SECTOR! – Bondarenko
Oleksandr Shelest 913K subscribers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiGS-IxLRKM
Synopsis:
This transcript is from a YouTube discussion between Ukrainian journalist Oleksandr Shelest and political scientist/historian Kost Bondarenko. The conversation provides a deep, pessimistic analysis of the current political and military situation in Ukraine from a perspective critical of President Zelensky.
Core Thesis: President Zelensky is isolated in an “information bubble,” disconnected from Ukraine’s dire objective reality (collapsing energy grid, demographic catastrophe, deteriorating front). He is portrayed as a “show business” figure fixated on ratings, believing high poll numbers mean success, while the country physically crumbles.
Key Topics:
- Zelensky’s Dilemma & May Scenarios: Four potential paths are debated: 1) New elections/referendum to legitimize himself; 2) Capitulation/peace accepting US-Russia terms; 3) Resignation/escape abroad; 4) Continued war/counteroffensive. Bondarenko describes warring factions in Zelensky’s office (pro-American, “globalist,” and hardline). He asserts no final decision has been made; Zelensky hopes Europe can change Trump’s mind.
- Peace Negotiations & The “Spirit of Anchorage”: The discussion details the backstory of the “28 points” drafted in Anchorage. Bondarenko claims Zelensky and European leaders tried to alter the terms (reducing points to 20) and present them to Trump, who outmaneuvered them by pivoting to Greenland at Davos. Lavrov’s statement that Russia received no official document is used to illustrate diplomatic dysfunction and that Russia will demand even harsher terms.
- Societal Collapse & Propaganda: Bondarenko paints a picture of a “sick” society driven by a “language of hate.” He cites anecdotes of violence among displaced elderly, the removal of Soviet liberation memorials (Pushkin busts, WWII plaques), and aggressive language policing. He warns of the threat of the war turning into a civil conflict (“Lenin’s thesis”).
- Military & Economic Bluff: Both hosts mock official Ukrainian narratives about developing “laser weapons” and producing weapons from “shit and sticks” (carbon fiber). They contrast this with the reality of manpower issues, the uncontrolled TCC (draft) system, and the destruction of key industries (metallurgy, agriculture, transit).
- International Context: They analyze Europe’s inability to offer Ukraine real security guarantees or a fast track to EU membership (Copenhagen criteria). The US is framed as seeking to lift sanctions on Russia for trillions in potential economic cooperation, using Ukraine as an obstacle to be removed. The blocking of Telegram in Russia is discussed as domestic control, not a sign of impending massive escalation.
- Historical Parallels: Frequent comparisons are made to the final months of Nazi Germany (Hitler raising conscription age, Berlin in 1945), the Paraguayan War (demographic death sentence), and the 13th/17th-century depopulation of Ukraine.
Tone: The hosts adopt a fatalistic and sarcastic tone. Zelensky is depicted as a tragicomic figure—a “Joker” playing checkers, not chess; a “capricious child in a toy store”; a leader who governs via Zoom and will likely flee abroad like Liberia’s president governed from New York. They argue the peace deal will be Zelensky’s “verdict,” and post-war Ukraine faces a grim future of criminalization and poverty, despite official optimistic presentations to foreign investors.
Conclusion: Despite Zelensky’s reported high ratings, the chat poll conducted during the stream showed 82% of viewers are against the war, which Bondarenko notes is an opinion politicians feel they can ignore.
TEXT:
I welcome you, dear friends, respected guests, and subscribers to my channel. Many thanks to everyone for following our meetings, on Wednesdays, with the renowned historian, political scientist, and writer Kost Bondarenko. Kostyantyn Petrovych, I greet you.
Good evening.
Many thanks to everyone for subscribing to Kost Bondarenko. Huge thanks to everyone that, despite various obstacles with YouTube—officially for everyone in Russia, well, officially for few in Ukraine, because both the Kost Bondarenko channel and Kost Bondarenko himself, and the Oleksandr Shelest channel, Oleksandr Shelest, are under sanctions in Ukraine—you still find a way to watch. The times are such, yes, well, it’s clear VPNs, changing countries are needed; the atmosphere is very, very tense. We’ll be discussing it.
