Trump Was on the Kremlin's Side from the Start: An In-Depth Interview with William Browder on Secret Deals and the End of the War

Russia continues to lose money due to Ukrainian strikes on oil refineries, while Vladimir Putin is gaining new opportunities to make money thanks to Donald Trump’s policies. At the same time, Washington’s agreements with Moscow may have much broader implications than they appear at first glance.

William Browder, CEO of Hermitage Capital Management, assessed the so-called “diesel deal” between the U.S. and Russia in an exclusive interview with 24 Channel, explained how Ukrainian drones are hitting the Russian economy, and predicted how the war might end. According to Browder, Trump is doing Putin a huge favor, in exchange for Lukoil assets, the Nord Stream pipeline, and other benefits that are not yet publicly known.

Why does Browder believe that Trump has been on Russia’s side from the very beginning?

Talks took place in Norway between Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, and President Zelenskyy. At the same time, we saw a shift in U.S. policy in Russia’s favor: the signing of the diesel deal and the lifting of sanctions against the Russian energy sector. How do you assess this? Have we permanently lost the support of President Trump and the United States?

I’m sorry to say this, but Ukraine has never had President Trump on its side since he took office.

Ukraine has received support from the United States since the start of the war. In fact, the U.S. has supported us under various presidents and during various conflicts with Russia, starting in 2014.

However, in 2024, when Donald Trump took office, he clearly sided with Russia.

This was evident in the shocking decision to halt military aid to Ukraine, effectively cutting off all support. It also became clear during the meeting in the Oval Office, where Trump, along with JD Vance, began yelling at Zelenskyy.

Furthermore, Trump has never once criticized Putin or imposed additional sanctions against Russia. So this is not a new situation.

Witkoff and Zelenskyy in Norway / Office of the President

I think many people, both outside Ukraine and within the country, hoped that there was some grand plan behind this. But in reality, it’s much simpler: Donald Trump is on Putin’s side and wants to do business with Russia.

And when I say “business,” I don’t just mean the United States’ desire to cooperate with Russia. Trump personally wants to do business there, or his family members and friends are seeking to do so. Ukraine, to a certain extent, stands in the way of such cooperation. That is why Trump is trying to “resolve the situation” so he can finally get down to business and make money.

The “Diesel Deal,” Frozen Assets, and Hidden Business Interests

Let’s focus on the business deals, because some truly incredible proposals are emerging: resuming Russian gas and oil exports to Europe, selling Lukoil’s foreign assets, and unfreezing up to $100 billion in Russian assets, a significant portion of which is likely held in Belgium. Isn’t the U.S. risking losing all its bargaining chips in negotiations with Russia even before any deal is struck? Are they really willing to offer $100 billion just for an energy truce?

Let’s take a broader view of the situation. The United States has three – perhaps four – levers of influence.

The first and most important was financial and military aid to Ukraine. The U.S. has stopped providing it, losing approximately 80–85% of its leverage over Ukraine.

The second lever is the exchange of intelligence, which is ongoing. It also includes Starlink and arms deliveries to Ukraine under the PURL program, under which Europeans pay for the weapons and Ukraine receives them. Thus, approximately 85% of U.S. leverage has already disappeared.

What leverage do the Europeans have? They continue to pay for weapons for Ukraine through the PURL program, and, together with the United Kingdom, hold 95% of frozen Russian assets.

Furthermore, Europe is deeply concerned about its own national security should Ukraine be unable to continue containing Russia. So when Trump, Witkoff, or Kushner talk about transferring $100 billion or euros worth of Russian assets, it’s important to remember: this isn’t their money to dispose of as they please.

These funds are held in Europe. Similarly, when they talk about ceding territories, these are not their territories that they can simply hand over to anyone. This is Ukrainian land.

So, the main levers the Americans have left are intelligence sharing, Starlink, and continued arms deliveries that Europe has already paid for. It seems they are beginning to use these tools as a means of pressure.

But is this enough to force Ukraine or Europe to capitulate? Will anyone really agree to say, “All right, let Russia have its way”? I know for certain that this will not happen.

If Ukraine were to surrender, it would have catastrophic consequences. But Ukraine has no intention of capitulating, nor does Europe. So all these proposals coming out of the White House are more like fantasies. I don’t believe they’ll be implemented.

At the same time, there are already certain consequences. For example, the “Starlink speed limits” have created real problems on the battlefield. The U.S. has also halted the delivery of missiles that had already been paid for. And we don’t know for sure whether the exchange of intelligence is continuing.

But even these steps won’t force Ukraine to surrender. That’s why I believe all of this is part of a constant stream of proposals from the White House that are almost kleptocratic in nature. And I don’t believe that any of this will actually come to fruition.

In your opinion, has President Trump become a Russian asset after striking a deal with Putin regarding diesel fuel?

President Trump is an asset only to himself. He is trying to profit from deals that have nothing to do with U.S. national interests, European or global security, or, of course, aid to Ukraine. He simply wants to do business. It’s as simple as that.

