'Zelenskyy pissed off Trump when accused him of betraying Ukraine publicly.' Interview with Laura Loomer

Key points:

• Trump's frustration: The US president is frustrated by the lack of progress toward ending the war. He wants to deliver on his promises and force Kyiv and Moscow to come to the negotiating table.

• Russia's stance: Putin and Lavrov have no interest in a peace deal. They continue to destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure, stage provocations, and openly troll Zelenskyy by inviting him to Moscow.

• The MAGA movement's attitude: Trump's supporters are generally not hostile toward Ukrainians themselves, but rather toward sending US taxpayer money abroad.

• Russian propaganda: Some American bloggers and opinion leaders promote anti-Ukraine narratives under the influence of Russian propaganda, while others are apparently receiving money from Moscow – although this would need to be proven.

Laura Loomer is one of the best-known ultra-conservative bloggers and activists in the United States, a staunch supporter of Donald Trump who frequently speaks with him in person, and one of the most prominent figures in the broader MAGA movement.

Like many MAGA supporters, she held an anti-Ukraine position for a long time, actively spreading various Russian narratives targeting Ukraine. However, her views changed dramatically this summer when Loomer openly admitted that she had fallen victim to Russian propaganda.

She subsequently traveled to Ukraine herself, witnessed the aftermath of Russian strikes firsthand, spoke with senior Ukrainian officials and military personnel, and recorded an interview with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Since then, her pro-Ukraine stance has only grown stronger.

Read also: Trump comments on possible invitation for Zelenskyy to G20 summit

During the October crisis in US-Ukraine relations, triggered by the diesel deal with Russia and an exchange of sharp remarks between Trump and Zelenskyy, Loomer criticized what she saw as an effective weakening of anti-Russian sanctions.

At the same time, she refrained from criticizing Trump's own actions.

"Zelenskyy could have been more tempered in his response," Loomer tells RBC-Ukraine. However, she is quick to add that Putin bears responsibility for the continuation of the Russian-Ukrainian war, as he has no desire for peace and effectively shows contempt for the White House's efforts.

Loomer's comments repeatedly spark heated arguments with other members of the MAGA movement.

"I don't necessarily think that it's just central to Ukraine. MAGA as a whole is just completely opposed to sending any more money to any country," she explains to RBC-Ukraine. She also points out that many American podcasters, from both the right and the left, are quite clearly backed by Russia.

– October was very difficult for US-Ukraine relations - we had a diesel deal, Donald Trump's sharp criticism of President Zelenskyy, some troubles with intelligence data, and Starlink. Did you speak with President Trump or somebody from his inner circle about this? What actually drove all these moves? Do you understand?

– I understand. When I was in Ukraine, after I interviewed President Zelenskyy, I spoke with President Trump, and he shared my interview, which went viral, with President Zelenskyy during my time in Ukraine. But I have not had conversations with President Trump about the diesel deal with Russia, and I have not had conversations with him about Starlink.

I know that the president is clearly frustrated with a lack of progress in ending this war. It was a campaign promise of his in 2024. He said that he was going to end the Ukraine war on day one, and obviously that did not happen.

Now we're nearly two years into the Trump administration, and we're just a few days out from very important, consequential midterms, which are going to determine whether or not Donald Trump is a lame-duck president in the last two years of his administration.

There's just frustration with the president wanting to really secure and fulfill his campaign promises, and he's trying to find a way to bring both Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin to the table.

Although I will say it seems like Zelenskyy is more willing and has been more agreeable to making a deal, as opposed to Vladimir Putin and Lavrov, who every single week send their Russian puppet masters to push their propaganda in the US media. It's clear that they are not interested in a peace deal, and it's clear that they have no respect for the Trump administration.

We've seen that in the way that they've continued violating the energy ceasefire. We saw that in the way that Vladimir Putin and his Russian forces blew up the airport in Kyiv while Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were sitting across from him at a meeting in Moscow right before they were supposed to travel via plane to Kyiv, which they weren't able to do because they blew up the airport.

