, why not wait until the midterm elections?

My main theory is that, frankly speaking, Elon Musk isn’t a very smart person. I know, it sounds crazy. You might say: but this is the man behind Tesla and SpaceX. There’s a long and well-documented history of his ketamine use, which has been widely reported publicly. He himself has admitted to using ketamine.

I also have other sources that claim the extent of his use was staggering. There are medical studies on the effects of long-term ketamine use. However, the claim that brain scans reveal significant damage in 100% of people who have been using it for years requires separate confirmation.

As for Musk, I can say only one thing: in my opinion, he’s not as smart as he used to be. Even if we assume he’s pro-Russian, why would he restrict Starlink’s operations right before the election?

Take a look at SpaceX’s business as well. The company has many lines of business: rocket launches, artificial intelligence, and other projects. But its only profitable division, as I understand it, is Starlink. And among Starlink’s most profitable customers are government agencies. Government contracts are of immense value to both Starlink and SpaceX as a whole.

The problem with restricting Starlink’s operations is that now every other government client of the company will ask itself: Can I be sure this internet will work during a national crisis? And the answer might be no.

After all, if Elon Musk wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, he could simply shut down the internet for my country, my government, or my military.

If you look at SpaceX’s stock price over the last five days, you can see that the company lost $40 billion in market capitalization in about four days, once it became clear that Musk was playing this game with Starlink.

I believe this is a result of his inability to think strategically.

It didn’t even occur to him that creating a government communications system that he could shut down at any time might be a bad business decision. And it’s also alienating voters on the eve of the midterm elections. The very same elections that he himself has spent nearly $4 billion funding.

When you look at all of this, you realize that he is not a strategic thinker. He doesn’t show even the slightest bit of patience. So I’ll say it again: in my opinion, Elon is simply not smart.

At the same time, there are numerous reports that Musk is in direct contact with Vladimir Putin. I think Putin could likely have promised him access to the Russian space program, certain Russian research projects, and capital markets.

These are opportunities that Putin can offer a private individual, but which a European country – with its laws and accountability mechanisms – cannot simply grant. Therefore, I suspect that Musk may have pro-Russian leanings, as he seeks to increase his own profits. But he is too reckless to understand how to play the long game.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump / Associated Press

Could Pete Hegset be punished in the U.S.?

When it comes to strikes on Russian territory, Pete Hegset could potentially be questioned regarding Starlink and Starshield. At the same time, Zelenskyy states that Ukraine has been waiting for nearly a month for Hegset to approve missiles for the Patriot and NASAMS systems. Could potential congressional investigations actually lead to consequences for Pete Hegset or even bring him to justice?

That’s an excellent question. President Trump values loyalty above all else. Hegsethas repeatedly proven that his loyalty to Trump is beyond question. His intelligence, mental capacity, and sound judgment, to put it mildly, raise questions. But will Trump fire him to try to divert attention from the disastrous war in Iran?

On the other hand, if he were going to do that, he would likely have done so before the midterm elections. Trump could have blamed Hegset for the failures in Iran, fired him, and tried to frame it as giving voters the chance to support a refreshed administration. But he didn’t do that.

So it’s hard to say what will happen next. First, I don’t think Hegset’s dismissal will change anything significantly. We know that people like Elbridge, who think more strategically but share Hegset’s views, continue to contribute to this policy to some extent. Even in those few congressional committees where there are enough Republicans who support Ukraine, serious questions were raised with the Pentagon regarding delays in the aid approved by Congress.

However, in response, the Pentagon refused to provide the necessary information. As far as I recall, Chuck Grassley or Tom Tillis sent letters to the Pentagon demanding an explanation as to why the department had not answered their questions. But the Pentagon effectively ignored these requests.

I think that if the Democrats act wisely, they can impose specific conditions. They can say: “If you want funding for Pentagon agencies, you must provide us with these documents, grant us access to the responsible officials, and do so within a specified timeframe. Otherwise, funding will be automatically blocked.”

