President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with representatives of the Ukrainian media 05.04.2022

Speaker 1

Greetings… Good day. Good day. Greetings. Good day. Good day. Good… Good day. You haven't been here before, have you? Well, here you go.

Speaker 3

you have

Speaker 2

not

Speaker 1

[They] were. Yes, we do. Yes, we have such a place. We work here. I didn't think we would use it. This is probably such a cursed hour.

Speaker 4

We were here, but not at your place.

Speaker 1

Oh, sorry. Just joking. Now.

Speaker 3

not very. At

Speaker 4

you

Speaker 3

It was here.

Speaker 1

Yes, yes. Well, and now we are taking this opportunity. Here, in principle, most of our… most of the video communications with various partners take place here. Therefore, brothers, well… you look good. I want to thank you. You are doing great work. Truly. Truly, very much. Everything… I don't know, even [how] our… our viewers, foreign viewers, our television [channels] watched. Because people had already moved to other internet platforms. Various things. But the way everyone is watching all our media now, I think, it hasn't been like this for a long time. Unfortunately, the reason.

Speaker 5

Welcome. Thank you for this meeting. We have very little time with you, of course. And the interaction with Ukrainian journalists. I know that you constantly work abroad. That is correct; it needs to be close. But we, these people, Ukrainians, find out what is happening. And thank you once again for this meeting. This is important, I think, both for us and for the people. So. Well, Kristina Berdinskaya… Can I [talk] about the Western…

Speaker 1

And will I react to the Ukrainian journalists? Very important things. For us, in principle… No, in principle, that's how it is. The unification of the people was 100% thanks to the Ukrainian journalists themselves. And not any unprotected ones, with all due respect. That is a fact. But the supply of weapons… I want to explain the position. What I must do and am doing. The supply of weapons, unfortunately. Unfortunately. It depends precisely on how much this will be every day. In every regime, in 2014. Thanks to television, radio, newspapers. They have many newspapers. Unfortunately. Lately, this has not been very popular. I think that all of this will return. But nevertheless, thanks to all these methods, this is all public information pressure. Therefore, I really wanted them to know this. And believe me, I am not the biggest fan of speaking in every political circle of our Western partners. Because there really are countries that are real friends. Truly real. Well, let's talk about them, I think. And there are… there are… Different ones. Let's put it that way. But nevertheless, this is the only opportunity to reach them, to come to them, to scream. Therefore, the priorities are clear to us. This is clear, and this will be the truth.

Speaker 6

Kristina Berdinsky, NV magazine. Now the terrible truth about Bucha has been revealed to everyone, to the whole country and to the world. And there will be much more of such terrible truth ahead. We understand this. This is only the beginning. We will begin to learn about it. And with every new Bucha, it will be increasingly difficult for Ukrainian society to accept any agreement with Putin. Even the one most advantageous for Ukraine. Do you understand this, and what do you intend to do about it? And will you change your position regarding Putin in some way after what happened?

Speaker 1

Thank you for the question, Kristina. I think that overall this is a great tragedy. Because all of us—I consider myself a part of society—all of us will perceive even the possibility of changes. I am not talking about the meaning. But even the possibility of changes we will accept as an internal challenge. Our own internal, human one. And what now? And then, when you pull yourself together—and it is simply necessary to do so. I believe that I simply have no other choice. Then there will be another challenge, a challenge within the state. Because everyone understands that what they have done—there is no forgiveness for them in this. We must know this. And the way we communicate this publicly, because we are open about this—I, and you, and each of us—and we don't want to lie and [want to] find a balance even in the information space. It is so disgusting and so tragic, the way it looks. And one cannot say that every commotion, yes, but nevertheless, every such tragedy, every such commotion will simply hit you on the hands—how should I put it, hit you on the hands—regarding certain changes. And

Speaker 1

It is necessary to be, to find all possibilities regardless regarding such steps, I believe so. I want these changes, for them to be from a stronger position. Therefore, here are all those very elements regarding the support of our population. First of all, this is the unification of society, and splitting it is not possible, it is impossible. And we will not let anyone do this. Because there are always those who wish to. The unification of society, powerful armament, because you must know that the armed forces are strong, but there is—we understand what support is, what fatigue is. And resilience does not mean that there is no fatigue. For example, for the people who are blocked in Mariupol, simply on a physical level I know exactly what is happening there. And when you have, one could say, a crooked smudge, or such a puzzle, you will understand that here, please, it is necessary to choose, to choose steps. And here it is necessary to choose not that I have no way out, for me this is not a problem. I make decisions absolutely calmly. For me, this is not a problem. The problem of whether you want to or not, the question will not stand that way. The question of negotiations will certainly stand. The question of how strong you will be at the negotiating table. And this depends on these important points that we have only just begun to talk about with you. Just to say for today, that let's not talk any more.