There are a million examples. Look at the attacks yesterday in Dnipro (the interview was recorded on October 30 EST – Ed), where there were reports of 13 to 15 people being killed. Just the day before that, there was a deliberate attack on an animal sanctuary in Ukraine in which a bunch of animals were killed.

Then you had the attacks again a couple of weeks ago on the border of Poland, the attempted assassination of David Petraeus, our former CIA director, and a train full of Americans that were travelling from Ukraine to Poland coming back from a security conference (this refers to the Russian attack near the Ukrainian-Polish border, when a train carrying delegates to the YES conference was nearby – Ed.).

We could show an example every single day of how Russian aggression has only increased as Zelenskyy has tried to negotiate some type of deal.

– In your view, did Kyiv and Zelenskyy handle this pressure from Donald Trump correctly?

– I personally think that Zelenskyy could have been more tempered in his response instead of attacking President Trump, because one thing that you have to know about President Trump: he doesn't like when people attack him and his judgment.

Zelenskyy probably pissed off President Trump when he accused him of betraying Ukraine very publicly and did a media tour in which he did attack Donald Trump. He probably could have handled that in a private phone call.

At the same time, I understand that this is a very serious situation. Every single day, as more ballistic missile attacks happen, more and more people in Ukraine are dying. We're getting closer to the winter months, and it's going to be a very frigid winter.

It's part of the terrorist strategy of Vladimir Putin to destabilize and destroy Ukraine's energy infrastructure, because he's hoping to literally freeze people to death to force them to surrender territory. That's obviously not a fair negotiating tactic, and I wouldn't say that's exemplary of somebody who wants to end a war. He clearly wants to prolong the war and prolong human suffering.

At the same time, people in Ukraine need to understand. I don't necessarily agree with making a diesel deal with Russia. I supported the Lindsey Graham sanctions, the sanctions bill on Russia and Iran. It was less than one month from the day that it was announced and signed into law that it's already been tossed to the side. It didn't even last a month, the sanctions on Russia.

I also understand that President Trump has to do what he needs to do to try to lower the cost of diesel, and energy costs are a big issue going into these midterm elections.

President Trump isn't going to be able to be effective for Americans if he's in gridlock with a lame-duck presidency, if the Democrats can somehow take back power in the November 3rd elections. My personal opinion is I don't really support an energy deal with the Russians in favor of sanctioning Russia.

– Do you think that President Trump is open to shifting back to a firm stance including harsh new sanctions against Russia, or are different concessions to Moscow now the main line of policy of the White House?

– I think it's a very fluid situation, and things could change at any moment. I never want to speak for the president. A month ago, when we had all this momentum against Russia and people were praising how strong Ukraine-US relations were and talking about the renewed interest in bipartisan Russian sanctions, less than a month later, now we have a diesel deal with Russia.

Anything could change, especially after the election. Again, I don't want to speak for the president, but if we win the midterms or maybe if we lose the midterms, perhaps we will see another shift in this policy.

I can't speak for the president, but a lot can change in these next five to seven days, especially as we see how the midterm elections play out, because that's also going to impact how the president can codify his agenda depending on the power structure balance in the House and the Senate here in the United States.

– Is the current push for the peace talks a real window for the deal, or maybe President Putin may just try to play President Trump while pursuing his initial goals, meaning the conquest of Ukraine and maybe even pushing further to the west and conquering those countries?

– I don't think that Vladimir Putin is serious about wanting to have peace talks. From the beginning, it's common sense that these talks should not be taking place in Moscow. It should be in a neutral location.

Maybe they could take place at the White House, maybe Mar-a-Lago. I discussed this extensively during my interview with President Zelenskyy.