You mentioned the deal involving “Lukoil” – we already know about that. There is also a proposal to resume Russian gas supplies via “Nord Stream.” An American company wants to buy the gas pipeline from the consortium.

In addition, there are likely about 20 other deals proposed by Kirill Dmitriev, the Russian negotiator. We don’t know the details yet, but we’ll find out later. All of this is being done for the sake of the business interests of people connected to the Trump administration.

Such agreements serve no one’s interests but their own. That is precisely why they want to push them through. However, the world is much more complicated than they think. To use Trump’s own terminology – the same terms he lectured Zelenskyy on in the Oval Office – he has no trump cards. He lacks sufficient leverage to impose these kleptocratic deals on Europeans or Ukrainians.

Watch the full video of William Browder’s interview with 24 Channel

John Bolton recently stated that Trump is now indebted to Putin, since Putin did him a favor by selling him diesel fuel to help resolve domestic political problems in the U.S. Do you agree with this statement? Does Putin really have influence over Trump now?

I see it a little differently. In my opinion, it is Putin who finds himself in a difficult situation. As you know, Ukrainian drones have destroyed about half of Russia’s oil refinery capacity. This is causing serious damage to Russia.

Equally painful for Putin are attacks on Yandex data centers, as well as the Wildberries and Ozon warehouses. All of this is causing significant damage to the Russian economy.

Russia is too large a country to maintain sufficient air defenses to intercept all Ukrainian drones. They will continue to penetrate Russian territory and inflict economic damage.

At the same time, Putin is making no progress on the front lines. If Ukraine were to continue such strikes, Putin could eventually be forced to agree to an aerial ceasefire. For him, this would be a disaster, as the front line is not moving.

In effect, he would be stuck in a war he started but was unable to finish. And the future of Russian leaders who find themselves in such a situation does not look promising.

That’s why I believe Putin turned to Trump and said, “I need help.” So they came up with this diesel deal, which effectively changes nothing. There isn’t enough of this fuel to affect diesel prices in the U.S.

What’s more, I’m not even sure that Russia actually has enough diesel fuel to sell in the required quantities. However, the deal has created a certain basis for so-called “agreements” that the Americans can use to pressure Zelenskyy, demanding that he stop strikes on Russian oil refineries.

Now Trump supposedly has an argument to increase pressure on Zelenskyy and Ukraine. So I see the situation exactly the other way around: it is Trump who is doing Putin a huge favor.

And what does Trump get in return? Lukoil’s assets, the Nord Stream pipeline, and likely about 20 more agreements that we don’t know about yet. In my opinion, this is exactly the kind of deal that’s taking place right now.

Did Putin ask Trump to protect Russian oil refineries from Ukrainian drones?

Do you believe that Vladimir Putin reached out to Donald Trump to ask for help in protecting Russian oil refineries from attacks by Ukrainian drones?

Yes, I do. I think that’s exactly how it happened. In my opinion, the call was initiated by Putin, who needs help. In return, he is offering money to Trump or people in his inner circle – family members, friends, or others associated with him.

I think that’s the essence of the agreement that’s currently taking shape.

Can Europe resist Trump’s pressure and help Zelenskyy not only remain at the negotiating table but also strengthen Ukraine’s position even without American support?

The negotiating table itself is irrelevant right now. No negotiations of any real substance are currently taking place. In fact, more Ukrainians are dying due to the suspension of U.S. intelligence support and problems with the Starlink system.

What can Europe do in this situation? Its options are limited. But is that enough to force Ukraine to surrender? No. I believe that surrender would be a hundred times worse than any suffering Ukraine is currently enduring.

Europe could help Ukraine by seizing more than 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets and establishing a fund whose proceeds would provide Ukraine with the economic resources for self-defense. Europeans could also supply Ukraine with ammunition and air defense systems, if available.

However, there aren’t many such weapons, as most of them are manufactured in the U.S. Now Europe must reflect on its own strategic autonomy from the United States.

The shocking and scandalous shutdown of Starlink has shown that this system cannot be relied upon for security matters. Europe must create an alternative, and I hope this happens as soon as possible.

If Elon Musk can influence Europe’s national security, that is unacceptable. Europeans must find a way to break free from this dependence. Ultimately, the situation is very unpleasant, but that doesn’t mean Ukraine is losing. It just means that it will have to endure more hardships while all this continues.

Ukraine must continue to make Putin feel the pain – particularly economic pain – just as it has done so far.

Is there a chance to change the situation and win President Trump over to Ukraine’s side?

I think U.S. domestic politics could have some influence on this. According to my data, 85% of Americans support Ukraine, while only about 5% support Vladimir Putin. American politicians – both Republicans and Democrats – support Ukraine.

Therefore, Trump will face significant pressure from Congress – both the current and the next one – to continue supporting Ukraine.

Will he heed this? Trump has considerable leeway and can make decisions independently of Congress. However, he will find himself in an extremely difficult position, as Congress could block many of his legislative initiatives that require approval because of his stance on Ukraine.

This is a matter of principle for many American politicians on both sides of the political divide. That is why support for Ukraine will continue to be an important issue in U.S. domestic politics.

