Trump is "paying back a debt" to Putin, while Xi awaits the election: an interview with Alla Katish

Donald Trump accuses Ukraine of unwillingness to end the war and causing the rise in diesel prices in the US, while Washington eases restrictions on Russian energy. On the eve of the congressional elections, new questions arise about concessions to the Kremlin, possible pressure on Ukraine and the future role of the US in world politics.

Canadian journalist Alla Katish, in a conversation with Irina Uzlova, also published on the YouTube channel 24 Channel, analyzed the possible motives for Trump's decisions and his relationship with Putin. She also assessed the protests in the US and Europe, the risks of political destabilization in Canada, and the prospects for a possible trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping.

Putin demands concessions from Trump

Trump says Zelensky doesn't want to end the war, and Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries are supposedly harming American farmers. Zelensky has offered to stop these attacks in exchange for additional Patriot missiles, but Washington wants concessions without corresponding guarantees. What is Trump really seeking, and why are his policies increasingly in line with Russia's interests?

I want to return to the information we discussed in the previous broadcast. Journalist Michael Weiss spoke about two important circumstances that may explain Trump's current actions.

The first is that Putin was dissatisfied with the American president. According to Weiss, Trump promised the Kremlin certain solutions, but did not provide the result that was expected of him. In particular, it was about the lifting of sanctions.

Putin, as far as we can judge from this information, believed that Trump should fulfill his promises. But for some time this did not happen.

The situation could have changed when it became clear that on the eve of the congressional elections, the American president found himself in a difficult political situation.

I assume that Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner could have appealed to the Russian side for help. If such an appeal actually occurred, Putin was given the opportunity to demand concrete steps in response.

He could remind Trump that he still hasn't fulfilled what he promised earlier. And the current sanctions concessions, in my opinion, may be related to these agreements.

So I don't think the United States has suddenly changed its position and sided with Russia. The American state and Trump are not the same thing.

I am convinced that Trump himself has long been inclined to support decisions that are beneficial to Putin. It's just that he was previously restrained by people and state institutions that did not allow him to realize all such intentions.

Now that the American president may need help before the election, he has, in my opinion, begun to do what the Kremlin demanded of him.

The second important circumstance concerns the Russian economy. According to the information provided by Michael Weiss, Putin has, for the first time in a long time, really serious economic problems.

This could have made the Russian leadership think about ending the war. But it is important to understand that the Kremlin is not going to simply give up its demands.

Russia would like to end the war on its own terms, achieving what it could not obtain militarily. And to do that, Putin needs concessions from the United States.

That's why I say that Trump is now repaying the debt to the Kremlin.

There is another very interesting detail. American congressmen and senators are asking why Washington is helping Russia if Moscow is at the same time supporting Iran, which is fighting against the United States and its allies.

But I don't rule out the possibility that Trump really doesn't know many of the details of this situation.

According to journalists, he was reluctant to read daily intelligence reports during his first term as president. At that time, staff tried to make these materials more visual, adding illustrations to attract his attention.

Now, according to journalistic sources, the president almost never reads such documents.

Instead, his assistant, Natalie Harp, brings in a selection of positive articles about him. And judging by these messages, that's exactly the kind of information he's more receptive to.

This creates a serious problem. If the president receives mostly positive reports about himself but is not given the full intelligence picture, he may simply not understand what is really going on.

Then it is much easier for Putin to convince him of his own version of events.

I think Trump may not be feigning ignorance. Perhaps he really does not have complete information about the international situation, which makes him even more vulnerable to Kremlin influence.

Rubio seeks success in Central Asia

Marco Rubio assures that the US has not stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine. But after the latest ballistic missile strike on Kyiv, questions have again arisen about the timeliness of the warnings. Is Rubio trying to protect Trump from criticism?

It seems to me that Marco Rubio is now trying to focus on issues where he personally has fewer political risks.

He is currently in Central Asia and deals with the United States' relations with the states of this region.

Of course, Central Asia is strategically important. It is a region where the interests of Russia, China, and the United States intersect. And the American presence there is important in itself.

But I'm surprised that Rubio has decided to pay so much attention to this area right now.

Wars are raging, congressional elections are approaching, and the United States is facing increasingly serious problems with its allies. At the same time, the Secretary of State is traveling to a region where the risk of a major diplomatic failure is relatively low.

I assume he is simply looking for an opportunity to demonstrate at least some foreign policy success.

It has been quite difficult for him to earn political points lately. And in Central Asia, you can hold meetings, take joint photos, sign certain documents, and present it as the result of your work.

So I think Rubio chose a task that he considers feasible for himself.

But the C5+1 format, which brings together the US and five Central Asian states, has been around for a long time. Trump has also held meetings in this format. Isn't it important for Washington to maintain influence in a region where China and Russia are actively operating?