Two words on the format of the conversation. As always, at the end will be your questions, a Q&A session—the most delicious, interesting part, what you write in advance in the viewers’ club, a closed Telegram channel. There is such a private Telegram channel; there’s an intimate atmosphere, comments, communication, and fresh releases, audio-video. In short, there’s an announcement of our meeting there. And absolutely openly, in the YouTube community, there is an announcement of our meeting, and there in the comments, as per tradition, you can write your questions with feeling, properly, thoughtfully. Just please, not too long, because a lot of them accumulate and we don’t want to offend anyone. Well, and we’ll also connect the live stream chat in real-time, so no need to write in the chat beforehand, but wait for the start of the Q&A, so to speak, and then leave your questions in the chat; we’ll go through those too. And for the chat, I propose that everyone who enters the stream chat vote on the questions for today’s broadcast.
What is Zelensky preparing for May of this year? Answer options:
- Re-election of himself and/or a referendum—meaning one or the other, or together; in short, some kind of plebiscite, expression of will, a vote: re-elects himself and maybe asks the people something.
- Capitulation / ‘peace’—meaning he will accept the conditions of the Russian Federation, America. In short, he will accept certain conditions and announce it by May. Well, then after the end of hostilities, there will be six months until elections, and in principle the scenario could repeat itself: re-election or not.
- Resignation, escape—but without the end of the war. Meaning, you have repeatedly stated in my broadcasts, Kostyantyn Petrovych, and in your own broadcasts, that there is such an option: an unbowed Zelensky will say, “I did everything I could.” Well, that’s it, yes. The West is twisting his arms, those damned Americans, Trump… “When will the Democrats return?” And this fits into the logic of the deadlines the press is writing about today, before the US midterm legislative elections.
- And the last option: new strikes and a counteroffensive by the Armed Forces of Ukraine—i.e., he will continue fighting.
These are four simple, unpretentious options. They are, of course, not entirely mutually exclusive, but today’s Financial Times article and a bunch of reactions to it really make you think. Closer to our broadcast, just before the broadcast, Zelensky came out [with statements]… A referendum? Elections? I hear it first, but still, they believed it? Really.
Kost Bondarenko: Of course. Look, the thing is, all four questions are, shall we say, non-mutually exclusive. Simply put, today in Zelensky’s entourage, there are several influence groups, each proposing its own course of action.
There are groups that are primarily identified with the Head of the Office [Andriy Yermak?], Kyrylo Budanov [Head of Defence Intelligence], the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council [Oleksandr Lytvynenko?], Umerov [Defence Minister]—well, generally people who are part of the negotiation group and who most often communicate with the United States. This is the so-called pro-American group. They insist that we constantly receive wishes from our American comrades that elections must be held. Elections must be held, and accordingly, in order to fully legitimize Zelensky himself. They don’t pose the question as Zelensky not participating; but simply that he must reconfirm his status, to legitimize his future signature. And this group constantly insists on the necessity of holding elections.
There is another group, identified primarily with the so-called “globalists.” And, accordingly, this group says: no elections, what elections are you talking about? We must do everything to prevent elections from being held. By the way, Olha Ivazovska spoke this week, just recently, saying, “What elections now? We need to amend legislation, the codes, etc. For six months after peace, elections cannot be held,” and so on. Well, there’s a whole intricate structure there. But actually, this group includes representatives of the globalists in Ukraine—the Pinchuk group, Fiala, and so on. They say there should be no elections; or, if it comes to having to hold elections, there’s a very complex scheme where Zelensky definitely wins. Well, that is, they propose that—if arms are truly twisted.
There is a group that says we must not surrender under any circumstances, that it’s better to take a position of, say, creating a ‘government in exile’ and stating that what is happening in Ukraine is irrelevant. “We continue to fight. Who loves me, follow me,” and so on. This group exists too. So actually, there are different visions, and indeed there are different factions in Zelensky’s circle. When the Financial Times says there is an opinion that elections need to be held in Zelensky’s circle, they aren’t lying. When Zelensky says, “No, we haven’t reached any conclusion, and we aren’t planning any elections yet,” he is also telling the truth, because the decision hasn’t been finalized.
Zelensky hopes that with the help of his European colleagues, he will manage to convince Trump, and that they will somehow manage to return to the positions held before February of this year, when perhaps some Euro-Atlantic unity could be restored, and so on. He hopes for that too. In short, there is currently a period of uncertainty.