Speaker 1

It is the easiest thing. Simply the easiest thing is to say that I will not talk to you. And to understand why, after what you have done. There you have it. The hardest thing is to say what they did, to recognize them as the enemy, to know that this is a specific war of Russia against Ukraine. To recognize all of this. We believe that this is genocide. We believe that they must face all the punishments for this. And despite all this position, to find opportunities to meet. And at this meeting, to find a way out of this situation. And in this way out, not to lose one's territory. I believe that one must set such a bar for oneself, in connection with these trials. And then, it will be what it will be. It may happen that there will be no meeting. It may happen.

Speaker 8

Valeriy Aleksandrovich, in 40 days, Ukrainian society has already seen two such major pain points. One is Mariupol, which you mentioned, and the other is Bucha, which opened up the day before yesterday in all its tragedy. I would like to ask the President: are you ready to become a successor to Golda Meir, who announced the payment procedure? And for 20 years, the Israeli Mossad sought the criminals who organized the massacre of Israeli citizens. Are you ready to say here and now that we will get everyone who did not kill Ukrainian women and children in Bucha with missiles, but raped them face to face?

Speaker 1

To be honest, I already said this yesterday. Maybe it wasn't yet as frank as today or the current hour expects. We will definitely deal with this; accordingly, lists will be compiled. That is, there is a procedure, because we live in a civilized world with you. And therefore there is a procedure that will follow the legislation, and not only the legislation of international law. We agreed—yesterday I had, the day before yesterday, to be honest, we agreed—that there will be a joint commission together with the International [body], with the European Union. We agreed just now before our meeting. I just had a further conversation with Ursula von der Leyen. She was also supposed to declare publicly that we are doing this. I am expecting her arrival in Kyiv. She will be here in the coming days; I don't know the date yet. Prosecutors from various states will be involved; a joint commission will deal with all these crimes. And separately, there is our internal case, which you mentioned, an internal case against these criminals who tortured our people. For all types [of crimes] that we see, we are beginning to collect this information; we will search for all these people.

Speaker 7

Igor Pupkov, "Ukraine-24" channel. We are now talking about the lists that are actively appearing in Telegram channels on the internet of the Russian non-human military personnel who committed all this horror in Kyiv. Please tell us, how exactly does Ukraine demand that these killers be put together with Putin in the dock? How will the world support us, or who specifically will provide support?

Speaker 1

Well, basically, I just partially answered that such a commission will be created. It has already been created, our Prosecutor General is included. And definitely, a person from the Office of the President is included. We agreed with the European Union, because it is very important for me to receive information every day, hour by hour, on how this process is going. Because, honestly, I don't want to. We had Iran, we had MH17, we didn't have anything like this. But such things appear in life and in the history of mankind. And I really want this not to be resolved over 20 or 30 years. This needs to be dealt with constantly. For now, I cannot tell you more than this; I don't see any more mechanisms. I believe that the internal Ukrainian mechanism, which we have only just started talking about with colleagues, I think it will be very effective, because there are people who really want to find those criminals you are talking about. And I think we will find the right format. If the law does not resolve it, as this is an international issue, then Ukrainian law will find a way out of this difficult situation, out of this tragedy. But that is not advantageous. I think that, after all, it is not advantageous to prolong this process, neither in Europe nor in the world, because they see a great deal of evidence. And, unfortunately, as you just said, evidence will only continue to emerge; there will not be less of it. There is also Izium forward, there are many things there where there is no access. Occupied Melitopol, Berdyansk. Believe that we… Well, not that you should believe, just that we cannot imagine what happened there. Just

Speaker 7

An interesting procedure, how will we extract these people, the killers, from the territory of Russia in order to punish them?

Speaker 1

We will find this procedure. We will find it, there will be a plan of action. I think there are no secrets here, because we are saying openly that we will do this, so there is no point in keeping it a secret how we will find them, how we will get these people out.

Speaker 9

Mr. President, Olena Rymovska, Suspilne. I have a short clarifying question regarding Kristina's question, or rather your answer. Do the proposals of the Ukrainian side, which were voiced in Istanbul, remain in force? Namely, Russia as one of the security guarantors, and the fact that we agree to a neutral status—meaning, after Bucha, after what we have seen, are these proposals still relevant? And, in principle, I have a question: what are we preparing for in Donbas, or do we have an understanding of which Russian forces will be involved in this operation? Thank you.

Speaker 1

Thank you for the question. First part. Two relevant topics that we discussed with the Russians—we talked much more when they came to us with confidence about three days and occupation, and with an ultimatum that consisted of six, I think, points, which were broken down into sub-points, which we also saw in the media, i.e., it wasn't some closed information. From all these points, we understood, and they understood, that no one would fulfill the ultimatum. There are questions that we discussed with them at the meetings; can we sit down, please, thank you. There are relevant questions. Questions, primarily, security guarantees, and here, to be honest, there are important elements for us. For me personally, security guarantees, basically, who are these people who guarantee our security, what security do they guarantee, will it be fulfilled, how is this possible, when one of these participants is the RF, after the ATBU, what you said, can one believe in this, in principle, i.e., how legally binding, weighty, and powerful is it. And these [people] guarantee, what they guarantee, which points and what specific guarantees. All this is discussed at the level of councils, or security councils, or deputies of these or those councils, leaders of these powers. With France as of today, with France, with the United States, with Germany, with Turkey, with Great Britain, with Poland, with Pochaloy they are working, they very much want to unite with Italy, with Israel.

