In a recent interview on Thursday, September 25, 2025, Yuri Ushakov, a senior aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin, provided insight into Moscow’s perspective on U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding Russia. Ushakov suggested that Trump’s occasionally sharp remarks about Russia, particularly following his meetings with foreign leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, might not always reflect his true stance. Instead, Ushakov proposed that these statements could be a strategic move to align with the positions of his interlocutors. This nuanced interpretation underscores the complexities of U.S.-Russia relations, which remain a critical focus in global diplomacy, especially as the war in Ukraine continues to dominate international discussions.
When pressed on whether Trump consistently adopts a hardline stance toward Moscow, Ushakov was quick to refute the notion. “Well, not all the time,” he remarked, acknowledging that Trump’s interactions with various world leaders during the UN General Assembly may influence his public statements. “Yes, he talks with various leaders at the General Assembly. To some extent, maybe he’s playing along with them, I don’t know. But the picture is much more complex, I’d say,” Ushakov elaborated. His comments suggest that Moscow views Trump’s rhetoric as potentially performative, shaped by the diplomatic context of his discussions rather than a definitive reflection of U.S. policy toward Russia.
Ushakov emphasized that Russia’s assessment of U.S. positions extends beyond public statements. “You know that there are public statements, and then there are contacts through closed channels,” he noted. “And we take into account the signals transmitted both publicly and through closed channels. All of this is taken into account in our position.” This statement highlights the multifaceted nature of diplomatic communication, where public posturing often coexists with private negotiations that may convey different priorities or intentions. For Moscow, these private exchanges are critical in shaping its understanding of U.S. intentions, particularly as tensions over Ukraine and other geopolitical issues persist.
The backdrop for Ushakov’s comments is the ongoing UN General Assembly, where President Trump has engaged in a series of high-level meetings with global leaders. Among the most prominent topics discussed is Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, now in its third year, which has significantly strained relations between Washington and Moscow. The conflict has not only reshaped the geopolitical landscape but also heightened the stakes for diplomatic engagements at forums like the UN General Assembly. Trump’s meetings, including a notable discussion with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have drawn significant attention due to their implications for U.S. foreign policy and its approach to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
During his meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump made headlines by advocating a robust response to Russian military actions. Specifically, he called for NATO to take decisive action, including shooting down Russian jets if they violate the airspace of NATO member states. This statement reflects a hawkish stance, aligning with the concerns of NATO allies in Eastern Europe, who have repeatedly emphasized the need to deter Russian aggression. For Ukraine, which has been seeking increased military support from the U.S. and its allies, Trump’s remarks signal a continued commitment to countering Russian advances, particularly in the context of airspace violations that could escalate the conflict further.
Ushakov’s remarks, however, suggest that Moscow is cautious about interpreting Trump’s public statements at face value. The Kremlin appears to believe that Trump’s rhetoric may be tailored to resonate with the leaders he meets, such as Zelenskyy or representatives of NATO countries, who have been vocal about the need for a strong response to Russia’s actions. By framing Trump’s comments as potentially performative, Ushakov implies that Moscow is more focused on deciphering the underlying intentions of the U.S. administration through both public and private channels. This approach reflects Russia’s broader strategy of navigating its complex relationship with the United States, where public rhetoric often serves as a tool for signaling while private diplomacy shapes the actual course of bilateral relations.
The interplay between public statements and private diplomacy is a hallmark of U.S.-Russia relations, which have been marked by distrust and competition since the end of the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has only deepened this divide, with the U.S. leading efforts to impose sanctions on Russia and provide military aid to Ukraine. Trump’s presidency, which has been characterized by a mix of confrontational rhetoric and occasional overtures toward dialogue with Moscow, adds further complexity to this dynamic. His call for NATO to shoot down Russian jets, for instance, contrasts with earlier moments in his presidency when he expressed a desire to improve relations with Russia, suggesting a pragmatic approach that adapts to the demands of the moment.
For Moscow, understanding Trump’s intentions requires careful analysis of both his public statements and the signals conveyed through diplomatic backchannels. Ushakov’s comments indicate that Russia is attuned to this duality, recognizing that public rhetoric may serve a different purpose than private negotiations. This perspective is particularly relevant in the context of the UN General Assembly, where leaders from around the world gather to address pressing global issues. The General Assembly provides a platform for public posturing, but it also facilitates private discussions that can shape the trajectory of international relations.