Yes, today information went out that on the 24th [February], Zelensky will definitely make a call to hold elections and a referendum. But let’s say, someone has already decided that the 24th is a definite date—a tragic date, a black date—so Zelensky will definitely speak on that day, say, “Yes, it’s time to wrap it up, and I propose we take such a step.” Actually, I doubt it will be called anything on the 24th.
Shelest: Kostyantyn Petrovych, based on these publications, this string of denials—something about how and why, why it’s possible, why it’s impossible, who heard what, who didn’t—we understand the situation is quite delicate. Zelensky, actually, we can, of course, view him differently, and usually we see him as stubborn, resisting. But he does have a problem, a concrete problem. Yes, there is certain bargaining, curtsies, dances concerning Patriot missiles. Today, a flagrant case: someone from NATO said to Zelensky, “Why are you lying that we didn’t supply you with Patriot missiles? We did supply them, everything according to the report, everything is fine.” But he says, “We couldn’t defend ourselves because our partners didn’t supply.” And today a denial came from NATO. This aspect is interesting and fundamentally important: Zelensky has nothing to cover the truth with. He has no cards, actually. Some people present, for example, Kaia Kallas’s statement that Europe should present Russia with counter-demands, that Russia should reduce its armed forces as a result of the war in Ukraine. Some, of course, perceived this as incredibly powerful support. But if you read it correctly, thoughtfully, it’s actually a step born of desperation.
Plus, tonight or next, a new massive strike might occur. Ukraine is separated from complete collapse by only a few strikes. Zelensky cannot fail to understand this. Therefore, even this tone from the Kremlin, which has recently been accelerating processes—that’s also a diplomatic game. Like, “The Kremlin is offended, yes? Not Lukashenko, not Putin, they don’t know anything about the Peace Summit meeting, they won’t go,” the rhetoric of [Sergey] Lavrov. The situation is very bad for Zelensky. The clouds are gathering in earnest.
Bondarenko: You know, Zelensky doesn’t think so. Zelensky is used to thinking in terms of figures. Category: numbers. The polling data shown to him. The polling data says that people—yes, people are increasingly leaning towards the need to end the war, because the strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are leading to serious consequences; the country is on the brink of survival. But this situation doesn’t hurt the authorities’ ratings. That is, yes, people would like something to change for the better. People would probably like peace. But Zelensky isn’t losing ratings. That’s what he’s told. Sociologists tell him, “You still have a high rating. The people trust you. The people love you, Volodymyr Oleksandrovych.” And he believes this. He’s a man from show business, from the media sphere. And accordingly, he lives by the categories of ratings. In show business, ratings determine earnings, very often. The higher the rating—a watchable, successful program—the more advertisers. More advertisers means more money. More money earned means, understandably, a bigger fee. And he lives by inertia, exactly the same way. Ratings are high, so everything is fine. Everything is fine. The fact that some Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov or Vyanenko from some village in some district has no electricity, no heat, is freezing—that doesn’t bother him. It doesn’t bother him. The main thing is that he fulfills his obligations to his partners. If his partners say “Good, Waldemar, good,” then he has high ratings abroad. If sociologists show he’s first place, first position in sociological ratings, then everything is fine inside the country. That’s his criterion.
Shelest: But objective reality won’t change because of that?
Bondarenko: Absolutely. He doesn’t live in objective reality. No. The people—well, the country lives in objective reality. There’s this parallelism. Then technology kicks in. They say, “If you have a conditional 30% support, we’ll make you 50% in the elections.” Why would he need anything else? He absolutely doesn’t live with fear of the people—that people don’t trust him, that people won’t elect him, that he’ll have to answer to the law. He doesn’t have that feeling. He lives in his own specific informational bubble.