Of course, this is important. But the question is to what extent the United States is now able to really influence the decisions of these countries.

In my opinion, Trump's policies have significantly weakened Washington's position on the international stage. And the Central Asian states understand this perfectly well.

They see where the main economic opportunities and political influence in the region are now concentrated. I believe that China has a much stronger position there than the United States.

Therefore, I do not expect Rubio's visit to fundamentally change the situation.

He will, of course, be well received. Meetings will be organized, photographs will be taken, and perhaps joint statements will be issued. But this does not mean that the countries of the region will change their foreign policy priorities.

Among the proposals of the American administration is, in particular, the expansion of the participation of Central Asian states in the Abraham Accords related to the normalization of relations with Israel.

But Kazakhstan has had diplomatic relations with Israel for a long time. For other countries in the region, this issue also depends on their own policies and interests.

Therefore, I do not see a major diplomatic breakthrough here that could significantly strengthen the US position.

It seems to me that Rubio has chosen a direction where he can demonstrate activism without taking responsibility for the most complex issues of American foreign policy.

Russian diesel does not save prices in the US

The White House denies lifting anti-Russian sanctions, claiming only to have eased diesel restrictions. Trump supporters from the MAGA movement also justify this arrangement. How do they explain it to American voters?

I've seen some incredible speeches from some MAGA congressmen trying to come up with an explanation for why Trump needed the diesel deal with Russia.

For example, they started saying that he was allegedly asked to do this by farmers in Iowa.

But where did this story come from? Why should farmers in Iowa ask for Russian diesel? I saw no convincing reasons for such an explanation.

In my opinion, the president's supporters are simply trying to justify his decision to voters.

High fuel prices remain a serious problem in the United States, especially for farmers who use diesel in their agricultural machinery.

But if we admit that the price increase is due to the administration's own policies, it will hurt Republicans on the eve of the election.

Therefore, they are trying to shift responsibility onto Zelensky and Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries.

And Trump is presented as a president who supposedly did everything possible for American farmers and even agreed to an agreement with Russia to help them.

However, there is a very simple problem: diesel prices have not decreased significantly after this deal.

Oil prices have fallen slightly in recent days. But they have fluctuated before, even before Trump's agreements with Russia. Have Americans felt the real decline in diesel prices?

No, I don't see any significant results.

Recently, during a broadcast on my channel, we checked how the cost of diesel is changing in various American cities.

One of the viewers looked at the price in Seattle. At that moment, gas had dropped by about two cents.

But over the past month and a half or two, its value has increased by about a dollar and a half. So a two-cent drop changes practically nothing.

There have been normal price fluctuations before. You can't automatically present every small price drop as the result of agreements with Russia.

Furthermore, it is unclear to me why the United States should buy diesel from Putin at all.

Canada, for example, has stated its readiness to maximize energy production if the American market needs additional volumes.

I saw a corresponding message on the official website of our Prime Minister. Canada is ready to increase supplies if the US really needs it.

Therefore, it is difficult to explain why the American administration decided to negotiate with Russia instead of using other options.

In addition, it is unknown how much diesel Russia can actually export after Ukrainian strikes on its oil refining infrastructure.

Trump may name different volumes of supplies, but this does not mean that Moscow is able to provide them in full.

There is also a problem with transportation.

There have recently been reports of explosions near an oil terminal in St. Petersburg. Russian export facilities are increasingly under threat of attack.

I spoke with economist Vladimir Milov, who explained that Russia's ability to export petroleum products is gradually decreasing.

Baltic routes are becoming more dangerous due to the strikes. There are also serious shipping difficulties in the Black Sea.

Alternative routes remain through the Arctic and remote areas of Siberia. But these are significantly more expensive, and transportation requires large additional costs.

In addition, insuring such shipments is complicated by the risks to tankers. If ships may be hit, insurance companies either increase the cost of their services or do not want to work with such shipments at all.

As a result, Russian fuel may prove economically unprofitable for supply to distant markets.

Therefore, I do not see a compelling economic rationale for Trump's deal with Russia. In my opinion, its political significance for relations with Putin is much more important than the real benefit to American consumers.

Congress increases pressure on Trump

The Hill reports that some Republicans are ready to make additional Pentagon funding conditional on tougher sanctions against Russia. Is this a serious lever of influence on Trump?

I think this could be a serious signal for the American president. But there are many events happening right now that only at first glance seem unrelated.

For example, Europe has increasingly spoken out about the unreliability of the United States as a military partner. European countries have begun to discuss the need to become less dependent on American weapons and develop their own defense capabilities.

And it is during this period that we see large-scale riots in various European cities.