The war in Ukraine remains a central issue at the UN General Assembly, with many leaders condemning Russia’s actions and calling for increased support for Ukraine. The conflict, which began with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and escalated with the full-scale invasion in February 2022, has had far-reaching consequences for global security, energy markets, and food supplies. The U.S., under Trump’s leadership, has maintained a firm stance against Russia, providing billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Ukraine while rallying NATO allies to strengthen their defenses. Trump’s recent comments about NATO’s response to Russian jets underscore this commitment, signaling to both allies and adversaries that the U.S. remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine and its NATO partners.
However, Ushakov’s remarks suggest that Moscow is not entirely convinced by Trump’s public rhetoric. The Kremlin’s focus on private diplomatic channels indicates a belief that the U.S. may be open to negotiation or de-escalation behind closed doors, even as it adopts a hardline stance in public. This perception is rooted in the history of U.S.-Russia relations, where periods of tension have often been accompanied by efforts to maintain open lines of communication. During the Cold War, for example, backchannel diplomacy played a critical role in managing crises such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and similar dynamics may be at play in the current context.
The complexity of U.S.-Russia relations is further compounded by the domestic political contexts in both countries. In the U.S., Trump’s foreign policy decisions are shaped by a polarized political landscape, where support for Ukraine has become a bipartisan issue but is also subject to debates about the extent of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. Trump’s call for NATO to take a more aggressive stance against Russia may resonate with those who advocate a strong U.S. presence in global affairs, but it also risks alienating those who favor a more restrained approach. For Russia, meanwhile, the war in Ukraine has become a defining issue for Putin’s leadership, with domestic support for the conflict tied to broader narratives of national pride and resistance to Western influence.
Ushakov’s comments also reflect Moscow’s broader strategy of managing its image on the global stage. By suggesting that Trump’s remarks may be performative, Russia seeks to downplay the significance of U.S. rhetoric while emphasizing its own willingness to engage in dialogue. This approach allows Moscow to project an image of restraint and pragmatism, even as it continues its military operations in Ukraine. It also serves to counter the narrative of Russia as an isolated pariah, highlighting instead its ability to navigate complex diplomatic relationships with major powers like the United States.
The UN General Assembly, as a forum for global diplomacy, provides a unique opportunity for leaders to articulate their priorities and engage with their counterparts. For Trump, the General Assembly offers a platform to reaffirm U.S. leadership in addressing global challenges, including the war in Ukraine. His meeting with Zelenskyy, in particular, underscores the importance of U.S. support for Ukraine at a time when the conflict shows no signs of abating. By advocating for a strong NATO response to Russian aggression, Trump signals to both allies and adversaries that the U.S. remains committed to its role as a global leader.
For Russia, the General Assembly is an opportunity to counter Western narratives and assert its own perspective on the Ukraine conflict. Ushakov’s comments reflect this strategy, framing Trump’s rhetoric as potentially tactical rather than substantive. By emphasizing the importance of private diplomatic channels, Russia seeks to maintain a degree of flexibility in its dealings with the U.S., even as it faces mounting international pressure over its actions in Ukraine.
The broader implications of Ushakov’s remarks extend beyond U.S.-Russia relations to the dynamics of global diplomacy. In an era of heightened geopolitical tensions, the interplay between public rhetoric and private negotiations is more critical than ever. Leaders like Trump must balance the need to project strength and resolve with the demands of diplomacy, which often require compromise and discretion. For Russia, navigating this landscape involves a delicate balancing act, as it seeks to maintain its influence while countering Western efforts to isolate it.
As the war in Ukraine continues to shape global politics, the relationship between the U.S. and Russia remains a focal point of international attention. Trump’s remarks at the UN General Assembly, coupled with Ushakov’s response, highlight the complexities of this relationship, where public statements and private diplomacy coexist in a delicate dance. While Trump’s call for NATO to take a hardline stance against Russia may resonate with allies, Moscow’s interpretation of these remarks as potentially performative suggests a deeper layer of strategic calculation.
In conclusion, Yuri Ushakov’s comments offer a window into Russia’s perspective on U.S. foreign policy under President Trump. By suggesting that Trump’s tough rhetoric may be an effort to “play along” with other leaders, Moscow signals its awareness of the nuances of diplomatic communication. At the same time, Russia’s emphasis on private channels underscores the importance of backchannel diplomacy in managing U.S.-Russia relations. As the war in Ukraine continues to dominate global discussions, the interplay between public posturing and private negotiations will remain a defining feature of this critical relationship, with implications for global stability and security.