What Can Europe Do Without the U.S.?

Meanwhile, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has proposed a summit with President Trump and Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the APEC summit in China on November 18–19. They plan to discuss Ukraine, but without the participation of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Is this yet another attempt to strike some kind of deal behind President Zelenskyy’s back?

They can make whatever deals they want, but it’s like playing a board game. If Ukraine isn’t involved and has the resources to defend itself, they can fantasize all they want about how they want the world to be. But implementing such agreements requires the consent of all parties.

That’s why I believe this is more of a problem for Trump himself, who is trying to find a path to new economic agreements with China. Perhaps he’s willing to sacrifice Taiwan for the sake of business with China, just as he’s trying to give up Ukraine for the sake of agreements with Russia. But I don’t think this will yield the result he desires.

These three people cannot single-handedly decide Ukraine’s fate. Of course, they can inflict even more pain on Ukraine. The U.S. and Trump seem to have already played all their cards. China could theoretically step up its support for Russia, though it has not stood idly by in the past.

But ultimately, none of them can determine the fate of Ukrainian territories through their own decisions or agreements. If they believe they are capable of doing so, that is a grand illusion.

If the United States were to completely cut off its support for Ukraine – particularly the exchange of intelligence, which is very difficult for even Europe to replace – would Ukraine be able to hold out without American aid? And could Europe make up for it?

I think Ukraine will be able to hold out, but that doesn’t mean it won’t have to pay a huge human cost. At the same time, that cost will likely be significantly lower than the cost of capitulating to Russia.

We’ve seen what happened in Bucha and Irpin. Ukraine does not want to – and must not – go through something like that again, and no one should expect it to agree to that. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be new civilian casualties in Ukraine or that Russia won’t try to make this an incredibly harsh winter for Ukrainians.

One need only look at previous wars. Whenever Russia has intervened in military conflicts, it has employed scorched-earth tactics. We saw this in Grozny, in Chechnya, and in Aleppo, in Syria. But there is a fundamental difference between those cities and Ukraine: Ukraine has its own means of countering such actions. Therefore, Ukraine must respond to Russia’s actions, in particular by inflicting economic damage on Russia. And this significantly changes the situation.

I don’t know if Putin will be able to withstand such pressure. In my opinion, the events of the past two weeks indicate, to some extent, just how painful the Ukrainian strikes have become for Putin. He doesn’t want to admit it, but Russia is indeed suffering serious losses. Ukraine must continue to put pressure on Putin and inflict even greater damage on Russia in order to strengthen its position in negotiations and reject all this nonsense and the kleptocratic deals that Trump is pushing.

What is Putin’s situation, and how realistic is a ceasefire?

What is Putin’s current situation from an economic standpoint? How long can Russia continue the war against Ukraine, even with, as you put it, “its own man” in the White House?

Trump isn’t actually helping the Russian economy. The U.S. has never been a major buyer of Russian goods and doesn’t purchase Russian oil. Therefore, it cannot be said that American money is propping up Putin. Russia derives its main revenue from other markets.

If Europe maintains its sanctions, tightens them, and imposes restrictions on buyers of Russian oil, this could further reduce Putin’s economic ability to wage war.

Using more than 200 billion euros in frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine would create additional pressure. And Ukrainian strikes on data centers, oil refineries, and oil terminals are inflicting even greater economic damage on Russia.

This is not a confrontation between an all-powerful Russia and a helpless Ukraine. Ukraine is holding its ground and demonstrating to the world the capabilities of modern military technology and true military prowess.

Putin thought he would win in three days. More than four years have passed, and he still hasn’t succeeded. We’ve seen Ukraine written off prematurely more than once. There’s no reason to do so now.

Of course, the cost of the war will be enormous, and Russia’s crimes will be difficult to forgive. But Ukraine is capable of continuing the fight, and it will do so.

And finally: How close are we to ending the war? Are there any prospects for its end, or, on the contrary, have we moved further away from that goal because Trump is striking deals with Putin? How do you assess the current stage of the war in light of the diesel deal and the partial easing of sanctions?

I believe that Putin’s appeal to Trump regarding this absurd diesel deal demonstrated the Russian leader’s weakness. This suggests that we may not be approaching the end of the war, but rather a transition to a new phase of it.

Perhaps this will be a phase of a “ceasefire in the air.” If Ukraine continues to inflict damage on the Russian economy, Putin will eventually have to say: “All right, we won’t attack your civilians if you don’t destroy our economy.”

I believe we were moving toward such a short-term compromise even before Trump’s intervention. And the possibility of reaching it remains – with or without the involvement of the U.S. president.

But is a ceasefire on the ground realistic at this stage of the war?

No. I think the most realistic goal right now is an air ceasefire. It will take more time to bring hostilities on the ground to an end.

My prediction is that this war will end following the pattern of the Korean War: a full-fledged peace treaty will never be signed. The intensity of the fighting will gradually decrease as both sides become increasingly aware that they have reached a stalemate.

However, such a stalemate is possible only if Ukraine continues to inflict serious economic damage on Russia, particularly through strikes on its economic infrastructure.

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