A combination of falling oil prices and unrestricted military aid to Ukraine could expose Russia as a “hollow shell” that Trump could effectively pressure, explains Dr. Fred Hoffman, who spent three decades in military and intelligence before moving to academia.

All eyes are on Donald Trump as he prepares to take office, with speculation mounting over how his upcoming cabinet picks will shape US policy, particularly regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine. Trump has made bold promises to end the fighting quickly, leaving many to wonder how this will affect American support for Ukraine and any potential peace deals.

We sat down with Dr. Fred Hoffman to get his take. He’s not your typical academic – besides running the Intelligence Studies Department at Mercyhurst University where he serves as Associate Professor, he spent years as a Lieutenant Colonel before moving to teaching.

A Republican, a conservative, and a Trump voter, he believes that Russia’s disintegration isn’t off the table and is guardedly optimistic about Trump’s administration. Find out why in our interview.

EP: Trump takes office in January. What do you think will happen in the next 24 hours since he promised to end Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours?

FH: Based on who he selected for his key positions, like Mike Waltz, his security advisor, and former special forces officer who understands military strategy, here’s what I think will happen.

When Trump takes office, there are several things he could do to grab Moscow’s attention economically. Trump and his supporters kind of cultivated the MAGA crowd to get elected. But I don’t think that Trump will insist on Ukraine just accepting that Russia has captured 18% of the country.

Russia is a hollow shell – look at the tumbling ruble. Also, Ukrainian drones caused significant damage to the petroleum industry. So, if the oil price drops, Russia is done economically—just done. Putin’s an autocrat surrounded by kleptocrats, and as long as they support him, he’s good to go. If not, we could have another Ceausescu, Gaddafi, or Mussolini solution where they get rid of him—plain and simple.

EP: Earlier, you told me that Rubio, Waltz, and Ratcliffe are good picks for Ukraine even though their Ukraine bill voting is mixed. In 2014, Rubio criticized the Obama administration quite harshly for its response to Russia’s invasion. Do you think this attitude will prevail in Trump’s administration toward Ukraine?

FH: Firstly, I think you need to look at Ukraine from the perspective of an American politician, which differs significantly due to party politics and other factors. After all, how you stand depends on where you sit.

Now, I can’t speak to the rationale for voting against Ukraine aid in the past. But sometimes, it’s a knee-jerk reaction to what the Democrats have to offer, and then the Republicans don’t even consider the implications for who the aid is intended for.

I’m not saying that Trump will go 180 degrees out from what he said before the election. But I think that Ukraine’s supporters will be pleasantly surprised that he will put some squeeze on Russia Putin wants to keep the land, and that’s just unpalatable and unacceptable to Ukraine.

How would you feel if you were an American, and somebody told you they took 18% of your territory and said, “We’re going to negotiate a settlement, but we’re keeping what we stole”?

I’ve seen enough snippets from Republican leaders in both the House and also in the Senate that show that we disagree with what Russia did. Russia is just resorting to 19th-century policies of land-grabbing.

EP: One person in Congress told me that if Kamala Harris were to win, Jake Sullivan, currently running the show in Ukraine, would become Secretary of State. That would have been super bad for Ukraine. Is Waltz better than Sullivan?

FH: I think he is. Sullivan was horrendous for Ukraine because his whole thing was escalation management. We gave Ukraine what? 31 Abram tanks? Are you kidding me?

The entire Marine Corps is turning in all its M1 Abrams tanks, which are rusting in bone yards right now.

But again, things look different from Washington than they do from Kyiv, right? Oh, we don’t want to antagonize the Russians overly.

Let’s be honest. Except for a few, nobody in the Republican party is a fan of Vladimir Putin and his approach to politics. China is our long-term problem, but Russia is our immediate problem. I think that dominates the thinking in Washington, and the strategy is chosen accordingly. And I think Sullivan’s strategy was horrendous.

EP: There’s a lot of speculation about what Trump is like when he’s not in front of a TV camera. Have you met him before?

FH: No, but I know people who have worked for him.

He’s an interesting individual. If you look at media coverage of Trump before he got into politics, it was all pretty positive. And he’s not a professional politician. When he got elected, he picked people who ultimately re-encountered his ideas of how things should be done.

