Бондаренко: Ответы на вопросы, 2 февраля, 19:00
К.Б. Мистерии Политики
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CsfMk5owho“

Synopsis at the bottom. Translation by AI.

Well, introduction.
Hello, dear friends. It’s time again to answer your questions. It’s been a long time since we last met, especially since questions have practically piled up and have been waiting for quite some time. I will answer those questions I haven’t answered yet, because sometimes I get asked the same questions over and over from one program to another.
For example, the question: “How can we assess Sergei Minaev as a popularizer of history?”
I have already answered this question twice in my previous responses. And I will only say that I have great respect for Sergei Minaev as a writer, as a screenwriter. I watch films based on his scripts with great pleasure. I read his novels with great pleasure, starting back in the 2000s. But as a popularizer, yes, he makes quality videos, but, let’s say, not all professional historians can agree with him. Not entirely. Just recently, in a narrow circle of historians, we discussed both Minaev’s personality and his works. But again, I repeat, it is solid material, popular material. However, professional historians have a great many questions about this material.
Now let’s just talk. I will answer your questions.

Dear Konstantin Petrovich, please tell me, how realistic is an end to the war in 2026?
Of course, we cannot read tea leaves.
The war, let’s say, has already exceeded all conceivable and inconceivable timelines that were initially envisioned for it, that the sides envisioned.
And I don’t think that Russia, that Putin, thought the war would last this long. I don’t think the West thought the war would last this long.
However, the war has dragged on. Both sides today are in a situation, let’s say, where it is impossible to end the war and impossible to agree on a truce. But someone will have to take a certain first step and someone will have to make compromises.

Hello, Kostya. Best wishes. Question. Listening to all these swings from Europe, from the USA, Ukraine, everyone has their own desires. Trump is fighting with the Democrats domestically. Europe wants to drag the war out for another 1-2 years at our expense. Russia has its own desires. So what happens to us next? It turns out the war will continue further. The population is dying and leaving. Men don’t want to fight and are hiding from the TCC [Territorial Recruitment Centers]. The economy isn’t working. Territory is shrinking. What next? If war really starts in Europe, in the Baltics, then will ours end or what? Can our president really not see what is happening in the country? And if he does see, then what are his motives and goals? Thank you, you are the best. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for the compliments. The lot of Ukraine, Ukraine as a non-subject state, precisely this is the lot of a non-subject state, a state deprived of subjectivity, a state that depends, completely depends on the will of its so-called strategic partners, primarily European states. Europe needs Ukraine to keep fighting. Despite Ukraine’s resources being depleted, Europe constantly says: “You must fight for at least another year. You must weaken Russia.” If war starts in the Baltics, which many are talking about, then, accordingly, that does not mean the war in Ukraine will end. Why does Europe so insist on maintaining an 800,000-strong army in Ukraine? Why do European states insist on introducing their contingents into Ukraine and building their bases under the guise of ‘hubs’? Hubs, because Ukraine is destined in the next war, if it, God forbid, breaks out, is destined for the role of one of the strike fronts. So in this situation, Zelenskyy, perhaps deep down, might want to stop the war. Perhaps he’s tired of it too, but Zelenskyy has no power over his thoughts, over his actions, and over what he does as president, since in this situation he is an ordinary puppet, a puppet of Western states. And he cannot stop the war, no matter how much he might want to. Possibly deep down. Well, let’s still give a chance to hope that something human remains in him. But in reality, President Zelenskyy cannot stop this war, because this is not his war, it is not he who decides when this war should stop, unfortunately. And Ukrainians in this situation are precisely the force that not only defends its territory but primarily rakes the chestnuts out of the fire for others, for Britain, for France, for Germany, but not for the globalists, not for themselves.
The border, in case of an agreement, logically, is opened immediately. If not, then why keep in Ukraine those who have already been declared enemies? This is a couple of million repressed by the TCC. And what about the voter list? Many more will leave. But the thing is, the voter list is a rather complicated question, the voter registry, because of the large number of displaced persons, internal displaced persons, they supposedly have already dealt with that. A large number of emigrated people who left on documents, for example, on temporary assignment and so on, but remained abroad, who did not register with the consulate, who are not on consular registration or who are not registered as people under temporary protection of foreign states. Therefore, it’s quite difficult to understand the exact number of citizens, how many Ukrainians are abroad right now. The authorities have already repeatedly said that they will not open the borders immediately after the end of the war. Even in 2023, representatives of the authorities spoke, as if casually, about the need to keep borders closed for several years, because everyone will leave. They spoke about closed borders and postwar restrictions. In 2024-2025, this was repeated. Repeatedly. Plus, obviously, Europe will make the same demands, because they understand that a significant number of people immediately after the war will try to leave in search of earnings, in search of means for ordinary survival, to go to Europe. And therefore, most likely, restrictions will be introduced at the borders. Mhm. So I think we should expect that the concentration camp that exists in Ukraine today, its full powers will be extended, or its functioning will be extended for quite a long time, especially since it is absolutely beneficial for the authorities to keep people in a state of rightless individuals.