Speaker 9

They remain in force. I

Speaker 1

I want to clarify. I've emerged now around those first ones. There is Ireland, there are many of our friends who want to join. But that is the second stage. The first stage. That is, the circle of these guarantors, how powerful they are, and what they are ready to guarantee us. Discussions about what? Because all these different countries are ready to guarantee different things. So far, we have not received a concrete list of those guarantees, a list of those countries that are 100% ready to step in for you. This is a very important point. For us, there is no need to have 40 countries of the world that are ready, on command, by a phone call, by agreement, to step in and fight for Ukraine. For us, this is not necessary. We need serious players who are ready for anything. We need a circle of states that are ready 24 hours a day to provide any weapons. We need specific countries upon which the sanctions policy actually depends. And so that they deeply detail, develop all these sanctions, so that they are also written out. And in the first second, before there was a single bullet, which is what we fought for. So that in the first second, when we hear a threat, a threat from the side of the Russian Federation, the circle of these states would unite, and within, say, 2-3 days, put everything into action, blocked everything. Simply drove such a state under a bell jar. That is, since all these guarantees are at different levels, because different countries will be able to provide different guarantees, we are certain, so far we haven't put this whole story together because there has been no meeting with us of all the advisors, except for the Russian Federation. That is, we want to meet with everyone. They said that they are ready to meet with us, ready to talk about this. But I will emphasize once more, this meeting in Ukraine has not yet happened. We are expecting it in the coming hours. Well, not years, I mean. If this happens, then, only then, with the understanding that we have these or those security guarantees, then we can continue this first case called "Security Guarantees for Ukraine," which prefers to unblock our blocked military or other area. Therefore, this is exactly how we can act.

Speaker 9

In this sense, Ukraine has not yet deviated from what was stated in Istanbul and what you stated.

Speaker 1

I wouldn't say that everything that was voiced in Istanbul is proceeding exactly that way. Because there are many details. Very many details. There, I heard from the Russian Federation. They spoke, in principle, about some other roadmap of theirs. To be honest, I don't know much about it in depth. To be honest, it didn't differ much from their first ultimatums. They really took some steps back. Because I realized that it wouldn't work and wouldn't work with us. We will not agree to that. Therefore, they removed some points. But, nevertheless, regarding security guarantees, they were close to the conversation with the Ukrainian delegation, but they were not precise. I say once again that precision depends on specific guarantors. Whom we trust, what they promise us. If there are security guarantees in the Black Sea, then we must have Turkey there. It emphasizes, it confirmed, Erdogan confirmed. But so far, I don't see Erdogan's signature. We haven't met with security advisors. No one has heard of a common understanding yet. Fully. Therefore, for now, let's say, all of these guarantors are positively disposed toward Ukraine. But that is not enough. We had the same conditions.

So this is the first part, the large part. There is an important part. What is our army? The phrase about demilitarization, we forgot it even back when it was suggested that I leave Kyiv. We told them to forget the phrases denazification and demilitarization; we won't even talk about it. Denazification sounds simply figurative. We can use this phrase in your direction. And as that very Bucha showed, we were right. This is not a question for us. If you want, put this question to yourself in front of a mirror. And we did not accept demilitarization. This story. Therefore, for us, it looks very clear. Security guarantees, what kind of army we will have there. We explained that the army must be commensurate with the army we have, which is capable of defending our state. And then come the details, when people talk about something at a technical level. We have a position; it is common with the Commander-in-Chief. We understand what we are doing. This is if we are talking about such important points. We understand that even if we sign the largest agreement with you, we understand that in two years Russia may return. We simply understand this. And if we accept this, then accordingly, that is how we act. Moreover, I know that our representatives of the Ukrainian delegation, I know that David definitely conveyed communication, not from me, that we do not believe, because there, when we talk about certain technical things regarding the security of our state, we immediately say that we will build such a state that is capable of protecting itself. After all, we cannot fight constantly; we cannot fight Russia on our territory while they somehow develop and we have a war; this does not suit us. Their security guarantees are needed by us. In principle, this is the right approach. This is the first point, which, to be honest, I have just told you quite superficially. There are many details; I don't even want to talk about them now because, in principle, we need to get to them. A separate conversation. Security guarantees. I would not, in principle, play around with them, because this is important. A Security Union is important for us. Accession to NATO—we are ready to join tomorrow. Even if this is a condition of Russia, we do not hide it. I spoke about this to the NATO SecGen and to the leaders of states, specifically those upon whom Ukraine's accession to NATO depends. We have already given many people, many lives, to be afraid to say what we think. If we are offered to join NATO tomorrow, not to play again with our lives tomorrow, but seriously, then we will join. But this will not happen, unfortunately, and it didn't happen. Unfortunately. And therefore we will create those security guarantees for us that can protect us, protect life. We can protect ourselves anyway; we already understand that. But protecting all people is a more difficult task.