These are the tools the House of Representatives can use in the budget process. If the Democrats decide to take a hard line against the Pentagon’s practice of delaying the delivery of aid to Ukraine after Congress has approved it, they can put an end to it. The only question is whether they will be organized and level-headed enough to make this happen. I hope so.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hagseth / Associated Press

Kushner, Witkoff, and Suspicions of Corruption

Let’s return to Jared Kushner, whom you mentioned earlier. He has found himself at the center of yet another scandal due to allegations of suspicious financial transactions and deals with foreign governments, particularly in the Middle East. Vanity Fair reported on this. How serious is this story, and how are Americans reacting to it? I’m also concerned that new details will emerge. In particular, I saw reports of protests in Albania related to Kushner’s projects in that country, which echo the protests from last summer. Could you elaborate on this situation?

Yes, these allegations are simply staggering. And you’re right: it seems I mistakenly attributed this article to ProPublica. As far as I recall, the article appeared in *Vanity Fair*. But the fact that Kushner essentially had unlimited access to funds from Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia is simply unbelievable.

A scandal like this should be grounds for impeachment proceedings. However, at this point, I don’t think that will necessarily happen. If you’re not aware of the extent of the conflicts of interest and corruption risks associated with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, you should understand that Witkoff also raises quite a few questions.

These individuals are not government employees and do not work at the U.S. State Department. They are Trump’s personal friends who maintain private relationships with him and sometimes even use government planes for travel.

That is precisely what their legal status looks like. I think Americans who are willing to acknowledge the extent of the conflict of interest surrounding Kushner already understand this. And those who don’t want to see it are unlikely to change their minds.

I have relatives who are devoted viewers of Fox News. They trust this network when it convinces them that all other media outlets are lying and biased against Trump, whom it portrays as an innocent victim. They believe this and are unlikely to come across information that would make them view Kushner differently. They may not even realize that Kushner is not an official ambassador or a government employee.

For someone who has worked in government, all of this is shocking. But we’ve heard so much about Kushner and Witkoff already that I’m not sure this story will change anything. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will convince those who still support Kushner.

What was your reaction when Steve Witkoff called Putin a “humanist”?

You know, I’ve already told my audience: if you’re in Moscow talking to Vladimir Putin – a man accused of murders and poisonings – you might say anything just to get out of there alive. I don’t like Steve Witkoff, but I won’t condemn someone for trying to protect themselves in Moscow by saying something like, “If I want to get out of here in one piece, I’d better call this man a humanist.”

Believe me, if for some reason I ended up in Moscow and miraculously avoided prison, you’d hear me say, “Vladimir Putin, you’re the best.”

I understand your point. But Witkoff is representing the U.S. president and is traveling to Moscow of his own free will. He’s already been there twice, and it seems he felt safe. I heard MAGA-supporting blogger Laura Lummer say she would never go to Moscow because she’d be killed there immediately. Maybe this isn’t worth dwelling on for too long, but sometimes it’s hard to read statements like that. It’s been a very tense week, and we don’t know what to expect the next day from new statements by U.S. officials.

Yes. And I don’t want to downplay the openly pro-Russian actions of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. We all saw how, after returning from Russia, Witkoff appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast and repeated Russian narratives that, in my opinion, are outright lies.

In particular, he spoke about the referendum in Crimea, in which allegedly 96% of participants voted for the peninsula’s annexation by Russia. And this raises the question: if Witkoff unreservedly believes such claims, is he really engaged in serious diplomacy and international relations?

One gets the impression that his role is to whitewash Putin’s reputation and promote Russian narratives among an American audience. And behind the scenes, he quite possibly has his own financial interests, since he does not bear the same legal and financial obligations to the United States as government officials do.

At the same time, Witkoff has obligations to his own company – the Witkoff Group. And, by the way, during the Great Financial Crisis, this company was bailed out by firms with ties to Russia – or so the rumors went.

You know, I’d prefer not to even know names like Kushner and Witkoff. But these people are, in fact, influencing the fate of my country. And I don’t want to downplay the seriousness of their role or the number of lives that could be lost because of their irresponsible decisions.

However, they are extremely frivolous people. They show little respect for the responsibility placed upon them. I don’t even want to show them the respect I would show to an officially appointed ambassador. In my opinion, they don’t deserve it. I despise them.

And now I hope – perhaps even with a certain degree of optimism – that a Democratic Congress will hold these people accountable for their actions. I think such a scenario is entirely possible.

I think Zelenskyy is also taking this into account. He is a smart and shrewd political player, no matter what people say about him. He understands that Trump is not a reliable partner. I was surprised by how drastically Zelenskyy’s rhetoric toward the U.S. president has changed. It has now become significantly harsher.