What will they go with at all, are there elections? Zelenskyy with advertising of fortifications on TV and Buses, Zaluzhnyi with photoshoots in London. Prytula with a satellite. Poroshenko will play at being the opposition. Let me remind you, they did not protest against the ‘Busification’, but suddenly woke up when Poroshenko himself was called to court. Many hope that the end of the war, and they just want to time the elections precisely to a certain agenda, a postwar agenda, that the end of the war will change the agenda and much will be forgotten and that people will choose not the best of the best, but the best of the worst. They will choose based on the principle: “Let’s vote for this one, because the others are even worse.” In this regard, there is even a version, which I’ve heard from many of my colleagues, that in the plans of Zelenskyy and the people pushing him to the elections—this is not final yet, because Zelenskyy hasn’t made a decision about whether he will run or not—but if he does run, then, accordingly, they will offer Beletskyi as his sparring partner and will do everything so that it is not Poroshenko who makes it to the second round, not Tymoshenko, not others, but precisely Beletskyi. And in such a case, Zelenskyy will try to win on the wave of sentiment that fascism must not pass. Let’s rather have Zelenskyy than an outright Führer. So in this situation, I think the bets will be placed precisely on showing people that, uh, our candidate, any of these candidates, is a little better than all the others. Even if he is imperfect, even if he has many minuses, still he is better than the rest.

In case, on December 31st, it is announced: “I’m tired, I’m leaving.” Obviously, this question was prepared in advance. So, under US pressure, should we expect a book about the fall of the regime in Ukraine? Definitely. Definitely. And I constantly, both on my phone and on my desktop, have a large number of various notes that I systematize, that I essentially keep in chronological order, because I understand that sooner or later I will need to finish writing the book “Joker,” I will need to write the final chapter of “Joker.” So definitely, as soon as the news agencies report that Zelenskyy is no longer president, that Zelenskyy is done, has gone to the headquarters, well, I will definitely, in the shortest possible time, offer the book, propose my book.

Russia constantly babbles about primordial Russian lands. Why didn’t they go liberate Alaska? Well, that’s a question for Russia. I understand, you understand, that in fact, they fight with the weak. That’s it. And they make claims against the weak, not the strong. That’s it. So for the same reason, I think a large number of territorial disputed territories in the Far East also don’t have the question of their historical belonging raised. Ukraine, as a weaker state, well, of course, became the object of territorial claims by a stronger state. Well, that’s how it always happens in history. They attack the stronger one.

What is the likelihood that electronic voting and fraud will be used in the elections? There seemed to be information that Russian hackers hacked “Diia,” will they be able to repeat the hack. Well, that’s the main thing, the main thing opponents of electronic voting appeal to. But, judging by the increasing influence of Fedorov and his team in the Ukrainian government, voting through “Diia,” electronic voting is precisely planned, in particular, in order to obtain a certain result at the expense of people who have left Ukraine, who will not be able to vote directly at polling stations at consular polling stations.

Konstantin Petrovich, in your opinion, why do a significant number of Ukrainians living in the EU now like to post videos about the advantages of life, allowing various statements? I didn’t quite understand this question. The thing is, people who live outside Ukraine now, who live in the EU, are absolutely different people who do not have a unified line of behavior. These people are not a united monolithic force, and these people are not organized there by any leaders. In fact, it’s a large number of disparate people with their own interests, their own vision, their own prospects, plans. Some plan to stay in Europe and naturalize, some plan to return after the war, some haven’t decided, some will search for themselves further, will probably emigrate to other countries, try to emigrate. This is a normal process in an abnormal situation, a situation of turbulence. People behave absolutely differently. And some try to show, accordingly, their new life, put it on display, show how this life differs from life in Ukraine. And as for statements, well, we understand that you can’t put a scarf on every mouth. So here it’s the human factor. There is no organized action here, there is no premeditated intent. So in this situation, everyone acts based on their worldview, their preferences, their character, upbringing, intellect, and so on.

What do you think, how will the war in Ukraine end? I just want it to end. Yes, it will end in a way that no one will like the end of the war, no one will like it. Essentially, the sides will not be satisfied with the result of this war. That’s the only thing I can say.

Could Trump not recognize Zelenskyy’s victory in the elections? Anything is possible. It will all depend precisely on what the monitoring missions say and what the observers say, how they assess the election results. And it is quite possible that there could be a situation where some Western states say that we do not agree with the results of these elections, that these elections were not free, not transparent, that these elections took place with elements of falsification, serious falsifications that affected the result, that these elections took place under pressure. So in this situation, anything is possible.

You often say that Ukrainians do not speak out against corruption, but against their non-participation in corruption. But you are also a Ukrainian, are you waiting for your turn to take cover, or is this still a harmful generalization that whitewashes the authorities? You know, in fact, every person is weak. I always said that I would never go into power, because power is a very big temptation. I’m not sure I could withstand those temptations. So it’s better not to go there. Better I will advise from the side, but I will not touch that money there, which is budget money, which is taxpayers’ money, and so on. So when I talk about Ukrainians, I base it on sociological indicators. I rely on sociology, I rely on numbers, I do not rely on the opinion of ordinary people, each specific Ivan Ivanovich, Mykhailo Mykhailovych, Vasyl Vasylovych, whom I might name. I rely on numbers. Surveys have been conducted, sociological research, which show Ukrainians have a tolerant attitude towards corruption. If you ask them directly: “Are you for or against corruption?” 90% will say: “Of course, against.” But if you break down corruption, what is corruption? Each specific act, they say: “Well, maybe, under certain circumstances, rather yes than no.” That’s the problem. So slogans are slogans. But as for corruption, Ukrainians and not only Ukrainians, and this is not only about the post-Soviet society. Corruption exists in many, many countries. And one shouldn’t say that this is only a legacy of the cursed Soviet past, as some say, or that it was brought to us, but we didn’t have it. Yes, the entire history of Ukraine is built on corruption, excuse me, please, since princely times. But that’s such a question already.

