Trump Is Making New Concessions to Russia Ahead of the Election

Donald Trump continues to defend Vladimir Putin, even as Russia launches new attacks on Ukraine. His decisions in Moscow’s favor are drawing increasingly sharp criticism even among Republicans, and the long-standing story about the former U.S. president’s possible ties to the KGB is once again drawing attention.

Adv

Where did “Agent Krasnov” come from?

Putin continues to attack Ukraine even after talks with Steve Witkoff, while Trump justifies the Russian dictator’s actions. You suggested that he might be Agent Krasnov. What is the basis for this theory?

Overall, he behaves like Agent Krasnov. There has long been controversy surrounding this story, and I devoted the first chapter of my latest book to it.

I investigated whether KGB officers could have recruited Trump in 1987, when he visited the Soviet Union at the beginning of perestroika. But let me say right away: I haven’t seen or read his personal agent file, so I can’t claim that the recruitment actually took place.

Instead, we can analyze the testimonies of people who have spoken about the Soviet intelligence services’ possible work with Trump.

First and foremost, this concerns Musaev, the former head of Kazakhstan’s security agencies. In 2025, he claimed to have seen a 1987 operational file on the American businessman and identified his alleged agent codename as Krasnov.

This statement caused a major international stir. Musaev himself faced a wave of criticism: people began discussing his past, his legal troubles in Kazakhstan, and casting doubt on whether he could have had access to such documents at all.

I gathered this material and analyzed his account. I was interested in how closely it aligned with the structure of the KGB and the methods of Soviet counterintelligence.

Musaev claimed that he worked in the Sixth Directorate, which dealt with economic counterintelligence. It was precisely this unit that might have taken an interest in a prominent American businessman who had come to the USSR to discuss economic opportunities.

A Trip to the USSR in 1987

How might the KGB have worked with Trump, and was Putin truly involved in his possible recruitment?

The Sixth Directorate comprised the Eighth and Thirteenth Departments. The Eighth Department dealt with major foreign businesses whose representatives visited the Soviet Union. The Thirteenth Department worked with joint ventures, which were just beginning to be established under Gorbachev.

Trump was a well-known American businessman, so I am convinced that his visit would have attracted the attention of both departments. In accordance with their mandates, they were required to organize operational activities.

First, they gathered information about the individual: his business, contacts, habits, and vulnerabilities. They could have enlisted informants, arranged introductions, and sought compromising material, particularly through intimate relationships. All of this was documented, and then they might have attempted to establish an agent relationship.

I don’t know exactly what measures were used against Trump or whether anyone succeeded in recruiting him. But the very fact of conducting an operational investigation into a major foreign businessman was entirely in line with the practices of the Soviet secret services.

Trump traveled with his wife. They visited Moscow and Leningrad, where local KGB agencies may also have been monitoring him.

As for the stories that Vladimir Putin personally recruited Trump, I consider them fabrications.

Putin was not in Leningrad at the time. In 1987, he was in Dresden, in the German Democratic Republic, where he worked at a local branch of the KGB. Moreover, given his rank, he was too low-level a figure to be working with an American businessman of that caliber.

The most interesting events began after Trump’s return to the U.S.

Before the trip, he was primarily focused on business. Of course, he was already a well-known media figure, but he was practically not involved in active political life.

Then Trump used his own money to buy advertising space in major American newspapers and published a sort of manifesto on what U.S. foreign policy should be.

He also appeared on the popular television shows hosted by Oprah Winfrey and Larry King. People began asking him about his presidential ambitions, even though that topic had not previously been a central focus of his public life.

Trump gave evasive answers, saying he had plenty of other things to do. However, it was precisely then that he began to speak out actively on international relations.

I paid particular attention to his views on NATO, Western Europe, and China. Many of the ideas he promoted during the 2016 presidential campaign had already emerged after his trip to the USSR.

In other words, a man who had been virtually uninvolved in politics until July 1987 traveled to the Soviet Union, returned, and suddenly began making sweeping political statements.

I got the impression that in Moscow, he might have been told what ideas to promote and which direction to take. Perhaps he received certain recommendations or assignments. It was precisely this sequence of events that prompted me to investigate this story more closely.

Epstein and Possible Compromising Material

You also link this theory to the Jeffrey Epstein story. What circumstances caught your attention?

Trump and Epstein had known each other since the 1980s. They remained in contact for a long time, but around the mid-2000s, their relationship soured.

Epstein’s inner circle included people whose connections could have been of interest to Soviet intelligence investigators. Specifically, this refers to the daughter of a well-known British publisher who printed speeches by Brezhnev, Zhivkov, and other Communist Party leaders.

The publisher himself was said to have ties to the KGB. His death also raised many questions, as he disappeared from a yacht under unusual circumstances.