The second point there that I spoke about, as far as I remember, is Crimea. We didn't get to Donbas because Russia has its view of Donbas, and we have ours. Therefore, I had a simple proposal, that I believe,

Speaker 1

we will not be able to think about all the points at once. It is not possible, even if we have reconsiderations. Not possible. Not possible. And if the parties want to end the war, and the parties here are no longer only the parties to the war—it is us and the Russian Federation, it is already our Western partners, they are all participants in this, because they too will be security guarantors. Therefore, I am saying, if all parties want the war in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine to end, then everyone must work on this every day.

Speaker 9

And also regarding Donbas, what are we preparing for now while the war is going on?

Speaker 1

What will happen there? As for Donbas? There is a buildup of troops, definitely. They have no other goal there. We understand this clearly. And they have no great strategy that we consider them to have in the Russian Federation. They haven't occupied this part, they are occupying Donbas. Donbas and the South of Ukraine, and the corridor to Crimea, and the Kherson region, and the Zaporizhzhia region. In principle, it is clear to us what they are doing. In order to succeed, they will fight for Donbas. And Mariupol for them—unfortunately, for us it is life, for us it is a place. They don't understand what it is. In principle, for them it's a medal that they want to hang on their chest. Roughly like that.

Speaker 3

Andrey Kulikov, Hromadske Radio, President, most of us here are television professionals, and in that we are similar to you. And you know that a story needs to be accompanied by a visual. Therefore, I want to show those who are watching us this sign. You know it, but many do not know that it is a tamga, a sacred sign for the Crimean Tatars. And my friends, the Crimean Tatars who are now fighting, they go into battle. Some with a cry of Allahu Akbar, which, by the way, muftis do not very much approve of, some saying Inshallah after praying. But we feel in both of these, it is glory to Ukraine. And each of us—Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim—defends Ukraine. And for many, these 15 years of some sort of pause, or some moratorium on negotiations regarding Crimea, have become incomprehensible.

Speaker 1

This is not a moratorium, incorrect.

Speaker 3

I understand. I will speak as someone. I will finish. In this hour, Russia will fill occupied Crimea with an even greater number of people with anti-Ukrainian and anti-Crimean Tatar sentiments. Don't you think that this is safe?

Speaker 1

I looked at where we stand with Crimea,

Speaker 1

at what point and what possibilities we have to return Crimea by non-diplomatic means. That is the first. I would answer this question, then I would examine what else there is, how else it is possible. First of all, there was an understanding, for about 15 years this was a certain format of proposal from Ukraine's side. And I think, about the same percentage that Russia would agree to this. About 10-15 percent. Why? Because 10-15 years is not about not raising this topic. This is an agreement to the side,

Speaker 1

Over 10 years, the parties must resolve the issues of Crimea through a diplomatic path. That is, if we take a diplomatic path, it is a format proposed not to resolve this now, but to resolve it starting tomorrow. Why? Well, there are aspects that I want to tell you, but which I cannot. That is, I want to tell you everything and sometimes it is very important to consult, but I cannot. Therefore, I believe that this decision is not bad. But I believe this now. It is also important that you understand that what I think now, what I will think tomorrow, and what we did yesterday, can be absolutely different things. This does not mean that we are not fulfilling our obligations or agreements. Simply, as of today, if there were such agreements on Crimea today, I believe that this would be a victory for Ukraine. Absolutely. Because to resolve all disputes as a package, or to end the war with Russia as a package, cohesively—I think it is not quite right. And I am sure it is not quite right. And resolving some things while tanks are on our territory, or with missiles, or with the possibility of these missiles flying in, is impossible. Even to explain to society it is impossible. No one will hear you, and society would be right to do so. Because missiles are flying, and you are talking about something. I think it is a strong position that if there is a diplomatic path, then this can be resolved in ten years. This is an agreement that in ten or fifteen years will not exist if the parties were unable to resolve it in such a way. This is not just a compromise. I want to tell you. I am sure that we are not even close to a compromise here, and that it may appear from the other side or further ahead. This is a request for a position, that's how it is. And our main position is the children from our territory. And there will be no understanding in this. You and I understand this, in the format we are currently talking about. Therefore, I believe that this is a very bad position. Once again, as of today, the position can change. If Donbas stands, the position is one. If it's smooth there, the position is another. And it does not all depend on you. It is changed. We saw this with the Russian Federation, and historically. We have all seen how positions change during a war. Not when it is on pause. Or not when it has ended. Or not when the first part has ended. For example, the withdrawal of troops. The troops left, then the second part. And it is already different. It is different for everyone, for us, for society, for everyone. And it is very difficult when you have, God forbid, Mariupol, God forbid five of them. And your position, it can be so incredibly powerful. But there is still much more behind you, many different minds. Therefore, I have answered you regarding what I think about the situation with Crimea.

