The Epstein case could directly undermine the reputation of the current U.S. president, Donald Trump. How serious is this case, and how might it ultimately affect both his personal reputation and the standing of the United States in international affairs?I think a lot of the trouble Trump has found himself in was created by his own actions. He campaigned in 2024 on making all the Epstein-related material public. Then he shifted and said he didn’t want to release it, but pressure continued to build, particularly from his own supporters, who strongly believe there has been a cover-up in the Epstein case.Now the pressure from his base has forced him to change his position again, so I don’t think this is over by any stretch of the imagination. It only leaves people wondering what Trump is trying to hide. If he says he had no involvement, then why not just make those files available? The political pressure on Trump will continue, and the damage he is facing has largely been created by his own actions.As someone who works in the media, I understand how devastating this could be for a person’s reputation. At the same time, there are reports that Russian intelligence actively cultivated this circle and offered their services. In other words, there may well be a Russian footprint in the Epstein tapes and the surrounding materials.I don’t think there’s any evidence of that in the hands of the Justice Department or the media at this point. There has been a lot of speculation and a lot of conspiracy-theory talk about Epstein, who he worked for, and whether he had connections with intelligence agencies.It gets a lot of attention, but I have to say that, at least as far as I can see, there’s no evidence for any of it. I think Epstein was simply a vile individual, and what we’re learning about him is so horrible, and the number of victims he left behind is so large, that people are looking for other explanations. But in my view, he was just a very, very evil person.If this is true, and the Russians really were trying to pressure or shape U.S. foreign policy, we saw hints of it in Helsinki during that very unusual meeting between President Trump and Putin, where Trump did not come across well. Then there was the meeting in Anchorage, Alaska. And now, if Russian influence was involved, it could surface again in future negotiations, including those concerning Ukraine’s future."I think the unpleasant fact is that Trump believes he and Vladimir Putin are friends, and he views international relations through the prism of his personal relationships with foreign leaders."That’s not how Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, or Kim Jong-un see things, but that is how Trump approaches them. I think Putin, as a former KGB officer, used his skills to manipulate Trump. And as I’ve said, in many respects the Kremlin sees Trump, in Vladimir Lenin’s phrase, as a “useful idiot.” They know how to play him, and they do it very well.We are dealing with a scandal that is no less serious — namely, the corruption turmoil unfolding in Ukraine. The anti-corruption institutions, NABU and SAPO, are in active contact with U.S. law-enforcement agencies. I cannot say how deep that cooperation runs, but I am quite sure Washington knows far more than we do here in Ukraine. The Trump administration could shape how explosive this scandal becomes. The United States could, for instance, open criminal cases involving corruption at the highest levels of the Ukrainian government.I think that the corruption issue in Ukraine is a political issue — both in Ukraine and in the United States. "Many people who oppose providing aid to Ukraine in its struggle against the Russian invasion point to corruption as a reason why the U.S. shouldn’t offer assistance."That’s why having confidence in the good faith of Ukrainian law enforcement and President Zelensky in fulfilling his campaign promise to tackle corruption is very important.I also think the U.S. should assist in that effort — not to tilt the process for political reasons one way or another, but simply to help build confidence that the Ukrainian government’s anticorruption measures are genuinely serious.How much pressure could the U.S. administration realistically put on senior officials in Ukraine’s government? It wouldn’t happen openly, but the leverage is certainly there. If the scandal over the misuse of American funds becomes a major political firestorm in the United States, the question will inevitably arise as to whether the Trump administration will reduce its support for Ukraine even further. And that poses a very serious threat to us.A lot depends on how developments unfold on the battlefield. "I do think there remains very strong bipartisan support in Congress to continue and even expand assistance to Ukraine, whether through cooperation with NATO or directly with the government in Kyiv."Despite all the talk of scandals and the amount of time they consume in American politics, it is important to remember that in Congress, the level of support for Ukraine remains strong. Hopefully, that support will not be adversely affected by whatever else is happening in American politics.I genuinely wish none of this were on the table — neither the Epstein affair nor the large-scale corruption within our own government. But the reality is that both the American president and Ukraine are entering this moment from positions of reduced strength. Putin is not letting up, and at the same time there is growing talk about another round of negotiations. What might the weakening of both U.S. and Ukrainian positions mean for the upcoming talks with the Russians?I think what the Kremlin is counting on is grinding down Ukraine’s forces on the battlefield. I don’t think Putin has any interest in negotiating at the present time. He sees this as a long-term struggle and believes time is on Russia’s side.He has also ensured that the possibility of Trump substantially increasing U.S. assistance is not going to happen. That was evident after the Alaska summit, after the subsequent phone call between Trump and Putin, and after Trump said he would not provide Tomahawk missiles."From Moscow’s perspective, I don’t think they are