This includes Milan, Paris, and Turin, where demonstrations were held over living standards, education, and other domestic issues.

At first, these protests were peaceful. But then masked people appeared and started attacking the police and throwing Molotov cocktails.

I have a question: who benefits from European states facing such a wave of violence right now?

I suspect that Russian structures may have been involved in inciting some of the unrest. But I want to emphasize that this is my assumption, not a confirmed conclusion of the investigation.

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama also expressed suspicions about the possible involvement of people linked to Russia and Iran.

At the same time, Trump, commenting on the situation in France, primarily talked about migrants and the need to close the borders.

This is beneficial to European far-right parties, which base their policies on fears of migration.

In France, for example, Marine Le Pen's political force has a history of financial ties to Russia.

Therefore, I fear that the radicalization of protests can be used to strengthen such parties and destabilize European states.

But this does not mean that all the unrest was organized by the Kremlin. Such claims require concrete evidence.

There is another very disturbing story, this time from Canada.

According to the information I have, on October 17, an explosion occurred at a military base in Alberta, followed by a severe fire.

Four deaths and 39 injuries were reported. This is an extremely serious incident for Canadian military installations in peacetime.

Strong winds contributed to the spread of the fire, but the cause of the explosion itself remains unknown.

The investigation is currently ongoing, so I cannot say exactly what happened. And there is no reason to claim that Russia or any other state is involved in the tragedy.

Trump underestimates the threat from Republicans

But if Republicans are really threatening to block additional Pentagon funding, Trump should listen. After all, it could also affect government contracts for Elon Musk's companies. Can such pressure change the president's policy on Russia?

I think not yet.

Perhaps it is even a good thing that Trump does not realize how serious the consequences of such a confrontation could be.

We return again to his information isolation. If the president does not read intelligence reports, does not listen to people who disagree with him, and receives mostly positive information about himself, he may simply misjudge the threat.

In my opinion, Natalie Harp and other people from his environment have created a kind of information bubble.

Trump is surrounded by people who constantly prove him right, so he may not believe that any Republican lawmakers are actually willing to stand up to him.

He is used to acting differently.

When a Republican criticizes his decision, Trump begins to publicly attack that person and mobilizes his most loyal MAGA supporters against him.

Something similar has already happened, for example, with Congressman Thomas Massie.

After a wave of criticism and threats, politicians may abandon further confrontation with the president.

Trump, it seems to me, is counting on this tactic to work now.

But the situation could be much more serious, as it involves the Pentagon budget and fundamental issues of international security.

I'm not sure that this time all Republicans will agree to back down because of threats from the president's supporters.

Therefore, Trump may only realize the true scale of the problem when it begins to affect his decision-making capabilities.

Alberta and attempts to split Canada

Alberta is discussing the possibility of holding a referendum on secession from Canada. What is the mood among the province's residents and could this initiative actually lead to independence?

I think the situation will remain under control in the near future.

Polls show that the idea of separation is supported by approximately 20% of Albertans, possibly as high as 22%.

The vast majority of the province's population does not want to leave Canada. And many people are very negative about the fact that this issue is constantly raised.

Current political initiatives are about further discussing the possibility of a referendum. This does not mean that Alberta has already made a final decision to leave Canada.

But I see another danger.

Even if the separatists are defeated, the issue of independence will not disappear. It can continue to be used for political pressure.

I believe that certain American political groups are interested in strengthening separatist sentiment in Canada.

I don't rule out informational influence from Russia. But this is my assumption, which cannot be taken as a proven fact.

Now new technologies are being added to this.

Artificial intelligence allows you to quickly create a huge number of comments, messages, and other materials for social networks.

With the help of such tools, you can create the impression that a certain idea is supported by many more people than it actually is.

I fear that after the vote, if the results turn out to be unfavorable to the supporters of secession, accusations of fraud may begin.

People who supported Alberta independence can be sent messages saying they were allegedly cheated and had their victory stolen.

It's a familiar pattern in American politics. Trump has repeatedly accused his opponents of fraud when the election results did not suit him.

So I think that even if the current initiative fails, the information battle around Alberta could continue.

Most residents of the province would like to close this issue and continue living as part of Canada. But political forces that benefit from continued discontent may not allow the topic to disappear from the agenda.

No Kings protests mobilize voters

The US has seen massive No Kings protests, spanning all 50 states. Millions of people have taken to the streets, and with the US Congressional elections just two weeks away, how much of an impact could these demonstrations have on the vote?

I believe that these actions are very important, first of all, for American voters themselves.

When people go out into the street and see thousands of like-minded people around them, they realize that they are not alone with their discontent.

This is an extremely important feeling.

People see that there are many of them, that they can act together and change the situation.

In my opinion, this could significantly affect voter turnout.