Speaker 3

I don't doubt in the slightest that you answered what you think. But the subject of a military solution to the issue was brought up by the first soldiers. That was not in my question. There was simply an attempt not to draw attention to the fact that Russia will commit another act of genocide. If now during the aggression they are killing, so to speak, how should I say it, a holocaust by bullets, then there they are replacing the population, massively organizing settlements and conversely, certain deportations, and they are also mobilizing educated Ukrainian people. I am very grateful to you. Andrey,

Speaker 1

I want to tell you that if you take the people who are fighting with us today, then some people, unfortunately, to be honest, were called separatists, they are more malicious than the Russian troops. And therefore, one must also not forget that the situation with the people who are in the temporarily occupied Donbas and the situation with the people who are in the temporarily occupied Crimea is different. Different from the perspective of basically any conversations and from the perspective of what to do with the people who behaved in such a way, and we know specifically who and how. And they are different. Many of these details are complex. That is why I say that the issue with Crimea, despite the fact that before this war everyone said, well, with Donbas we will somehow [do it], but Crimea is forever and that… This is a very complex question. I believe that the most complex one is Donbas. That is what I believe.

Speaker 5

Here are the city mayors. You know, many of them were considered pro-Russian in their time. Well, mildly [speaking]. But they absolutely surprised everyone, I think, their supporters, with their position. New heads of administration have appeared, whom we hadn't seen, and now just these forty-year-old men, you know, who began to prove themselves in a very difficult hour. I mean Kharkiv, Donetsk, Luhansk, Mykhailivka, and Chernihiv, and so on. It seems to me that this is kind of a discovery. Yes, it would be preferable for this to happen in a time of peace, but it turned out that they really proved themselves. And the third point is business. I would like you to also tell us about our local authority, how satisfied you are with how they are working in this psychological period. Now about all territories, and first and foremost, of course, where there are hostilities. About our mayors, especially of large cities in the Northeast, and about our business. To what extent it is now performing the function that is necessary, and specifically right now.

Speaker 1

Well, first of all, we will describe everything to them. In general. This is interaction. Truly. Truly, no one expected such real steps, such human steps, from some people. Second, I will tell you that some heads of regional state administrations were not very strong managers before this war. And we know that… But the war started, and here, there was simply a transformation, and people… I don't know, they changed. Perhaps it happened in the middle, but they were not managers of peace, but they definitely became managers of war. And this has become the most important thing today. And I, in general, will tell you honestly, I didn't expect, when people were fleeing, that we would now get to business, to some entrepreneurs, or some politics, various forces, but not a single head of a regional state administration fled anywhere. And honestly, I don't think we had a personnel approach, like "well done," but it happened that way, it turned out that all these people are simply powerful people, and they are all in place, all the heads of regional state administrations. Mayors, actually, especially mayors, mayors, well yes, Kharkiv, Odesa, unexpected things for society, we understand. Those who were strong managers were exactly that, they were strong managers in peacetime. We know, for example, the Kharkiv mayor, he previously worked as a deputy to the mayor, the former Mr. Kernes, so we understand, but the fact that, in principle, he would become so pro-Ukrainian—I don't want to characterize him—well, everyone is happy. It must be said honestly that we did a lot so that the heads of regional state administrations would unite with the mayors, so that the mayors and heads of regional state administrations would unite with law enforcement; it must be said honestly that we all worked on this. Strongly, with phone calls, with shouting, but nevertheless, these teams appeared, and their regions can be proud of them today, and there are no questions for them today. As for the mayors, they also surprised us; some mayors surprised us—I won't say, not positive ones—who look like strong people, highly powerful, but it turned out as it did. I won't say, but I believe that we, that we correctly

Speaker 1

Once again, the fact that we united these teams, and they recovered. Most of the mayors recovered. A small number, yes, recovered and after about 3-4 days of war began to work and then said, sorry, we really just weren't ready. We talked like human beings, normally, and as of today everything is fine. And a third part of the leaders, whom we didn't even know, and I, at the level of the president, didn't know in which district councils… that in my opinion, in my opinion, because the person is self-contained, this community, a small community or district, small towns, there every person [his/their]

Speaker 2

And these people,

Speaker 1

Very strong people; unfortunately, we lost several of them, they were killed, they were tortured. I tell you, I think that after the war we will definitely sit down and at the regional level we will recount how many calls there were with such people, how much total came, how it was, how they deceived the enemy. Well, it was extensive. Several times we hid these people, we evacuated them, then brought them back, so that they would appear in the squares as a symbol for the people, that they were on the spot, but knowing that they were being hunted. Many things happened, many steps. It was important that all these people, chosen by the population, were like flags; even in those places where our Ukrainian flags were taken down, such people appeared—flag-people. This was important. We paid a lot of attention to this. As for business, it's hard to say, honestly, there are people who left Hrushym, you know that, right? And there were many such people. And it is unpleasant that among such people there were those who were deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, or their parents left Hrushym. This is the most unpleasant part of our conversations. We know who left, we understand perfectly. There are entrepreneurs who boasted about one action or another, that is, actions for the Rada of Ukraine, yet they left, went abroad, regardless of their age. How should I put this? I feel positive about Ukrainian business, because much of the medium-sized business is simply at the level of volunteering, a desire to give not just something, but to give everything. Not even leaving anything for themselves, they just gave to people without queue, as they could, brought them into stores, simply opened them, because in the first days when the war started, as for weapons, how we provided them, we know this perfectly. For us it was very important that the whole state, everyone, everyone defended. It didn't matter how, who knew how and who didn't, as long as everyone defended. And it was the same with food products; we had many conversations, many contacts—conversations were not many—they realized that we could actually afford to open certain food establishments, give to people, because they had no money, let them take and stockpile, because there would be blockades, we understood that there would be blockades, blockades of certain places. I am very grateful to all such people, regardless of what business they represented—small, medium, large—it's all the same, they did a great job.