Epstein later faced charges of sexual crimes. He was convicted, and associating with him became reputationally risky for those in his circle.

Trump gradually distanced himself from Epstein. A conflict also arose between them over a property in Florida that, according to widespread reports, both men wanted to purchase.

Then, in 2016–2017, rumors surfaced that Epstein had allegedly attempted to sell compromising material on Trump to Russia.

These stories mentioned possible contacts with Russia’s representative to the UN, Vitaly Churkin. He later died suddenly in New York.

There were also reports of Epstein’s attempts to establish contacts through a former Norwegian prime minister. According to this account, he wanted to arrange a meeting with Sergey Lavrov to discuss the transfer of materials that might be of interest to the Kremlin.

I compiled these reports along with other details from Trump’s biography. I hadn’t seen the archive in question myself, but this story drew my attention to possible channels for obtaining compromising material.

In Ukraine, retired SBU Lieutenant General Omelchenko also investigated the possibility of Trump’s recruitment. He analyzed the methods the Soviet intelligence services might have used to work with the American businessman.

However, what matters most to me right now isn’t even what might have happened in 1987. It’s far more interesting to consider why Trump’s current decisions seem so disadvantageous to him personally.

The Diesel Deal Before the Election

Why do you call Trump’s current policy toward Russia politically suicidal?

Because he is taking steps that could cost him – and the Republican Party – dearly on the eve of the congressional elections.

In the U.S., a significant portion of the public views Ukraine positively and Russia negatively. This doesn’t mean that everyone supports unlimited military aid, but Trump’s affinity for Putin is raising more and more questions among the American public.

The diesel deal is particularly telling. In my view, Russian fuel will not be a decisive factor for the American market, but the political impact of such a decision is enormous.

In effect, on the eve of the election, Trump is agreeing to ease restrictions on Russian energy resources. He is demonstrating a willingness to restore economic relations with a country that continues to wage war against Ukraine.

Moreover, the U.S. has other options for securing fuel supplies.

Canada, a major producer of oil and petroleum products and a long-standing trading partner of the U.S., is right next door. The United States itself is also one of the largest producers and exporters of energy resources.

If the main goal were to increase fuel availability for Americans, one could discuss purchasing from Canada or redirecting part of its own production to the domestic market.

But Trump is choosing to strike a deal specifically with Putin. And he is doing so at a time when his party needs to maintain voter support.

I get the impression that he has received instructions from Moscow. Otherwise, I cannot explain why he is so persistently seeking opportunities to make economic concessions to Russia, despite the obvious political risks.

I even suspect that the Kremlin no longer counts on Trump’s continued rise to power. Moscow may believe that after the November 3 election, his leverage will diminish, so they are now trying to get as much as possible from him.

This involves easing sanctions, favorable economic decisions, and delaying new restrictions – particularly those related to Lindsey Graham’s legislative initiatives.

At the same time, Trump is looking for ways to boost his own popularity. For example, he previously spoke about the possibility of paying $5,000 to each adult American after the election, linking this to his party’s victory.

This is an interesting political strategy. He doesn’t tell voters directly, “Vote for me, and I’ll give you money.” Instead, he promises future payments should the Republicans succeed.

I’ve long suspected that before the election, he would try to demonstrate some kind of dramatic result: lowering gas prices, promising payments, or bringing an American citizen home after negotiations with Moscow.

Witkoff, Putin, and Iran

What did Steve Witkoff’s latest talks with Putin reveal, and why did they spark a new wave of criticism in the U.S.?

Witkoff first visited Norway, where Volodymyr Zelenskyy was staying and where European representatives supported the Ukrainian position. After that, he traveled to Russia and met with Putin.

And once again, we witnessed the American negotiator’s extremely favorable attitude toward the Russian dictator. Witkoff even called Putin a humanist.

This strikes me as astonishing. The Russian army continues to attack Ukrainian cities, yet a representative of the U.S. president speaks of the humanism of the man who is waging this war.

At the same time, an American citizen, Hubbard, who had been held in Russia for a long time, was released. Witkoff returned with him to the United States, and the Trump administration presented this as a major diplomatic success.

But we’re told that Putin supposedly received nothing in return. Around the same time, an agreement regarding Russian diesel was reached.

To me, these events look like a kind of exchange: Moscow releases an American, and Washington makes a decision that is economically and politically important for Russia.

Even more telling is Trump’s stance on Iran.

The American president is asked about the assistance Moscow might be providing to Tehran, specifically regarding the possible transfer of intelligence data for attacks on American military facilities in the Middle East.

He responds that, in his opinion, Putin is helping the Iranians very little.

And this is happening while Sergey Lavrov is on an official visit to Iran. Russian and Iranian leaders meet regularly to discuss cooperation and new agreements.