Shelest: You see, concerning this informational bubble—the situation is escalating. I mean, this is, in miniature, Zelensky’s situation: the situation at the Olympics with those helmets. This is in miniature, Kostyantyn Petrovych; it’s about Zelensky and Ukraine. Yesterday, it seemed like… I thought the story would live for a day. They banned wearing helmets [commemorating the dead] with the dead. “Those are the rules. Your job is to ban, our job is to be outraged.” That was it, everyone dispersed, seemingly. No. The next day, the Minister of Sports. The next day, publications by Reuters. They said, “The Ukrainian athlete begged the committee not to wear it.” But he comes out and says, “I will still wear this helmet.” Then somehow like this: “Yes, wear a ribbon, that’s fine. No, not that.” Finally: “Well, they might disqualify you.” But they didn’t disqualify him. They said, “Okay, you’ll perform, you can wear it.” This resembles a capricious child standing in a toy store. But there’s no money left. The money was spent on groceries at the neighboring store. You see? And this situation demonstrates Zelensky’s state of affairs. Everything is very loud, beautiful. There’s no substance. It’s for speed and success. And, conditionally, the medal of this [Yaroslav] Hrydzhak, a skeleton athlete at the Olympics, doesn’t affect anything at all and won’t. He was an average athlete in his class, and he’ll remain so. But at least they got known. So this is also an element of show business. This is also, excuse me, not a sign of patriotism. This is a sign of, shall we say, playing on certain emotions—to make the viewer tear up, to make the viewer feel a certain emotion, experience a certain emotion, and so on. Therefore, the Olympics is, after all, a sporting competition. They are turning it into a show. They’ve been turning the Olympics into a show for a long time. It’s long been accustomed to being a show. So in this situation, it’s another attempt to make a show out of a show. Yes, and Zelensky, exactly the same way. When I spoke about the informational bubble, his is also plastered with corresponding photos, images, theses, slogans, and everything else that many people like. And inside is Zelensky, living his own life. A representative of it, essentially.
Shelest: But if we take facts: the Rada voted. 60 plus. Yes, please, now Zelensky [signs it]. The Rada voted, Zelensky signed. You can’t say Zelensky doesn’t care about pensioners. No, now the TCC [Territorial Recruitment Centres] will care about pensioners. They know how to care. They’ll persuade the old folks, so to speak, to go, to pay their last debt to the Motherland. Well, you see, this is happening. Hitler, in principle, also raised the conscription age in October 1944. He raised it, that is, and lowered it—that is, they started conscripting from age 16. And if before October 1944 the conscription age in Germany was limited to 45, Hitler raised it to 55. At the time in Europe—meaning in Britain, in the Soviet Union—there were many publications about how they’d even conscripted old men. In Ukraine, it was initially up to 60. Now, as Vysotsky said, “the lifespan has increased.” Maybe they’ll extend it up to that limit too.
Bondarenko: It’s not just about that.
Shelest: Concerning this situation, by the way, there are many parallels. You ask what Zelensky will be doing in May 2026. I imagine that if some sociological agency in February 1945 had asked a question in Berlin, polling citizens of Berlin, “What will you be doing in May 1945?” From February to May is actually a long time.
Bondarenko: But territorially, not so much anymore?
Shelest: Exactly, territorially. Europe was already being liberated at full speed. I think Soviet troops had already entered Germany or were on the approaches? Of course, all the events of the hot spring of ’45 were already happening. It’s already March 1945.
Shelest: The situation with the energy sector, I understand, doesn’t worry Zelensky, but the front does? Again, two positions. First, that Syrskyi is managing and nothing needs to be done. We need to prepare a counteroffensive. Not for nothing are troops being concentrated somewhere in the Zaporizhzhia region. That’s the first. The second position: Syrskyi needs to be replaced. Some say with Biletskyi. Yes, and by the way, I won’t assert it, but they say this is also the position of the current new, freshly-minted Minister of Defence. Replace Syrskyi. Biletskyi has a tough character. He’ll show everyone Kuzka’s mother in the army. He’ll carry out decimation. Decimation—execute every tenth man—force them to go after drones with shovels, and change, turn the situation around. These are also different approaches, different versions, different positions. Zelensky again talks on the phone, but now not only in video format, but also in audio format. The gist of this conversation: he’s hearing about elections, referendums for the first time. A referendum can only be held during a ceasefire; elections too. But there it looks very interesting and sounds quite sensational, even this question was asked to Zelensky regarding the negotiation group that Kyiv would send to Moscow. Note: not Zelensky to Moscow, but a negotiation group that will go to Moscow. Those are two big differences. Zelensky allegedly refutes this information, says he won’t go to Belarus or Russia. Although he says not Moscow, not Minsk—”there will be no negotiation scoundrels there. Belarus is an ally, Russia is an aggressor.” But anywhere else in the world, please, we are ready, but Russia must want to end the war. But is this about him, or someone else? Or is there a prohibition on negotiations with the Russian side, with Putin?