A person who previously doubted whether to even go to the polls may feel after such a demonstration that their vote really matters.

So I think the No Kings protests can help mobilize people before November 3rd.

But don't expect them to directly change Trump's behavior.

He has previously ignored large-scale demonstrations against him. It doesn't matter to him how many people take to the streets if they are not his supporters.

Instead, he tries to ridicule the protesters and Democratic Party representatives.

In his rhetoric, he constantly uses offensive nicknames, accusations of radicalism, and attempts to scare voters.

Republicans used to often talk about the threat of socialism. But it seems that such statements no longer have the same effect as before.

Now they are increasingly using accusations of communism and returning to the topic of migrants.

These are familiar Trump political tricks.

But for people who oppose his policies, the main significance of the protests lies not in the president's response.

Most importantly, they saw the scale of their own support and received additional motivation to participate in the elections.

And if it really brings more people to the polls, the demonstrations could have a tangible political impact.

Xi may determine the fate of the negotiations

The Wall Street Journal reports that Putin wants to meet with Trump and Xi Jinping. Ukraine opposes talks about its future without its participation, and the Foreign Ministry emphasizes that Putin must first agree to a ceasefire. Can the three leaders agree on a new division of spheres of influence?

If you look at this trio, in my opinion, Xi Jinping has the greatest real influence right now.

It is his position that may determine further decisions.

At the same time, it is important to consider that in two weeks the United States will hold congressional elections, and their results could significantly change Trump's political opportunities.

If the Republicans lose their majority in the House of Representatives, let alone in both chambers, the American president will find himself in a much weaker position.

In the US, the expression "lame duck" is often used for such a president. This is a politician who formally retains power, but has significantly fewer opportunities to implement his own decisions.

I think that in the event of a serious defeat for the Republicans, even their congressmen will not be so willing to comply with Trump's demands.

Therefore, his position in the international arena may weaken.

The situation with Xi Jinping is completely different.

China has a large economic influence on Russia, and the Kremlin is increasingly dependent on cooperation with Beijing.

If the Chinese leader decides that the war needs to be stopped, Putin, in my opinion, will be forced to carefully consider this position.

But I don't think he will react the same way to Trump's demands.

Putin has repeatedly demonstrated that he can drag out negotiations with the American president, promise something and not fulfill the agreements.

Therefore, I do not expect that just meeting with Trump will allow us to reach any serious decisions.

Much will depend on what position Xi Jinping takes.

But Xi also needs some concessions from Trump. What might China demand in exchange for participating in such arrangements?

The problem for Trump is that he has already made important concessions to China.

In particular, the US administration temporarily eased tariff restrictions. In addition, there were delays in the supply of US weapons to Taiwan.

In my opinion, in this way, Xi Jinping has already obtained part of what he wanted in relations with the United States.

Moreover, some solutions are called temporary, but we know that temporary restrictions or concessions sometimes last for a very long time.

Therefore, China has no particular need to rush into new agreements.

Xi can simply watch how the political situation in the US develops and wait until it becomes clear how strong Trump will remain after the election.

I think China currently has a better negotiating position than Washington.

So, can Xi use Trump and Putin's problems to gain even more influence? Should we expect any major decisions in the near future?

Chinese politics is known for not making important decisions in a hurry.

Xi Jinping carefully assesses the possible consequences and tries to obtain as much information as possible before determining his position.

That is why I do not think that any fundamentally important agreements will be reached before the US elections on November 3.

First, we need to see how the vote will end and what political options Trump will have left.

A possible trilateral meeting is being discussed for November 18-19. By that time, the preliminary results of the American elections will already be known.

Therefore, the meeting itself is quite possible.

But if the Republicans suffer a very serious defeat, Xi may decide that there is no point in negotiating with a weakened Trump.

After all, the American president can promise certain solutions, but will no longer have sufficient political influence to implement them.

In my opinion, it is more profitable for China to wait than to agree to agreements that may later remain only on paper.

And if Trump loses political influence, could Xi use this to increase pressure on Putin?

I think so, but it will depend on many circumstances.

All three are now linked through international politics and economic interests.

If Putin loses Trump's support, his position could also be significantly weakened.

Especially given Russia's economic problems and its increasing dependence on China.

But I don't expect Xi to immediately start putting pressure on the Kremlin.

It seems to me that he would rather wait until both of his competitors are in a weaker position.

China will then have more opportunities to determine the terms of future agreements.

For now, Xi has no particular reason to take drastic steps. He can watch the situation in the United States, Russia's economic problems, and the continuation of the war against Ukraine.

And only after that, decide when and on whom it is worth influencing.

Trump is working off his debts to Putin, and Xi Jinping will decide the fate of the world: watch the video