Putin has also held multiple meetings with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. A new visit by the Iranian president to Moscow was expected on October 27.

In other words, we are seeing active diplomatic contacts, yet Trump is acting as if cooperation between Moscow and Tehran isn’t a serious problem.

Such decisions are increasingly outraging American politicians. Democrats and independents have long criticized Trump, but now dissatisfaction is growing even among Republicans.

There are increasingly harsh assessments of his behavior, including comparisons to someone acting in the Kremlin’s interests. I see this kind of rhetoric not only among Trump’s longtime political opponents but also in the broader Western political community.

For the Republican Party, the main problem is that instead of securing electoral victories, the president is creating new controversies. On top of the diesel deal and his favorable remarks about Putin, there is now the issue of satellite communications for Ukrainian drones.

The Starlink and Starshield Issues

What happened to the communication links for Ukrainian drones, and who could have made the decisions that led to the restrictions?

I believe that Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth were involved in this situation. Now they’re trying to shift the blame onto one another.

We’ve seen reports of serious disruptions to the communications needed by Ukrainian drones. In my opinion, the operation of these systems was significantly restricted for about three days.

As far as I know, some of the technical issues persist to this day.

According to my sources, Starlink connectivity is unstable at speeds exceeding 160 kilometers per hour. For high-speed Ukrainian drones, this could be a serious problem.

It’s important to understand that this isn’t about the drone’s maximum physical speed. A drone can fly faster, but at a certain speed, difficulties arise with the stability of the satellite connection.

This affects data transmission and the ability to control the drone while it is carrying out a mission.

What interests me most is who made these decisions. After all, SpaceX operates under government contracts, including with the Pentagon, so the issue of military satellite communications cannot depend solely on Musk’s personal preferences.

I do not believe that such restrictions could have been imposed without the involvement of the U.S. leadership. That is precisely why I believe that responsibility should not be attributed solely to SpaceX.

This story has raised new questions in American political circles. It is particularly telling that some of the people who previously defended Trump against accusations of possible Russian influence are now themselves beginning to criticize his decisions.

Among them are former participants in the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. They previously denied some of the allegations against Trump, but now they are expressing concern that his policies may run counter to U.S. interests.

For Republicans, this is particularly dangerous ahead of the election. They are forced to explain to their voters why the president is making new concessions to Russia and why there are problems with the technology on which Ukraine’s defense depends.

Post-Election Negotiations

What has been achieved during the latest U.S.-Russia contacts, and could a potential summit between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping change the situation?

If we set aside Hubbard’s release and the high-profile statements, I don’t see any significant progress in the negotiations.

At least it’s good that the United States has maintained an important condition: future economic projects with Russia can be discussed, but they should only be implemented after a peace agreement is concluded.

In other words, the parties can discuss investments, major contracts, and cooperation. But without an end to the war, these agreements must not take effect.

And Putin, as far as I can tell, has no intention of concluding a peace agreement on terms acceptable to Ukraine.

He even proposed resuming more active negotiations no earlier than November 10. This is very telling, since the U.S. congressional elections will take place on November 3.

I think the Kremlin wants to see the election results first, understand the new balance of political forces in Washington, and only then decide how to proceed with its contacts with Trump.

At the same time, a possible trilateral meeting between the American, Russian, and Chinese leaders is being discussed.

But serious disagreements have arisen here as well. Trump has spoken of his desire to discuss, first and foremost, nuclear arms reduction, while China is not interested in limiting its arsenal at this stage.

I’ll cite the figures I’m using for comparison. Russia has approximately 1,796 deployed nuclear warheads, and the United States has about 1,770. China’s nuclear arsenal is estimated at approximately 500 warheads.

Beijing’s position is that it must first catch up to the level of other major nuclear powers. Until China has at least roughly comparable capabilities – perhaps on the order of a thousand warheads – it is unlikely to agree to reductions.

Therefore, it remains unclear what specific agreements the three leaders might discuss.

There is also no clarity regarding the meeting itself. International events, contacts within APEC and the G20, and possible separate talks are being discussed.

But it is not certain that Trump will attend all the planned events. It is unknown whether Xi Jinping will agree to the proposed format. The question of a possible meeting between Putin and the U.S. president in Florida, where Putin has been invited, also remains open.

All of this will depend both on the results of the U.S. elections and on the decisions of the participants themselves.

So far, we’ve seen a lot of diplomatic activity but very few concrete results. Russia continues the war, and the Kremlin shows no willingness to change its demands.

Full conversation: watch the video

"Trump Is Acting Like Agent Krasnov": Zhirnov on Possible Ties to the KGB, Concessions to Putin, and Starlink

popular videos