Bondarenko: This is precisely a situation where a final decision hasn’t been made either. That’s precisely why, under conditions where no final decision on negotiations or continuation of negotiations has been made, Zelensky is trying to create a certain verbal construct that wouldn’t later allow him to be caught in a lie. Hence this kind of meaningful ambiguity or multi-layered ambiguity in his statements.
Shelest: What needs to happen for Zelensky or a Ukrainian negotiation group to go to Moscow?
Bondarenko: Right now, this question will most likely be decided in Washington. Next week—it was expected this week, but they postponed it again to next week—the Ukrainian negotiation group will be talking with Trump’s people. Then, accordingly, Zelensky hopes that several events will occur that can turn the situation around. First, it’s expected that Macron will try to convince Putin. It was expected yesterday that Macron would talk to Putin, but there’s no information on that. Then, after this, it’s expected that a new European position will be formulated after these negotiations fail, and Europeans will come to Trump and still convince Trump to reconsider. The so-called “Spirit of Anchorage.” Lavrov’s speech, Lavrov’s statement, is a warning to the United States: we will not agree to a revision. This criticism—that Zelensky and the Europeans tried to “rape” the Anchorage agreements, etc.—is simply a message to the United States: we will not accept any other variant. There were 28 points, so 28 points, not 20, we don’t accept that. Zelensky hopes for a certain turning point in Ukraine’s favor. And if not, then he will have to proceed from the given situation: that Europe can offer nothing to Ukraine, that Europe has in fact taken a position where, on one hand, it demonstrates helplessness on the Ukrainian question, and on the other hand, it insistently demands—through the mouth of [Alexander] Stubb, the President of Finland, and through the mouth of [Wolfgang] Ischinger, his famous interview on February 7th this year, etc.—that Ukrainians must fight, because if Ukrainians agree to a truce or peace, it will be a catastrophe for Europe. So, in this situation, Zelensky understands that if Europe can’t offer anything, he’ll have to agree to the United States’ variant. Zelensky perceives this as a capitulation to Russia—he perceives it as a capitulation to the United States.
Shelest: Politico writes today that Britain will buy weapons for Ukraine from America. A very interesting story.
Bondarenko: That’s not a sufficient amount of money. Look, I’ll just tell you: the issue is currently being considered. It hasn’t been resolved yet. They widely advertised, blew it up, that Europe plus Britain would give Ukraine 90 billion dollars. They “voted” today. Why do I say the issue isn’t resolved? Because 2/3 of this sum, that is 60 billion, is for weapons that Europe will purchase for Ukraine and transfer to Ukraine. Moreover, what types of weapons, at what price, in what volume—Europe decides. There’s no concept of market price or non-market price here. We’re already used to eggs at 17 hryvnia. Here, there will be cartridges for 2 thousand dollars apiece, and so on. That’s all being decided. Plus 30 billion, which is supposed to go to social and other matters, but Ukraine believes it should also be directed to defense, primarily for defense purposes. Therefore, within the framework of this money, Great Britain might purchase something from the United States and transfer some portion of weapons to Ukraine. Whether this will play any role in improving Ukraine’s defense capability remains a big question mark.
Shelest: I understand correctly that they’re grabbing everyone off the streets and hunting them down for these weapons?
Bondarenko: Yes, but so far there are no weapons. But look at the publications! “Ukraine is developing new types of weapons: laser systems that will shoot down drones,” and so on. By the way, worldwide—I’ve asked, this isn’t my opinion, it’s the opinion of military specialists—studies were conducted on laser air defense systems, and they were abandoned due to their energy consumption. Inefficient, from an energy standpoint.
Shelest: It’s nothing, we’ll put a wood-burning stove, they’ll mobilize people to throw wood, the turbine will spin. Something with carbon fiber… I’m just interested. When I read that Atlantic material, it somehow reminded me of something from Kir Bulychev I read as a child.