Speaker 5

I just want to guess, in my life such a law was passed on the harm with oligarchs, it was so long ago. In another life, moreover, with such an impression. Exactly. How do you like oligarchs, the oligarchs themselves?

Speaker 1

They behaved differently. We will draw conclusions when we win. Absolutely differently. Some positively, some unexpectedly became a hero, and some ceased to be a strong, strong person. Differently.

Speaker 10

Alexander Porosyanok, Inter TV channel. I wanted to talk about, as you put it, friends and others on the international arena. This week, elections took place in Hungary, in Serbia. In what way? They support Russia. Yes.

Speaker 1

That is so. If there were an opportunity, I would say that we do not have such powers to deal with this. Nevertheless. I think that, first of all, the people in these countries have shown how they feel about Ukraine. Therefore, I take this calmly. No matter who the leader is in one country or another, he must still listen to his people, who elected him. He still cannot pursue purely his own policy, no matter how much he wants to. We can look at Lukashenko himself. Unfortunately, the situation between our states is what it is. And, unfortunately, missiles flew from his [territory], and he knows this perfectly well, but we see that he did something, took some steps there, so as not to fully enter the war. It is not a fact that he won't, it's not a fact that he won't enter; we don't know this fully, the war has not ended. But nevertheless, because he needs to look at the people, and the people of Belarus are against wars against Ukraine. Before the speech, if you compare the statistics, the tragic ones, before the speech, the statistics of the people of the RF and the people of Belarus, then you can see that the attitude of Belarus toward Ukrainians is much better than that of the Russians. That is true. Although, as they say, they are all neighbors. The same goes for Hungary, Hungary—it is their right, their choice, they chose a president, a prime minister, Orbán, for themselves. Prime Minister Orbán—unfortunately, I wanted to establish relations with him, it's true, I called several times myself, I invited him to a meeting, I proposed a meeting at his place, and I wanted to establish relations; he was afraid—this was even before the election, he was afraid—I am not sure about this, he might be elected again and again say, "I am not afraid of anyone or anything," you can say that until you're out of breath, but everyone understands everything, he is afraid of the influence of the RF on his state; this influence exists, maybe it's a different situation, maybe he likes this influence, or he doesn't, that is his personal matter, but nevertheless, the people in Budapest went out, we saw tens of thousands of people in the squares, it is clear to me how they feel about Ukrainians, certainly positive, therefore I think that somehow we must live and will live; we didn't have an official ally in Budapest, an ally until our

Speaker 10

correct. By the way, he directly accused you of working there, and traditionally, Soros was also working, something like that, against him in the elections.

Speaker 1

Me and Soros, excuse me, a very strange thing, and he won the elections, as far as I know, there is already an official result, the people have chosen, he is the prime minister, it seems to me that this does not protect him from the fact that in this situation he will have to choose between Russia and the other world, he can say that I am choosing Hungary, but Hungary is part of the other world, and they are in the European Union, and we see what kind of people are there, and I will repeat once more, I have been there many times, therefore we understand for sure that this is a European country, he can continue to play, they will demand cheap energy resources from him there, that this will not last long, but nonetheless, even in this I do not see big problems, in terms of what he can do for us, he blocked NATO accession, he will not block and he blocked, but it does not depend only on him, I would even say, that regarding NATO, not everything depended on him certainly, despite the fact that we have such complex relations, although I believe that we simply have no relations with him, and second, this is the European Union, it could be the only country, or one of three countries, that will block or not support Ukraine's accession to the European Union, I believe he will not do this, because this is full open support for Russia, and we need nothing more.

Speaker 4

Vadim Karpyak, STB TV channel. Mr. President, a few days ago in an interview with Fox News, you said that for Ukraine in the war with Russia, only victory would be acceptable. Please tell us, what in your understanding would be Ukraine's victory in this war?

Speaker 1

First of all, so as not to lose our sovereignty, this is very important,

Speaker 1

I really want, that I really want, that not to lose hundreds of thousands of people,

Speaker 1

There can be no talk about us allowing Crimea to be called someone else's territory, it is only our territory, Ukrainian territory, I agree that there may be a question, that from the terminology of this, once again I will emphasize, this could be such a, such a compromise solution, if it will cost, if it is worth it, and Donbas for me is Ukraine, and for us, for all of us, it is Ukraine, regarding the territories that they have currently temporarily occupied, I simply, we simply do not speak, we don't even discuss any status of those territories that are ours today, which were fully under our control until the 24th, we do not speak about this, although there are conditions, they exist, we have heard them, ultimatum-like from the very beginning, and the greatest guilt for Donbas, that is what we are talking about, that very "Stalingrad" in quotes, which may be or will be, will be,

Speaker 7

yes,

Speaker 1

He will be for it himself.