Read also: Trump puts Graham-backed Russia sanctions on hold

But I think that Putin is trying to troll Zelenskyy. Last week, we saw the Kremlin release a statement saying that they invited Zelenskyy to Moscow for meetings. Why would Zelenskyy go to Moscow when the Russians are constantly trying to assassinate him? Why would Zelenskyy want to go to Moscow for meetings when everybody can see how Putin's opposition in the Russian elections was treated? They were arrested, kept in a Siberian concentration camp, and then poisoned. Why would Zelenskyy want to subject himself to potentially being kidnapped, murdered, or assassinated on Russian soil?

– A suicidal move.

– It's a suicidal move. Obviously, Putin is clearly not stupid. It just seems like a bad-faith effort to say, "Okay, yeah, I'm going to have negotiations, but you have to come to Moscow." The negotiations should not be in Russia, and they should not be in Ukraine. They should be in a neutral country, or they should be in the United States at the White House or Mar-a-Lago.

– Getting back to your trip to Ukraine, you mentioned that you met President Trump, and you discussed your trip with him. Do you remember what his initial reaction was? What did he tell you? What were his impressions or thoughts on that?

– He said that my interview with President Zelenskyy was great. He said, "Great interview. I hope that we can find a way to end this war very soon. We need to stop the amount of death. Too many people have died." He said, "Zelenskyy is a great guy, but I also get along with Putin."

That's what the president said. He said he likes Zelenskyy, but he also gets along with Putin.

That's the position that President Trump finds himself in, and that's how he's been so successful in ending eight global wars and conflicts, because he's able to make these world leaders feel like they have a personal friendship with him, which is why he's been able to end conflicts that other presidents and other administrations have not been able to end all around the world. Who knows whether these are real friendships or not.

Perception is reality at the end of the day. If President Trump, through his hospitality and his unique form of diplomacy... Which, of course, is supported by the fact that he's an international icon, not just because he was formerly a US president and currently a US president, but also an international brand. He was an international icon long before entering the political arena. It's certainly unique to Donald Trump.

It's the Trumpian foreign policy that no other political figure in the history of politics, not just here in the US but around the world, has been able to deploy. It's a very unique skill set because of who Donald Trump is and just the brand and the prestige that he's been able to acquire throughout his entire lifetime, whether it be in real estate, the entertainment industry, or politics.

– In Ukraine, basically almost everyone is sure that President Trump simply likes Vladimir Putin more than Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Is it a wrong impression?

– I don't want to speak for the president. But I know that the president previously tweeted that it's easier to have conversations with Vladimir Putin than it is to have conversations with Zelenskyy. I don't think that would have been posted by the president had Zelenskyy not gone on the media circuit and bashed President Trump in the aftermath of the diesel deal.

Read also: Ukraine awaits US confirmation of trilateral meeting date after November 4, Zelenskyy says

Zelenskyy probably could have handled it better by keeping those feelings to himself or having a private conversation with President Trump, because nobody's going to enjoy getting attacked in the liberal media.

That's something that he has to keep in mind.

– Not all of your colleagues in the MAGA movement, as far as I understand, appreciated the sharp change in your views and position on Ukraine. But have you managed to persuade anyone, be it other conservative opinion leaders, maybe some officials in the current administration, to persuade them that it's okay to be on Ukraine's side rather than the Russian side?

– I don't know if I've convinced them, but I will say that in the immediate aftermath of my trip to Ukraine, when I was doing interviews with Ukrainian media, I did say to the various reporters that I was speaking to that I think it's time for the negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, to have meetings in Ukraine as opposed to just Moscow.

It was less than a month later that we finally saw that change in the negotiation strategy, and Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff did in fact make a trip to Kyiv, even though it was interrupted, of course.

They were supposed to have an extra day in Ukraine, which was interrupted by Vladimir Putin, as I previously mentioned, blowing up the airport, forcing them to take that 15-hour-long, very dangerous train ride from Warsaw, Poland, to Kyiv, Ukraine.

There's a lot that goes into it. I certainly opened people's eyes. I can't speak to how many people's opinions I may have been able to change, but it is clear that I was able to spur a lot of discussions about possible partnerships with Ukraine and the United States as it pertains to drone manufacturing.