Konstantin Petrovich, how long, in your opinion, will the war in Ukraine go on, when will we wake up with light, water, and silence outside the window? Very, very much want it, especially silence. Thank you. Yes, I would also very much like it all to end, so that I could also return to Ukraine, from where I fled, not from the war, but from Zelenskyy, from the current regime. That’s it. And, accordingly, I would very much like the war to end. But I always tell everyone frankly, as long as Zelenskyy is in power, as long as the master in Ukraine is not the people of Ukraine, but are foreigners, for that long the war will last, unfortunately, because we do not set the parameters of this war, this war is not in the interests of the citizens.

Good day, Konstantin Petrovich. I have this question. On the internet, Marshal Zhukov is attributed the phrase: “We liberated them, and they will never forgive us for that.” So allegedly Zhukov said to Rokossovsky in forty-five, meaning the Europeans. I haven’t found references to primary sources. In your opinion, did this fact take place or is it propaganda? Thank you for the answer. With respect, Alexander. This is artistic fiction. Although I have heard this phrase in different interpretations, and some authors used it even in the sixties, during the lifetimes of both Zhukov and Rokossovsky. But most likely, most likely, since it is not officially documented, it is fiction. Many artistic fictions, well, the fruit of writers’ activity, like, for example, the Dulles Plan and so on, they began to live their own life and are perceived by many as almost a documentary source or documentary evidence.

So, what is homeland? Is it the possibility to live happily and raise children or the expectation of a moment of self-sacrifice for the benefit of someone’s selfish interests? From the example of officials, one can conclude: those who have two or more live happily. Thank you. Yes, one of my close friends once said that the elite in Ukraine is determined by the presence of a second citizenship or residence permit in another state. Harsh, cynical, but fair from Ukraine’s point of view. And as for homeland, the Swedish writer August Strindberg back in the 19th century said, in my opinion, a brilliant phrase: “When the authorities want to take your life, they begin to call themselves homeland.”

Konstantin Petrovich, you have remained the most interesting, most importantly honest speaker. So. Thank you for your analysis. Health to your loved ones. With respect, Alla, Germany. Many just precisely not questions, but precisely such wishes. Thank you. So here, a Luhansk native from Toronto. Thank you. Good health to you and your loved ones. Well, that is, there is a large number of precisely not questions, but precisely such wishes. Thank you very much. I am very pleased by this. It really supports and gives confidence that what I am doing is indeed a necessary process.

Konstantin Petrovich, when sanctions are lifted from you, what will you do first? So, what will I do first? I haven’t really thought about it, but I will definitely then think about returning, think about how to organize the logistics of my move back to my homeland. That’s it.
A humorous question. Here it is, Konstantin Petrovich. Why did Ukrainian cosmonauts paint the moon only yellow? Yes.

Hello, Konstantin Petrovich. “The Rimsky region greets you from afar. So, a question has arisen. Everyone who is not lazy shouts about the Budapest Memorandum. They shouted even before the fourteenth year and before the twenty-second year. I figured out what a memorandum is in politics. But a memorandum is not a legal document obligating anything. In essence, it is a declaration of intent.” And in an interview with Gordon, the American ambassador to Ukraine said that the Budapest Memorandum does not contain the word “guarantee.” What do you think about this? Actually, there are indeed many insinuations around the Budapest Memorandum. A memorandum is indeed a document that is not binding. That’s it. And, accordingly, the sides that made the decision to provide Ukraine, there was no direct word “guarantee,” assured Ukraine that Ukraine would not face any dangers. The other nuclear states, when they made these decisions, it was made more by the leaders of these states and it acted de facto, let’s be frank, de facto this memorandum acted as long as Bill Clinton, Boris Yeltsin, representatives of Britain and France were in power, that is, those who gave their guarantees to Ukraine. Their successors did not consider themselves obligated to fulfill the terms of the memorandum, since this document was not ratified. That’s it. And, by the way, I remember very well how one Ukrainian politician told me about how we deceived the Europeans. We insisted that this document should not be ratified. And that means, after some time, in 10 years, we will again raise the issue that we will resume our nuclear potential. No one restricts us in this—said this politician, very high-ranking at the time. And, accordingly, now we are starting to sound the alarm and say that the memorandum is not being fulfilled by the participants. In fact, it was necessary to sign a completely different level of document, ratify it, in order to claim that this document, that the sides that signed, ratified this document, would fulfill it.