Bondarenko: It reminded me of Paustovsky. It reminded me of Paustovsky’s “Violet Ray.”
Shelest: No, I mean the technological part. Some kind of “Grogramosek.” Look: if it were possible to create a rocket—any rocket, let’s take a Russian rocket, any nomenclature, any technical property—from carbon fiber, like they make fishing rods, the cheapest thing. These are spinning rods, fishing rods, the material. If it were possible to replace something somewhere, to solder on a microchip from a used washing machine or something else, I was somehow 100% sure that designers would have come to this, maximally cheapened this project in Russia—not in America, in Russia. And, actually, that’s the development…
Shelest: But isn’t our [Ukrainian] science more advanced? It’s more… We won’t argue that it’s 10 steps ahead of Russia, in terms of scientific-technical progress.
Bondarenko: Simply, you see, “Boomerang”—remember everyone joked about those chips from microwaves? And now it turns out… Ursula von der Leyen talked about this. Yes, she now says, “We here, from shit and sticks, will try to replicate exact copies of Russian missiles and launch them back at them.” Yes, but excuse me, please, this is a bluff. This war has had not only many tragic moments, it wasn’t only a war of drones, not only a war of propaganda, not only a war of nerves, etc., it was also a war of bluff. And on the Ukrainian side, there was more than enough of this bluff. Remember, two years ago they promised we’d produce a million drones? We still haven’t reached that target. A million drones a year—that was set as a task back in early 2024. [Mykhailo] Fedorov set that task. Well, yes, and trees and everything else. That’s, of course, a tricky business.
Shelest: Kostyantyn Petrovych, people are talking and speculating that Zelensky, among other things, is repeating—for example, about Belarus, repeating about some, let’s say, his conditions, about meetings. But he says Ukraine needs a concrete date for joining Europe, so Russia can’t block the process. If the agreement doesn’t have a date, Russia will do everything later so that we are, in general, blocked, not even by their own hands, but by the hands of some European representatives. We are witnesses to approaching things where clusters aren’t being opened.
Bondarenko: Listen, when Zelensky says something, it’s like, “Mama, don’t grieve!” Clusters aren’t opening for him, witnesses? In general, earlier the media wrote that Ukraine could get a seat at the EU table before all formal procedures are completed. In 2027, supposedly, but membership would be curtailed. Today, also just before our broadcast, they circulated answers to questions from [Mark] Rutte, who visited Kyiv and met with Patron the dog. An epochal meeting, can you imagine? They sniffed each other’s tails, and then this joyful selfie—”it was a great meeting.” Because otherwise, I don’t understand why he came last week. I really don’t. And we met with him too. I mean, it was some kind of, some kind of incomprehensible visit, this one from Rutte. And today he was answering questions; journalists, concerned, ask him, “Rutte, how do you feel about European countries trickling in a stream to Russia?” And he says, “Well, it’s the right of every European country to decide for itself whether to have contacts with Russia or not.” And everyone kind of, you know, shrugged and exhaled, and sat back down on their soft tissues. So it turns out Zelensky, who is afraid, is right to be, because after Hungary and Slovakia, other ministers will fly, a little stream will flow right there to the Kremlin and Moscow.
Bondarenko: Yes, look, many fear that indeed European countries might now begin the process of normalizing relations with Moscow. Moreover, at least two EU states haven’t normalized relations—I mean Hungary and Slovakia, at least two. Now negotiations are starting, which France is initiating. According to the founding documents of the European Union, it’s not forbidden for individual EU countries. There are certain decisions made by Brussels, but they cannot prohibit each specific country’s sovereign right to international relations with any given country. Second point: Rutte is not an element of the European Union; his structure, NATO, is not a structural part of the European Union, they are parallel structures. So asking Rutte is the same as asking [someone else]—it’s just his personal opinion in this situation. Third point: regarding Ukraine’s EU membership. Ukraine can only claim EU membership when it meets the Copenhagen criteria. These are clear criteria that consider the admission of a given state. Nowhere is it said that a state must be admitted because it became a victim of someone’s aggression. As harsh and cynical as this may be, it is not grounds for admission. The criteria are written; a state must correspond economically, socially, to certain standards. There are certain standards in the area of freedom, civil liberties, etc., ensuring civil freedoms. Only then can a state claim EU membership. But “we’ll admit Ukraine, but not fully, only a little bit”? Excuse me, please. We already had attempts to declare that Ukraine became an ‘aspirant state.’ There is no such status, actually. Ukraine was simply given a certain signal. ‘Ukraine became an aspirant state’—there’s nowhere, neither in Russia nor anywhere else, such a status exists. Now Ukraine has become a ‘doctoral candidate state.’ Will that make things easier? Of course it won’t make things easier.