Speaker 1

The fact that Russia recognized ordlo as something, I believe that we must find a way out of this situation. For us as Ukraine, these territories are Ukrainian, and preserving their status as Ukrainian is very important for us. I believe that this is one of the fundamental things that are important for us. But, I will repeat once more, I believe that this will be the most difficult story.

Speaker 4

And I want to clarify, that is, even if it turns out that we agree on the withdrawal of Russian troops to the positions as of February 23, this will not be regarded as our victory. I

Speaker 1

I believe this is a victory. Personally, I believe that as of today, this is a victory for Ukraine. Diplomatically, but not in the war. I believe that in the war. Honestly, that's what I believe as of today. I understand, well, where we are, who we are, what kind of country we are, what we have lost, what we might lose, and what we have saved. And I believe that pushing back the full-scale war to the point where it began before the 24th is definitely a victory for us. That's what I believe.

Speaker 8

And can you name the price of the occupied Donbas for the armchair experts, for those who demand it be taken today and right now? Can you say what the cost of this will be for all of us?

Speaker 1

The first step. The first step, at the very least, could be our most powerful war, or one of the most powerful. This is the JFO. This could be the price, because the way they fight, they fight like locusts. That is what it is called today. That is, per person, I cannot even imagine how many people. And it will be immediately, immediately 40-50 thousand of ours, immediately. And this, if we now, without tactics, without strategy, without anything, said, no, forward, let's run, it won't be like that, because we cannot [take] the Donbas in one go, hypothetically speaking, it's not one Donbas, there may be 5-6 battles. But nevertheless, this could all, yes, this could cost us, in general, it could cost hundreds of thousands of people. Yes, that is how it is. Real living people. But we must know what this would cost today. We will lose and take lives. And one cannot say that we have already lost. It cannot be allowed this way, because our state needs a strong army. And if we want to lose the best, the very best people because of what I want now, we must understand that they will return to us, and not in 2-3 years, but will return in that same month. To all other positions and into all the battles again. These are not toys. All military personnel know this. All military personnel think about this. This is a very serious story. Therefore, this must be approached consistently. I believe, I believe, it will be a victory for the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and diplomacy and everything in general, if we [achieve] the first part of any future agreements, which are happening or not happening, no one knows what will be in the future. But if we reclaim our entire state up to that point I spoke about, and we have an understanding, at least an understanding, an understanding of what or what we will talk about in the next hour regarding the temporarily occupied territory, I believe that this is a victory. Well, that is how our state stands, that everyone has their own thoughts. Let them talk.

Speaker 2

And a bit further. Next, wanting to ask about victory is Maksym Zbruovsky, Rada parliamentary channel. Honor, Mr. President. For me personally, being at one table with you is a joy, and it is a joy to be with colleagues at this hour at one table. You said that the president must look at his people, but the people must also look at their president. These are two sides of the same coin. The whole country watches your daily statements and is inspired by them. This is the support of Ukraine. I am interested in where you personally find support—in your family, or can you find at least five minutes at this hour to communicate. What emotions personally bring you satisfaction? Because after the explosion of the killed Russians, I personally am overwhelmed by anger, righteous anger. And I am now trying to find an outlet for these emotions. I am interested in what brings you satisfaction. And if you dream, what kind of Ukraine do you dream of most when you say that Ukraine will be rebuilt, and here we return to the beginning, when you said that Ukraine is now the center?

Speaker 1

That's right. Ukraine is the center. Answer the first part coherently. Although it's kind of simple, it's a little bit in the assignment. Thank you.

Speaker 3

But I cannot answer you on

Speaker 1

The first time, so that you catch me in the normal sense of the word, caught me. I don't know, I don't know where I am, I don't know. I just live. I wake up in the morning and start living and working. And then at night, go to sleep. The family inspires like this, we call it a 5 plus 5 program. About 5 minutes in the morning and 5 minutes in the evening. That's it, my communication. Anger inspires. Probably. I can repeat this after you. Because my anger is not real. I, well, a real tragedy, that's how it is. But we saw some things from the first day. I just couldn't, from the start couldn't understand how it could be like this. And then in parallel about friends, not about friends, every day the accumulation of anger, but it inspires. The main thing is that you don't make some conclusions with anger, some steps like that, you know, because many things and many people depend on you. You cannot afford to spend time on the results of your anger. But the fact that anger inspires, hatred inspires. They say that people shouldn't have such feelings, especially helpful people. Let them forgive, I live with

Speaker 2

It is all my right.