Konstantin Petrovich, a question. In negotiations, Ukraine and its people should be primarily interested, but it is taking more and more money on credit and ruining its future. I was in the Balkans, where there was war, and there are still huge problems there. What does the Ukrainian government hope for? There really are big problems remaining in the Balkans. I am interested in history, contemporary Balkan politics. I often visit the Balkans, communicate there with politicians and experts in different countries. In 2017, we even managed to hold a big conference in Zagreb, in which representatives of almost all Balkan peoples participated, who went through wars, confrontation, and tragedies in the nineties. And we then called this conference “Lessons of the Balkans for Ukraine.” Because it was very important for us to understand how the Balkan peoples got out of this situation. Unfortunately, we could not stop even at the level where the Balkan peoples stopped. When they decided to cease fire and go for a bad, but still peace. Yes, now Serbs and Croats communicate with each other. There is distrust, but still there is not that enmity which was in the nineties. Yes, today there are big problems between Muslims and Orthodox in Bosnia and Herzegovina, yes, some conflict is brewing there again, they manage to contain it today. Yes, today there are big problems in relations between Kosovo and Serbia. Yes, all that exists. That’s it. But at the same time, there is no war. That’s the main thing. As for Ukraine, it did not learn any lessons from the Balkan experience. That’s the first. And second, I have already said many times, it continues to act under nationalist slogans, under ethno-nationalist slogans, I would even say, but not for its own interests, not for the interests of its own nation. This I mean what the Ukrainian government advocates.

Opposition either in prison or in exile, millions of voters wanted by the TCC. Candidate Zelenskyy himself, former Commander-in-Chief Zaluzhnyi well, a couple of people from the show. Is this really the end? I literally answered this question just a few minutes ago, that they will elect not the best of the best, but the best of the worst.

Hello, Konstantin. I wish you well in the new year. And the question is: why do patriots who demolish monuments created under communism not demolish their own homes? After all, these are also monuments created under communism. Otherwise, it turns out somehow unpatriotic, or at least they would renounce them in favor of those who are not squeamish. Well, of course, there is a policy of double standards, there is hypocrisy. And, accordingly, people who see communist symbolism exclusively only in monuments of that era or in street names, or city names, do not understand that the real monuments of that era were industrial facilities, were houses, were cities that grew, that developed in a certain era, were elements of culture that passed into our life and so on, and so on, and so on. They, of course, do not want to renounce this. They simply keep silent about it. This constitutes the policy of double standards.

Konstantin Petrovich, the topic of political prisoners has not been raised in the information space lately. In your opinion, is there a chance for a change in the situation in the near future? No. Why not raised? It is constantly raised by the same Alexander Dubinsky. He constantly talks about thousands of political prisoners. Raised by Diana Panchenko. She also, she even prepared a list of political prisoners. Many were offended that they found themselves there. The topic of repression is raised and raised at the level of communication of Ukrainian opposition politicians with American colleagues and so on, and so on. This does not mean that this topic is being hushed up. That the central mass media, those controlled by the authorities, do not pay attention to this topic, but that is an absolutely natural moment, because censorship in Ukraine today not only exists, it is off the charts. That’s it. But the topic exists.

Konstantin Petrovich, to what extent can the current inertial scenario still most likely stretch to a freeze, weeks, months, years? How do you assess the probability of a weak inertial trend and what could it be? The front, elite split, external pressure. Huge thanks for your honesty and decency. Thank you for the compliments. You see, the inertial scenario, it will exist, because the current government is engaged in imitation of the negotiation process, imitation of the peace process. Therefore, in this situation, it should be said that only a change of power in Ukraine, in whatever way, that’s another question, it can lead to a change from this inertial scenario to another, more dynamic one.

Hello, Konstantin Petrovich. Are you sure that the West will feed an 800,000-strong army of Ukraine? I am not sure, naturally, but the West insists on this 800,000-strong army, which means the West knows what it needs this 800,000-strong army for. And precisely therefore, if they agree to the West’s demands, to the West’s proposal, that does not mean a stop to the war, that means a pause in the war.

Hello, Konstantin Petrovich. I would like to hear from you a characterization of citizen Vladimir Pavlovych Gorbulin. Thank you. Vladimir Pavlovych, well, he is part of Ukrainian history. This is a man who was Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council under Kuchma. This is a man who is absolutely pro-Western, a man who is oriented towards Euro-Atlantic structures and one of those who lobbied most for Ukrainian advancement towards Euro-Atlantic integration. He is consistent in his actions. I do not support his position, but this is a man who does not wag his tail, did not try to somehow show that the government changed, and I changed my positions. That’s it. Even a political opponent in such cases deserves respect, although I stand on absolutely opposite positions in relation to the position held by Gorbulin. Still, he is consistent in his views.

Konstantin Petrovich, please tell me how you feel about Stalin, as an element of history that cannot be revised, that cannot somehow be shifted, forgotten, painted over. Several decades of history are associated with Stalin, not only of the Soviet Union as a whole, but also of the history of Ukraine. Stalin’s times, yes, there were many excesses, yes, there were many tragedies in the era of Stalin, but there were also serious changes. There was serious development of the country. Well, as they say, there was a cult, but there was also a personality.

Good evening, Konstantin Petrovich. Can Ukraine and how can it acquire sovereignty, freeing itself from the control and management of Western countries, mainly the USA, England, and Germany? And what made this situation possible? What made it possible, in fact, the Ukrainian elites themselves sought to shift a certain part of the responsibility for Ukraine’s fate precisely onto the shoulders of these Western states. In the nineties, in the 2000s, there was an open trade in sovereignty. Ukrainian politicians were divided into those who tried to sell sovereignty either to the West or to the East. That’s it. But they themselves did not want to take responsibility for this sovereignty. They were too short-term in Ukrainian politics. They came to solve specific issues and leave. That’s it, someone solved political issues, someone economic issues, but at the same time, all of them were essentially temporary. And they decided to shift Ukraine’s fate onto the shoulders of first two factors: West and East, Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. And then after 2014, they completely shifted, completely lay down in the format of Western policy. At the same time, the West was absolutely loyal until a certain time to the corrupt actions that took place in Ukraine, for the fact that Ukraine completely allowed European, as well as transnational corporations, to do whatever they wanted, throwing Russia, China, and other factors, Eastern factors, out of the Ukrainian space. So, can it free itself? The role of personality in history has not been canceled, firstly. But if someone who comes to power decides to change the situation, says that’s it, the West is no longer the boss, he will be taking a very, very big risk. He will constantly walk on the edge of easily becoming a victim of either a coup, or an assassination attempt, or some other actions that will be aimed at still leaving Ukraine under the control of Western states. The arsenal of reprisals against the unwanted is quite wide. Read the history of states that went through the period of decolonization.