I was able to educate a lot of Americans about Ukraine's drone superiority and the conflict on the ground from a MAGA perspective, because traditionally MAGA has been very hostile to Ukraine. I was one of those people who was very hostile to Ukraine and really had an awakening and a change of heart after realizing how I had been influenced by Russian propaganda for several years.

– But as of now, as you may assess it, is it fair to say that the majority of MAGA supporters, opinion leaders, bloggers, are still hostile to Ukraine?

– I think it's fair to say that they're hostile to the idea of continued support for Ukraine, not necessarily hostile to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.

You have to understand, a lot of people are suffering. A lot of people are just trying to pay their bills and trying to survive, and we're $40 trillion in debt here in the United States.

I don't even think that it's necessarily unique to Ukraine; Ukraine is just such a glaring example, given the fact that we've sent over $200 billion of aid to the Ukrainian people. A lot of that happened under the presidency of Joe Biden, who MAGA is very resentful towards because of the stolen election of 2020 and the way that people were politically persecuted in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

I don't necessarily think that it's just central to Ukraine. MAGA as a whole is just completely opposed to sending any more money to any country.

You see the way that a lot of people in MAGA now are hostile to Israel. It's not just Ukraine. It's the concept of taxpayer funds going abroad, period. Ukraine is just the most glaring example, but I don't think that there's an irrational hatred towards Ukrainian people.

Maybe some people hate Ukrainian people, but I don't want people to think that MAGA supporters hate Ukrainian people. You also have the Democratic Socialists of America in the Democratic Party who are openly against the Ukrainian people, and a lot of these people that are pushing progressive DSA policies are literally funded by Russia. When you look at some of these podcasters, they're literally agents of Russia.

– Those podcasters and opinion leaders who openly promote an anti-Ukrainian agenda in the US, are those people mostly sincerely mistaken, or are they just bought off by Russia?

– I think that it's a combination of both. I don't think that every American who's anti-Ukraine is getting a paycheck from Russia today. They've been influenced by Russian propaganda because it's so prevalent in our media and on social media, and so many of the large podcasters are, I suspect, being funded by the Russians. I'd say that the media personalities, for sure, are probably being funded by Russia, whether they realize it or not.

You see this in the way that Russia tries to invite a lot of popular podcasters to participate in their political conferences or interviews, like Tucker Carlson – Tucker Qatarlson, as I call him.

You see the way now that Tucker Qatarlson is interviewing President Zelenskyy's former press secretary to further incite anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, saying that Zelenskyy is using our taxpayer money to do cocaine, which I asked him about. I asked him if he's a cokehead. I said, "Are you a drug addict? Are you using our taxpayer dollars to pay for drugs? Were you doing cocaine with Macron?" And he said no.

You see the way they invite Candace Owens to the Saint Petersburg Economic Forum, and the way that Alexander Dugin is promoting Tucker Qatarlson, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens, who are all very pro-Russian and anti-Ukraine.

We need evidence – hard evidence that these people are being paid directly by Russia. But you see it in Max Blumenthal as well. There are so many different examples of people who are regurgitating Russian propaganda, getting invited to speak at Russian conferences, and being promoted by Russian state media.

But we also need to get actual receipts to show whether or not these people are actually paid by Russia or Russian-affiliated sources.

In this day and age, there are so many ways to pay people, and so many ways to conceal payment, whether it's speaker fees, crypto, or subscriptions on social media. It's really hard in today's world to prove that people are getting paid by foreign governments, even though there's intelligence or clearly a perception that people are getting paid.

We need to have hardcore evidence. It also doesn't help the fact that former Attorney General Pam Bondi pretty much gutted FARA. Even if people are getting paid to do propaganda for a foreign government, there's virtually zero enforcement right now at the Department of Justice for FARA enforcement. A lot of people – it's not just Russia – are clearly participating in foreign influence operations, whether it's Türkiye, Russia, Iran, or China; so many countries are running influence operations.