Speaker 1

All this is here, for sure. And a great faith in victory. A great faith that we will tear them apart. Such a desire. And as for what kind of Ukraine? Certainly not the one we wanted from the very beginning. It's impossible. A liberal state, unfortunately. I can simply state that I… This doesn't mean that it will be as we are talking about it now. Absolutely liberal and European—it won't be like that. Our Ukraine. It simply won't be. It will definitely be based on the strength of every hut, as I would call it, every home of every person. A protected state. Security must be number one. I think that all our people—this will be our great army. I think we cannot simply talk about a Switzerland in the future. Perhaps such a state could exist after a very, very long time, but we will definitely become a great Israel of our own, with our own face. That we won't be surprised by the serious fact that in all institutions, in certain supermarkets and cinemas, there will be representatives of the Armed Forces, the National Guard—people with weapons will be standing there. I am sure that for us it will be number one. In the next 10 years. I'm sure, not in this. And technologies in this area will definitely develop. That IT direction, which had developed quite well for us, will be number one, because all this is linked to both weapons and various programs. All this will definitely happen. I am sure of this. But the state will be as the Russian Federation made it. Exactly like that. Absolutely. Absolutely democratic. Absolutely. An authoritarian state is impossible in Ukraine. Simply impossible. An authoritarian state would have lost to Russia. Lost. Because people know what they are fighting for. They went out and fought not for a portrait. They fought. We all fought. They came out. How did you enter my street? Entered the street. How did you kill my child? How did you enter my neighbor's home? What was he fighting for? This can only be in a free state. In a very democratic state. Democracy is mandatory. But some things, some things in connection with—well, you know, nothing, here you can drink, and here you cannot. Here you can walk, and here you cannot. Here it's no big deal if they stopped you, well, you managed to wiggle out of it somehow—there will be no such thing there. Because these things related to security—I am sure of everything, it's not even a question for me. People will simply raise the question. I sent my child to school. Okay. What is there? Is there a person with a weapon, a professional, a state official at the entrance? Is there? Okay. Is there a scanner? How do they enter? Yes, yes. Is there a place to hide if a missile is flying? No, no. We change the DBN, we change them, we rebuild the school. That's what I'm talking about. And in such things, if in this or that school, in the institute, in homes, if this is not there, then the law must act strictly here. There must be no liberalism here. Well, that's how it seems to me.

Speaker 4

I am asking you for clarification, because you said whether the state should precisely be liberal, this concerns security.

Speaker 1

It concerns security. Security itself. Not information policy, don't choose how you live. Spend money as you wish, earn as you wish, live as you wish. I want… But there are rules, you know, like green, yellow, red; in security it should be green, yellow, and red, not half-red. It seems to me that we simply have no other way out.

Speaker 6

Also, in the interview, you said that for the Russians, Mariupol is like a medal that they want to wear. Please tell me, our soldiers have been defending Mariupol for a very long time, and they have been asking for help for a long time; can we expect military reinforcements for them, or is that even possible?

Speaker 1

This is very difficult. Really very difficult. Military de-occupation as of today, right now as of today, military de-occupation of Mariupol is difficult. And the guys, for whom it is very difficult, they know this perfectly well.

Speaker 1

really in contact almost every day. And it is hard for them. They are very strong, that is true, it is hard for them, and hard in different ways. There, it is hard for different people in different ways. I do not want to speak of any nuance, but that is how it is. There is a humanitarian mission that imposes responsible obligations on them; these are their brothers-in-arms who are wounded or dead. And so, they would wish that they were not there, that their parents would pull them back, and that we could evacuate the wounded. As for this component, we have reached an agreement today with Turkey; we were looking for a mediator who would be accepted

Speaker 1

Turkey is ready, we can say this on air today, right? Turkey is ready to evacuate today by ships. We have agreed to transport the wounded and the killed from Berdyansk. It is impossible to approach Mariupol; we will not give that opportunity. And they can [go] to Berdyansk; that is, you understand that everything needs to reach Berdyansk. And all our infrastructure is ready to evacuate the wounded and the deceased. And we are waiting for consent from Putin. I spoke with Erdogan, Erdogan is speaking with him. And now this specific moment depends on him. In principle, our delegations discussed the technical aspect at their level. This is, by the way, regarding the fact that this can be spoken about, but what I mean is… Sometimes, we don't see [the things] that the delegations discuss in certain important matters. And therefore, when, as the armchair experts said, they say something like, "Why meet there?" Perhaps it is not necessary to meet. But sometimes there are elements—and maybe it works. There are elements that are not decided globally regarding Donbas and Crimea, but there are such elements. And there are many of them. And someone also needs to discuss them and find a format. Because when the road there for up to 140 kilometers is occupied, yes, to Mariupol and Zaporizhzhia, 126, well, all this green [zone]. And there are many questions there. Many questions. Where to pick up people, where to bring something, some food. The fact that someone has to somehow contact the occupier themselves. Well, it has to be done somehow. And therefore, this will also be discussed at the delegation level. Okay. That is, to resolve the situation with Mariupol; that is, this is the first step right now. If we succeed, then we will see the result in the coming days. If we don't succeed, we will know for sure that the President of the RF personally is not granting such an opportunity. Although everyone is pressing from different sides, because it is still considered a humanitarian step. Then it will be easier for all our people. Even for those who lost their children, they should get them back. It will be easier for the guys who are there, in Mariupol, because for various reasons they are bound with these people. For various reasons. This is such a step that, well, we cannot talk about military unblocking yet. If it's not for television, it's okay, right?

Speaker 4

Well,

Speaker 1

Then I can say something about some things. Thank you.