So, please explain how large settlements of Poles ended up in Ukraine, in particular, in Zhytomyr region. Well, in fact, these settlements existed there since medieval times. Colonization, colonization of lands, former lands of Rus in the so-called Dark Ages. It is quite well described. There are a number of historians who described how this colonization advanced and how the Polonization of these lands advanced. But after the Second World War, after a significant number of Poles were resettled from the territory of Galicia, and they were resettled mainly, in the interfluve of the Oder and Neisse, annexed from Germany, where Wrocław is now. These territories previously predominantly Polish territories, settled by Polish citizens, became Ukrainian. Suddenly I mean Galicia. Volhynia was de-Polonized, but Vinnytsia and Zhytomyr regions, partly Kyiv region, these are eastern spurs of the so-called Kresy, there Poles indeed remained. And quite serious Polish settlements. Still in the late eighties, early nineties, it was noted that the largest number of Polish population in Ukraine is precisely Zhytomyr region, this is part of Kyiv, part of Rivne, Vinnytsia regions. That’s it. So this is a natural process, a process of ethnogenesis, in principle, influenced by political processes.

So, questions are repeated. So, Konstantin Petrovich, peace be with you. Question: why has the calendar become a cause of discord? The New Year from the birth of Jesus Christ according to the new style before Christmas is good. Christmas is bad or is this a reason to keep distance? Tell me as a historian-conflictologist. Thank you. In fact, today calendar issues are the most politicized issues. In Ukraine, the issue of the calendar, the church calendar, when to celebrate Christmas and so on, arose not because someone wanted to establish some truth, not because it is more correct or incorrect. This is an issue which is a matter of tradition. They simply try to convey to Ukraine, to Ukrainians, the authorities, that you must celebrate not when they celebrate, for example, in Russia or in some other Orthodox states, but must celebrate when they celebrate in Europe. This is a political question, in which the church, certain church circles, took their position. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church insists that it will continue to adhere to tradition. And I could talk for a very long time now, tell why this happened, why in February 1918 they switched the calendar, let’s say, moved the calendar. Why some remained on previous positions, some did not. I could talk a lot about how many insinuations, how many indeed false premises one can encounter on the eve of each Christmas about, you see, before the revolution they celebrated December 25, and the Bolsheviks established January 7. Well, the very posing of the question that the Bolsheviks established something in church life raises doubts. But the reality is that part of the churches that have now switched to the new calendar, let’s say, to the European calendar, they simply followed the lead of politicians first of all. Not because it is right, but because it is necessary.

Petrovich, good evening. I would like to hear your opinion on the issue of peace in Ukraine. Steps towards achieving peace.
First. At the negotiating table only Ukraine, Russia, and the USA. Remove negotiations to Europe and Britain. Instigators of war. Well, by the way, precisely with the Greenland case, Trump did everything to remove Europe from the negotiation track and, accordingly, so that Europe would not participate in the negotiations. He simply showed how weak Europe is and how it cannot be a negotiator today. Second. Deprive Ukraine of intelligence means and communication with the USA. The USA is already threatening Ukraine that if negotiations reach an impasse, then Ukraine will be disconnected from intelligence means, from intelligence data.
Third. Limit the supply of weapons by the USA to NATO countries or prohibit their transfer to Ukraine. Well, if it comes to a split in NATO, which many are talking about now, then, accordingly, this will automatically be realized. The USA will then reconsider its policy regarding the supply of weapons to NATO or will simply sell these weapons to NATO at market prices not as allies, but as third states.
So, block the accounts of Zelenskyy and his entourage. Well, this is necessary, for this certain actions are necessary, for this certain decisions are necessary, which Trump cannot simply take by his order. I think that fulfilling this will help Trump achieve peace in Ukraine and get a peace prize. I would like to hear your opinion, but Trump is not interested in a peace prize now. The peace prize was an agenda for 2025. The Nobel Peace Prize. Now Trump is making it clear that he is not interested in it. Even if they offer it to him, it will not be an idée fixe for him. Trump today faces the task of winning the fall elections, which will be extremely difficult. Many have already begun to bury Trump, saying that Trump now has big problems and the Republicans. But Trump needs to defeat not only the Democrats. Trump also needs to defeat the Republicans. And I don’t know how he will cope with this task, but in general 2026 will be devoted precisely to Trump’s struggle for control over Congress.

Do you think Macron will call Putin? And when? He promised. Well, accordingly, now we wait when the sides will be ready. But today, little will depend on Macron’s call. Europe, as I already said, has been withdrawn from the status of an active player. And, well, Trump, sorry, Macron can call Putin and discuss the weather, some, I don’t know, issues related to climate, something else. But it is unlikely that Macron can today seriously influence the course of the war or Russia’s position regarding the war in Ukraine.