Besides, most of the media’s political alignment is quite different from his. So, I don’t think he’s as bad as people make him out to be. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a huge Trump supporter, but I voted for him, and I think he was a better choice for us and, quite frankly, also for Ukraine.

EP: The reason I’m asking is that if he’s slightly different, less populistic, and more traditionally reasonable, this could potentially have a tangible influence on the peace talks. Do you also think that this should be considered?

FH: I spent 30 years as a human intelligence officer for different organizations in the United States.

I always consider two things when dealing with someone: their personality and quirks, and their culture.

Look at what Putin does, for example. He’d make leaders wait for hours before meeting with them. And to Merkel, when he brought his dog off a leash even though she’s afraid of dogs. She said that he’s doing it to show he’s a man. No. He’s trying to manipulate a person based on what he knows.

Trump’s got his quirks like all the rest of us do.

EP: Let’s hypothesize a bit. So Trump and Putin meet, and Putin says, “Donald, I don’t want to freeze this war, sorry, I’m just not interested. Ukraine will have time to regroup, too.” What would happen then? Or he says, “Let’s freeze the war,” and then breaks the agreement. How would Trump react?

FH: I’m not optimistic about any face-to-face negotiations involving Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin. Because, quite frankly, any agreement the Russians sign isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, and we know that. The Ukrainians know that, and the rest of the world knows that.

EP: But does Trump know that?

FH: That’s a great question.

People around him do. And he’s savvy enough to at least listen to them, and if everyone in the room is saying, “Listen, this guy is full of beans,” he won’t just dismiss that entirely and do what he wants to do. A guy like that would never get elected, by the way.

This will happen behind the scenes. In public, he’s all-knowing, all-powerful.

EP: So, you think that a peace push is something that might never actually happen?

FH: I think we’ve got to do this.

First of all, Trump is going to be supportive of fracking, bringing back oil production in the United States and export of petroleum and liquid propane gas. We can try to drive the prices down.

Especially since the Saudis are also interested in dropping oil prices. Because remember, the Saudis and the Iranians don’t like each other, and Iran is Putin’s best friend. So, Trump has some tools at his disposal to make Russia really-really hurt.

I’ve also heard administration officials for the upcoming administration say, “We’re going to give Ukraine way more aid. What we gave them under Biden was a joke.” I mean, in terms of quantity and putting unnecessary limitations on attacks. Give Ukraine more aid, remove the restrictions, and eliminate this absurd escalation management concept. Putin is not going to use nukes.

EP: Why do you think so?

FH: Oh, I’m absolutely confident about it because look at where the population sectors are in Russia. Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

Look at the balance of power between NATO and Russia, or look at just the United States if Putin was dumb enough to use a nuclear weapon and trigger a nuclear response.

EP: Is there an understanding among the Republicans that the shooting wars in Ukraine, Israel, and a potential one in Taiwan are interconnected? That it’s the same “axis of evil”?

FH: Does the average Republican think about it that way? I can’t say.

There’s a segment of the Republican Party, and I know a lot of those folks who are what I would call Reagan Republicans. They’re into the “peace through strength” concept. I’m a Republican, but I’m also a college professor. I’ve traveled to 28 countries, so I view things this way: the whole Hamas attack was on Putin’s birthday.

I don’t believe in coincidence, especially since Iran has been supporting Hamas even though they’re Shia and Hamas is Sunni. Then Hezbollah and the Houthis got involved. I think this was Putin’s way of getting his friends in the Arab world to distract the West from Ukraine.

The Chinese are also watching what’s happening regarding the West’s response to Russia because they’re looking at Taiwan. It’s like, “If the West can’t deal with the Russians, let’s make a play for it.”

EP: What about Rubio and Waltz specifically? Would you imagine them understanding this?

FH: Oh, yeah. I think they do because also they’re getting intelligence briefings as well. They have access to information that you and I don’t have access to.

If you’re an elected politician at that level, a senator, or a congressman sitting on certain committees, you’ll have a global view and understand cause and effect.