I think this is because Zelenskyy understands the political risks for Trump ahead of the midterm elections. According to the bookmakers’ estimates I’ve seen, the probability that the Democrats will gain control of both houses of Congress is approximately 65–70%.

In that case, Trump will become a “lame duck” – a president whose ability to influence policy is significantly limited due to the loss of congressional support. People in his inner circle who have already experienced political setbacks may find themselves in the same situation. Therefore, I hope that the U.S. Congress will once again begin to fully fulfill its role and hold the executive branch accountable. This would be a positive signal for Ukraine and, in my opinion, for Americans themselves.

Is a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO in the Black Sea looming?

Andriy Klymenko, a Ukrainian expert on Black Sea issues, warns that the war could spread to other Black Sea countries, and that it would be naive to hope for a ceasefire at sea. Could this lead to a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO? How do you assess the situation in the Black Sea?

NATO finds itself in a rather difficult position, and I understand that. It seems that one of Vladimir Putin’s goals is to find a pretext to expand the war. He needs a pretext for a general mobilization in Russia. But he cannot declare it as long as the war is confined to Ukraine, because for four years he has been telling the Russian public that Ukraine is supposedly on the verge of defeat and about to collapse.

Therefore, Putin needs a specific pretext, and a full-scale war with NATO could provide it. NATO understands that it cannot give Putin what he wants – an open, direct confrontation between the Alliance and Russia. But at the same time, NATO cannot simply do nothing, because inaction also plays into Moscow’s hands, even if only in the long term.

This creates the impression that NATO is incapable of acting effectively and protecting its own population. This situation could deepen the rift between Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, on the one hand, and the Western European countries – which provide a significant portion of the Alliance’s military power – on the other. So there are no easy solutions for NATO.

I don’t have any insider information, but I’m inclined to assume that some of the assassination attempts that are being openly discussed may be linked to NATO. This is something insiders might speculate about, but such actions do not require the Alliance to respond directly to Putin’s provocations.

I think this is exactly the kind of calculation NATO is making right now. At the same time, the Russian army is losing about 40,000 combat-ready soldiers on the battlefield every month.

Russia’s financial situation is also deteriorating. Interest rates on its debts are rising. Meanwhile, NATO is strengthening its defense-industrial base every month, ramping up drone production, and gradually adapting its forces to a new era of warfare.

Therefore, in my opinion, NATO’s logic is this: we must not fall into Putin’s trap until the Alliance is ready.

With each passing month, Russia’s position regarding NATO weakens, while the Alliance’s own position strengthens. This is likely how NATO is trying to respond to Russian provocations. But eventually, something may happen that the Alliance countries will no longer be able to ignore.

Let’s recall the incident at Leipzig Airport, where the situation nearly ended in disaster. If the plane, loaded with ammunition, had exploded, Germany could have faced the highest number of civilian casualties since World War II. In that case, the German government would have had no choice but to respond.

Pole, finally, I’d like to ask about the forecast from Ukrainian veteran and military officer Maria Berlinska, who specializes in military technology and drones. She warned that the war could last another 12 years or even longer, since Putin is banking on wearing Ukraine down. As a combat veteran, do you think we might really be facing another decade of war? How long can Russia financially sustain a protracted war?

It’s hard to say. I would have to run specific calculations to assess the scale of losses for Russia and Ukraine, as well as other factors. But when it comes to finances, as long as Ukraine receives support from Western Europe, its situation differs from Russia’s.

Moscow likes to position itself as a counterweight to Western Europe, but from an economic standpoint, that’s not the case at all. Russia is suffering much more from the war. For European countries, the associated costs represent a relatively small portion of their national budgets, whereas for Russia, this is a much more serious burden.

I’m currently preparing an analysis for an upcoming video. Depending on the model chosen, the most likely scenario is that in ten years, Russia will be spending about one-third of all tax revenues on interest payments on war-related debt. And that’s actually a fairly optimistic scenario for the Russian economy.

Therefore, I believe that Russia’s financial strain will be significantly greater than Ukraine’s.

Ukraine has the advantage of European partners who are willing to finance a significant portion of the Ukrainian government’s operations and military efforts. They can do so without significantly lowering the standard of living in their own countries. The average Russian does not have access to such financial support.

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