Konstantin Petrovich, good day to you. I want to thank you for your work. The question of “Joker” already, the question of “Joker” can already be listened to online. How to buy it? Is it paid, and if so, how to buy? Thank you. So, I emphasize again, I already wrote in my Telegram channel. Allow me another minute of advertisement like this. Literally very recently we agreed with the intellectual club “Antimaridim” that I essentially transferred to them the rights to sell all my books, including “Joker,” as well as all those books published starting from 2000. They organized their own absolutely reading app, so to speak. They did everything to avoid certain pirate actions, which unfortunately not only I faced, very many face outright piracy on the internet. It was practically impossible to fight this. Therefore, the owners of the club maximally resolved this issue. And also they did the audio recording of “Joker.” So, that is, on the club’s website one can get precisely the audio version, audiobook. And, in principle, if interested, then in my Telegram channel, in my Telegram channel “The Past and Thoughts,” there is all the information. I will specifically make a pinned post today so that all information can be found and obtained there by everyone interested in “Joker” in one or another version, in hardcover, electronic, or audio version.

Good evening. Tell me, why does Ursula von der Leyen live in the premises where the European Parliament meets in Brussels? I understand that this is diplomatic territory. No law enforcement agencies have the right to access it. How could this happen? Who allowed her to occupy apartments there? This means she will never answer for her crimes. Or after the war ends, can Ukraine calmly declare default and do they want to declare it, or is it not beneficial to declare it? Thank you. There are several questions in one here. Regarding Ursula von der Leyen, she lives in the premises where the Brussels parliament meets during her term of office. That’s the first point. Regarding Ursula von der Leyen, there are many questions from law enforcement agencies, and they have been raised lately, including accusations of corruption or that she facilitates corruption. These questions are quite relevant today and I think that sooner or later, if the relevant material is collected, this issue may arise. And regarding default, Ukraine is balancing on the edge of default. And here the question is, will Ukraine’s masters allow it to declare default, since in that case they will face the fact that Ukraine will simply refuse its debt obligations. Another thing is that Ukraine itself, just as with the issue of war and peace, so with the issue of default, it cannot make these decisions itself. No matter how much we say that the master here is not a Ukrainian, the master here is not a Ukrainian at all.

How do you think, is war possible on US territory and for what reasons? Well, in recent years, there is often talk about the possibility of a civil war, a new civil war. For now, that is from the realm of fantasy. But no one is insured against such a development of the situation, especially given the intensity of passions felt in the United States today.

Konstantin Petrovich, I remember you on the Ukrlife channel with Lyudmyla Nemerya. Tell me, do you communicate now with Dmytro Dzhangirov and how has your attitude towards him changed after his return to public space? Why don’t you participate more in broadcasts? Lyudmyla Nemerya. I am very glad that Dmytro Dzhangirov has returned to public space. Indeed, I have tremendous respect for him. I consider him one of the most brilliant minds, Ukrainian minds of recent decades. A man with extraordinary analytical abilities, a man with a brilliant sense of humor, and so on. Well, now, Dmytro Georgiyovych, thank God he has returned to active life, but he decided that until the end of the war, for example, he will not conduct any dialogues, that he will refrain from dialogues. Some journalists wanted to organize our joint interview. They approached Dmytro Georgiyovych and, accordingly, well, he stated his position. I respect that position very much, of course. As for Lyudmyla Nemerya, that was her choice. With the start of the war, many so-called super-patriots like Oleksiy Horyn attacked her severely, who started saying that she invited renegades like Bondarenko to her broadcasts and so on. And, accordingly, Lyudmyla Nemerya decided with the start of the war to stop our communication, our programs. That is her right. Absolutely. I’m not offended.

Konstantin, good health to you. Tell me, in the current situation, what will Zelenskyy do? Will there really be elections, Zaluzhnyi elections, or is there a chance for an outcome with normalization of the situation, both in society and in political games, where all centers of common sense are closed with seven locks? You know, I am not yet convinced that there is a possibility for the triumph of common sense. Even the end of the war is unlikely to put an end to the nonsense we are observing in these processes. As for Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy will either try to come to a second presidential term himself, especially since Russia, Putin demands that Ukraine be represented at the negotiations. If negotiations take place, then at the negotiations precisely a fully legitimate president or head of government or a legitimate speaker. That is, there must be a person who possesses legitimacy, so that if some treaty is signed, then in 10 years someone won’t say that the person who signed it from the Ukrainian side did not have the right to sign it. So in this situation, elections are simply necessary in this case. As for Zaluzhnyi. Zaluzhnyi is an absolute double of Zelenskyy. If Zelenskyy does not run, Zaluzhnyi will run, because the same forces stand behind them. Zaluzhnyi is the same Zelenskyy. The same Zelenskyy, but with a different team. Well, conditionally speaking, will it become better if instead of Yermak, Pasynskyi becomes head of the administration, head of the office. Of course, that’s swapping one rogue for another. In both cases, behind one and the other stand British interests, not Ukrainian ones.