interested in negotiating in any direction, even if Ukraine’s position is weakened, because Putin’s long-term objective, and he has said this for 20 years, is not just acquiring pieces of territory. He is trying to recreate the Russian Empire. He still has a long way to go."Putin is signaling to Europe — and to the world — that he is willing to push the level of escalation higher. Just the other day there was a major act of sabotage in Poland, luckily without any casualties. But it shows that Putin is prepared to take things further. This is his way of trying to intimidate both Europeans and Americans. In public, the United States continues to stress that it is ready to respond in kind to any Russian military provocation. Yet if we look at the facts on the ground, we also see a drawdown of the American military presence in Central Europe. In your view, what does this shift actually mean?"I think Putin is trying to sow division within the NATO alliance; that has been a long-term Soviet and now Russian goal."He believes that with the backing of China, which is becoming incredibly important for Russia in Europe and the Middle East, he has a strong hand. He will try to find weaknesses, and he will try to intimidate Europeans and Americans. I think that is all part of his larger strategy.And that is another reason why, at least in terms of actual good-faith negotiations, there is simply no interest on the Kremlin’s part. What we collectively should keep in mind is the need to make sure Ukraine has the military capability to inflict setbacks on Russian forces on the battlefield.It is only when Russian troops are retreating instead of advancing that Putin will have any interest in negotiation. And that is why Ukraine’s leverage will be at its greatest if we reach that point.One thing that really alarmed me was the latest G7 statement. Formally, the G7 leaders reaffirm the inviolability of Ukraine’s borders and their commitment to international law. But at the same time, they hint that the current front line could serve as the starting point for negotiations with the Russian Federation — and that is a deeply worrying signal. How do you think this could shape the situation overall?I have not thought it would be in Ukraine’s interest to agree to a ceasefire along the current frontline followed by negotiations. I have believed this for quite some time, because although Putin may not see it this way, Russia would benefit from such a ceasefire. "If it were established along the existing line of contact, Russia could effectively freeze the situation in place through negotiations that drag on endlessly and unproductively, turning the current frontline into a new de facto Russian-Ukrainian border."This is something the Ukrainian government needs to take very seriously. The real objective now should not be to prepare the ground for negotiations but to shift the military balance on the ground in Ukraine’s favor. That is the scenario that will finally get Russia’s attention and create a real need to negotiate. As long as Russia is advancing, even very slowly and at a terrible human cost, it will continue. Without superior force, that will not change.Where might the Russians actually be prepared to negotiate, and where would they simply try to expand their demands? Of course, predicting these things is never easy. But given your vast experience, Mr. Bolton, I would ask you to share your assessment."I don’t think Putin is going to make any concessions."In fact, if you look at the series of demands he has made during the second Trump term, he has asked for the transfer of land in the Donbas that Russian troops do not currently occupy, in order to complete his control over the territories that Russia claims to have already annexed. That is obviously not going to happen. No Ukrainian government could agree to that.It would also be politically unwise for a Ukrainian government to concede that the territory Russia holds is somehow legitimately going to remain Russian. That would amount to acknowledging that unprovoked aggression can be allowed to succeed.It is important that this principle not be accepted, not by Ukraine, which would be the most harmed, nor by NATO members. If that principle is established here, other countries around the world, including China as it looks at Taiwan, will take note, and the world will become more dangerous and less stable as a result.So I do not see what concessions we could offer, especially in the face of continued Russian intransigence.When we look at Russia’s economic situation, there are two sides to it. On the one hand, the sanctions are having an effect: Russian oil is backing up, export volumes are declining rather than growing, and prices are dropping. On the other hand, Putin clearly shows no hesitation about continuing the war. That means the Kremlin has to make a very careful calculation about whether Russia can actually sustain this effort. But there is also a long-standing pattern in Russia: the country has a history of waging war under extreme hardship — even with minimal food supplies and a ration-card economy.You know, the sanctions that have been in place for almost four years, although new and presumably tougher sanctions against Lukoil and Rosneft have been announced, still require us to acknowledge that enforcement since February 2022 has not been as effective as it could have been. Russia’s income under the sanctions has been reduced, in some cases reduced considerably, but it is still enough to keep the war going."Many close observers of the Russian domestic political scene say that Putin actually benefits from having the war continue. His greatest vulnerability, they argue, would come if he ended the war."This sounds contrary to what we would expect people in civil society to want, but I think Putin has unfortunately convinced many Russians that this is a war to “save” Russia from the United States and its Western allies. I don’t see any internal threat, even with the impact of sanctions, that would cause Putin to change his policy.This is reinforced by what he is being told by the military, which is that Ukrainian resistance will begin to crack by the spring or summer of next year.