This is why I’m more confident with Trump coming in than I was under Biden. I think you have to look at things from the perspective of your adversary. You don’t want to mirror your image. How you would react is irrelevant. How they would react is the only thing that matters.

EP: So, you think Rubio and Waltz are good picks? What about Tulsi Gabbard?

FH: I’ve heard snippets of things she said that make me scratch my head.

However, she’s also a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves, just as I was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. Those folks tend to have a more global understanding.

I think she’s a reasonable person, and that depends on who’s talking to her. I’m not as pessimistic about her as I might have been about some other folks.

EP: Which ones?

I’d rather not mention names, but there are people I look at and go, “Please, dear God, don’t pick that knucklehead.”

I don’t think she’s like that. I think that she’s got a pretty reasonable perspective on things. Here again, what information you’re given will depend on who is around you in your circle. I can’t imagine the intelligence community taking Putin’s side in this at all. I don’t see that happening, and that’s what she will hear.

EP: One American researcher told me that when it comes to Ukraine, a lot of Republicans got trapped in the ongoing so-called “woke agenda.” I was very surprised, given that Ukraine is a pretty traditional society, not “woke” at all. Is this something you’re also hearing?

FH: Part of the problem is that political issues tend to get smeared with the partisan brush due to Trump’s interactions with Zelenskyy and Hunter Biden, who took a do-nothing job for $83,000 a month.

So, many questions arose from that, as well as unfortunate associations. That’s also why I find myself in kind of strange company when it comes to Ukraine.

I also have a deeper understanding of things. I don’t call it “the Ukraine.” Most people don’t even think about the 1000-year history between Russians and Ukrainians and the way Ukrainians have been subordinated and discriminated against by the Soviets, by the Russians today, and by the Russians in the past.

EP: What can Ukraine do now to improve its relations with the Republicans and its general image, and even bust some myths about itself?

FH: If you want to reach the Republican leadership, you also want to reach the American people and provide a consistent message.

For example, think about corruption. Russia is one of the most unbelievably corrupt countries in the world. So it’s up to you to show, “Hey, we’re not like Russia.” Ukraine improved with the help of Americans and the British. You’ve come a long way from the Soviet days.

In the West, we see post-Soviet countries as independent and sovereign. That’s not how Russians see them. “You used to belong to us and still belong to us. We’re the same”. No, you’re not.

EP: So, we should be communicating more about our successes?

FH: Yes, successes and even efforts. Nobody’s expecting Ukraine to turn into Switzerland or Sweden in 24 hours.

Here’s an example. Some of the mantras I heard during the election campaign were “one more dime for Ukraine.” But hang on, what are we actually giving to Ukraine? We’re giving equipment that’s been built in the United States. It’s been revamped, modified, and upgraded in the United States. So basically, we’re giving money to American factories and workers to produce items and to provide them to Ukraine.

It is not Afghanistan, where we gave suitcases full of money to Afghan officials. The system for providing aid is pretty tight and involves two military representatives in the US Embassy who ensure that everything is being used properly.

We’re not bribing anyone. I think any kind of messaging that reduces or mitigates corruption allegations would be really helpful.

EP: But do the Republicans also understand that American money stays in the US and that it makes sense to allocate it?

FH: I think this has got to be part of the messaging.

Foreign aid—and this is true across the board of foreign assistance—in most cases helps Americans. Maybe the average person thinks we’re just printing money and shipping it to a foreign country. But it’s not so.

Part of the problem with the Biden administration’s aid to Ukraine was that it was a trickle, late, and restricted in its use, which really denigrated the whole effort.

EP: One last question. So, you’re optimistic about Trump’s office?

FH: I’m guardedly optimistic because I think that he’ll abandon the managed escalation nonsense that we had under Jake Sullivan and President Biden. They don’t want to have a nuclear war with Russia but don’t want to see Russia disintegrate, either. That’s not off the table.

Instead of having one problem with a country with nuclear weapons, you will get who knows how many regions and areas that you have to deal with and they have nuclear weapons.

Then, Russia’s Vladivostok and the whole area around it used to be Chinese. You don’t think that China would make a play for that if they thought they could?

The collapse of Russia is not unthinkable, given what’s going on economically in that country right now.