Konstantin Petrovich, please tell me your opinion about the historian Danylo Yanevskyi. I recently read his book about Stepan Bandera with interest, but I see that he is often criticized, claiming that his books are not full-fledged historical works. How do you assess the level of his work and to what extent, in your opinion, can they be trusted as a historical source? I respect Danylo Yanevskyi very much as a person. We have known each other for a long time and are friends. He is rather a popularizer of history and is a person who primarily emphasizes some moments related to the scandalousness of this or that topic, draws attention to the mistakes of other historians, or tries to debunk old dogmas; that’s his plus. I have many remarks about his books about Bandera and so on. There are many moments he did not reveal, but in general, as a counterbalance to the current almost canonical conception in which Bandera is a villain, his book carries a rather positive narrative.

Konstantin Petrovich, good day. And I would like to hear your opinion on such questions. Why do Ukraine and Europe need an 800,000-strong army of Ukraine? I have already said this repeatedly. I repeat that Europe views Ukraine as a certain outpost in case war with Russia starts tomorrow, between Europe and Russia, the 800,000-strong Ukrainian army will become precisely that support which Europe would like to use against Russia.

Europe has weak armed forces. It needs Ukraine as a battering ram, an irritant against Russia. Yes, in principle, Ukraine has played this role since 2014, and this is no secret.

Ukraine will further be used as cannon fodder, and Zelenskyy and his gang will continue to saw European money. Either Zelenskyy or someone else who replaces him.

So, regarding the 100 billion for Ukraine’s restoration. Russia today is investing huge money in roads, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and so on in Crimea, LNR, DNR, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia. I was in Crimea, LNR in the summer. Take my word for it, the regions are transforming for the better. I especially noticed roads and hospitals. Just super. So Russia is already investing 100 billion in the development and restoration of the liberated regions of Ukraine. I would like to hear your opinion. You know, I have not been to LNR, DNR, or Crimea since 2013. After 2013, I have not been to these territories. I can only judge by what my friends tell me. One of my friends was in the Luhansk People’s Republic last year. He noted that despite there being a huge number of problems, a huge number of problems in the cities of Luhansk region, the roads, he says, are indeed ideal roads that European states could envy. I cannot confirm this since I haven’t been there. But in principle, road construction also says a lot.

Your attitude towards Belkovsky. With Stanislav Belkovsky, a certain period of my life was connected. We worked on a common project. That was in 2003-2004. He is a man of great intelligence, erudition, sense of humor, a man who agrees with others’ opinions, a man who does not impose his position but essentially offers to discuss, who is ready to listen to arguments and agree if the arguments from the other side are weighty enough, a man who possesses a lot of insider information. But I repeat, we haven’t communicated for almost 22 years, there was episodic communication. Well, we literally met in a cafe once, exchanged a few phrases, but that was also in 2010. Since then, we have had no communication. I understand he now has a certain political position, certain political views, but I am talking about that period in the early 2000s when little divided us.

Hello. Again a pleasant compliment. The only person who, defending the interests of his country, boldly went on television broadcasts in Russia. And sorry, yes. I was just about to say that I am not the only person, because I went on television broadcasts in Russia in 2014, fifteen, sixteen, up to twenty, and not only on television broadcasts, but also for communication with my colleagues. But here they are saying that the only one was only Vadym Karasiov. No, Vadym Karasiov was not the only one, although Vadym Yuriyovych is a man, without a doubt, of great courage, a man with independent views, with breadth of views.

So what do I know about Vadym Karasiov? Vadym Karasiov is in Ukraine. Vadym Karasiov is under sanctions. Sanctions were introduced against him. Which is extremely unfair, I think, extremely unfair. A man is essentially now in a very difficult situation because of the sanctions. But he does not leave Ukraine. We sometimes call each other. I value Vadym Yuriyovych very much as my senior comrade. We ended up in Kyiv at approximately the same time, and we developed our careers in political science practically in parallel. We never had any misunderstandings, no roughness in our relations. He is a man, well, some consider him to have an explosive character, but in fact a man whom I am truly pleased to call my friend, because such friendship would be an honor to anyone.

So, Zelenskyy diligently dug a hole for Putin. And how does he get out of it? The rope of the United States has turned into Trump’s thread, and the ladder of Europe has rotted. There are still the British. Who will save him? Zelenskyy grabs like a drowning man grabs at a straw or a thorn bush. In exactly the same way he grabs at the British. The British completely influence Zelenskyy. On January 25, on his birthday, Zelenskyy went to Vilnius not so much to speak at the Kolinovskyi forum as to talk with British colleagues about how to live further and how to conduct negotiations with Russia in conditions when Trump is beginning to openly pressure and dominate. But, if we speak seriously, then in this situation Zelenskyy has no other choice but to continue betting on Europe. And although he understands that this bet leads him to destruction.

In your interviews, you express hope that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will withstand and regain its lost positions, return churches, and so on. Supposedly the new US administration is against persecutions. Then why did Petro stir all this with the OCU not on his own initiative? Why would the customers now backpedal? Even if the Democrats initiated it, why would the current administration abandon a profitable venture? Actually, it was not the Democrats who initiated, the Republicans initiated. In 2017, Trump was in power. But Trump at that time went for an alliance with the globalists. He believed that an alliance with good globalists, like Pompeo, Bolton and others, would ensure his success. That if he removed the bad globalists and these good globalists, so, the so-called head of the commission on religious freedom at the US State Department, Sam Brownback, who, by the way, once even ran for president of the United States, he was the architect of the OCU. It was he who initiated the dialogue with the Ecumenical Patriarch aimed at minimizing the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church on Ukraine. Since in that case he believed substantial damage would be inflicted on Russia’s interests. That is, there was an attempt essentially at a civilizational split. If we look, Huntington in his time, Samuel Huntington said that Ukraine, like Russia, belongs to a single Orthodox civilization. And here there was an attempt to essentially introduce a split into this civilization through spiritual institutions. Now in the United States they are beginning to review the activities of those same globalists who were allies of Trump during his first term. Why are cases being initiated against Bolton? Why is Pompeo being so actively criticized now? Well, some people from Trump’s circle, like Congresswoman Luna, or the same JD Vance, criticize Ukraine’s position on the church question. So I think it is quite possible that in the near future we will see this position being revised. Especially considering how unsuccessful the September visit of Metropolitan, sorry, Patriarch Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, to the United States was. And how coolly he was received there.

Konstantin, I want to ask. I follow Ukrainian bloggers who very actively discuss the negotiation process initiated by the States to end the conflict between our countries. In your opinion, how expedient is it for these bloggers to do this, considering that their discussion is mainly a retelling of publications in various press. And your leader sometimes throws in topics. Well, in fact, a significant part of bloggers today engage in rationalization. That is, they retell not so much information or insider information, but rather focus on rationalizing attempts to convey what they read, retell what they read on one or another website, in one or another Telegram channel, and so on. Or some simply work off a program. That is, they, being on the payroll of certain government bodies or certain politicians, simply try to wrap this or that information in a party or, from their point of view, correct packaging.

Taras Shevchenko wrote: “We boast that we ruined Poland, but Poland fell and crushed us.” Is your truth? Poland fell and crushed you. So, the thing is, Taras Shevchenko in this respect, it was the first half of the 19th century, issues were very actively discussed, debated between Ukrainians and Poles, issues that led to the situation in which both representatives of Little Russians and representatives of the Polish population found themselves. Especially these discussions were after 1830-31. The initiator of these discussions was Michał Czajkowski, also known as Sadık Pasha. He was in Paris at the time. And it was then that he said that the Poles themselves were to blame for losing statehood because they underestimated the Ukrainian factor, the Cossack factor. If the Poles had found a compromise with the Cossacks, they could have jointly resisted Russia. This was the concept of Michał Czajkowski, which was very actively perceived and supported by the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood at the early stage of their existence. Taras Shevchenko. It is known that he rewrote the plot of “Haidamaky” essentially from Czajkowski from his “Bohun”. And he even admitted this himself when his friend Martos was going to Paris. He asked to give a copy of “Haidamaky” to Czajkowski. And, accordingly, this is precisely what we see, that Shevchenko writes that we boast that we ruined Poland, but Poland fell and crushed us. Essentially this is an echo of those historical discussions that existed in the thirties-forties after the suppression of the Polish uprising in the intellectual environment both in St. Petersburg and on the territory of present-day Ukraine.

Konstantin Petrovich, can we speak of Zelenskyy as a biodrone of the globalists, since he directly ignores the interests of Ukraine? I have already said repeatedly that Zelenskyy is subject to the complex of an actor, for whom applause is very important, but he performs not before his own citizens. His own citizens do not give the cash and the ovations he expects. It is very important for him to be applauded by foreigners. That’s why he completely ignores the interests of his own citizens, and he is completely focused on those ovations he receives in the West. Everything is done precisely for that.

This was the last, fifty-fourth question. Thank you very much for your attention. I will try to make our meetings more frequent, so that we somehow more compactly cover these questions in, say, half an hour, 40 minutes. Thank you for the attention of those who had the patience to listen to our program until the end. And until next meetings.

---

Summary

This is a transcript of a lengthy Q&A session with Konstantin Petrovich, a Ukrainian political analyst in exile, who is critical of the Zelenskyy government and the West’s role in the war. Key themes include:

• War & Peace: He sees no near end to the war, stating both Russia and the West underestimated its duration. He believes Ukraine is a “non-subject state” completely dependent on Western patrons (especially Europe and Britain) who want the war to continue to weaken Russia, viewing Ukraine as a future “strike front.” Zelenskyy is portrayed as a powerless “puppet” unable to stop the war even if he wanted to.
• Ukraine’s Post-War Future: He predicts a grim future: borders will remain closed to prevent mass emigration, the “concentration camp” atmosphere will persist, and the economy is on the brink of default. Elections, if held, will offer only a choice of “the best of the worst,” potentially engineered to ensure Zelenskyy wins against a deliberately weak opponent.
• Internal Politics: He describes widespread repression, political prisoners, censorship, and corruption. He states Ukrainian society tolerates corruption in practice, despite opposing it in principle. The elite is defined by having foreign citizenship or residency.
• International Actors:
  • Europe: Wants to prolong the war and maintain a large Ukrainian army as a proxy force against Russia.
  • USA: He discusses Trump’s potential impact, suggesting he might sideline Europe from negotiations. He also mentions a possible US review of its support for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU).
  • Britain: Has primary influence over Zelenskyy.
• Historical & Ideological Views: He touches on various topics: Stalin’s era had both tragedies and development; the Budapest Memorandum was non-binding and flawed; Ukrainian history is marked by corruption; calendar changes are purely political moves to distance from Russia.
• Personal: He is under sanctions, fled from Zelenskyy’s “regime” (not the war), and hopes to return home someday. He promotes his book “Joker” and values his colleagues (like Dzhangirov and Karasiov) who maintain independent thought.

This response is AI-generated, for reference only.