Shelest: However, you know, here again—when I gave the example of the crying child in the toy department, it was spot on. Then Zelensky’s address came out, the daily conversation on the phone, but in video format this time, not audio. You mentioned [Andriy] Yermolayev last time. Andriy Vasylyovych says, “I can’t do it like that. I take words, put them on paper, and read the text.” Here, I’ll read you the text. Absolutely without intonation, without these things. Zelensky answered the question: can Ukraine continue the war without the USA? “Why should we consider a situation without the Americans? We are not the aggressor, Russia is. We are not the ones continuing the war, Russia is. We are not the ones who want to stop. So why, because of us, would the Americans leave this process? In my opinion, that’s unfair.” How to comment on this? It hints that Ukrainians are dishonest towards Europeans because they want to exit the war. Zelensky says the Americans are dishonest. So the whole world suspects each other of dishonest play.
Bondarenko: About Andriy Vasylyovych Yermolayev—he’s a brilliant philosopher, political analyst, who really knows how to read texts, knows the value of each word and the weight of each word. In this situation, Zelensky hasn’t spoken with weighty words for a long time. He speaks with emotions. Dmytro Lytvyn, his speechwriter, helps him with this. But it seems to me lately Dmytro has gotten a little tired, burned out. He has brilliant penmanship, but recently he’s been churning out hackwork, and Zelensky voices it.
Shelest: It’s truly hackwork, of course.
Shelest: Kostyantyn Petrovych, so the ‘Spirit of Anchorage’ exists, and at the beginning of the week a sharp… This is a question for Yermak. Our Yermak communicates with spirits.
Bondarenko: I understand the question about the ‘ghost of communism’—this is symonenkivshchyna. It resembles an anecdote: “Standing in line: the ghost of communism with the spirit of Anchorage.” So, in principle, such a meeting took place. Increasingly, after the first day on Monday, when all this spun up and continues now, I think this is some kind of play staged exclusively by the Kremlin and the White House. The White House is silent, the Kremlin is supposedly outraged, rushing, and on a parallel track, Zelensky is getting nervous and making mistakes. Because, let’s be honest, the Kremlin, of course, declares that “there will be no cooperation with us, our tankers this and that.” But if you look at the facts, as of now, India hasn’t completely refused. As it turned out, they simply signed new contracts with the Americans. The old ones are active, everything is fine. And they need more oil after the Americans. Of course. The Indian market is only developing, so in this situation it’s not to their detriment. It’s caught on some kind of, you know, childish, childish little scam, a childish Swedish joke? Actually, I never tire of saying, and last week I was communicating with my overseas colleagues, I found confirmation of this too: the United States is looking for a reason to create conditions for lifting sanctions on Russia. Because trillions are at stake. This is according to various data, various estimates. Bloomberg says 12 trillion, some say 7 trillion, some say less, but these are still figures measured in trillions of dollars. These are the numbers that speak to the benefits the United States and Russia get from joint economic cooperation. The Arctic, logistics routes, etc. Energy, that is, nuclear energy. To lift, to have a reason to lift sanctions on Russia, the conflict must be ended. The conflict with Ukraine, because of which these sanctions were essentially imposed, must be halted. Accordingly, this will play into Trump’s hands, because before the fall elections he can say, “I turned an enemy into a friend.” That is, I am walking the path of appeasement. What the Democrats created—making Russia an enemy—I corrected the Democrats’ mistake. He can play on this. In this situation, Ukraine’s intransigence will at some stage work against Ukraine. And when Zelensky says “this is unfair,” his exclamations that this is unfair will not be taken into account by anyone.
Shelest: In general, the ‘Spirit of Anchorage’ is alive. Well, yes, it wanders around Europe. The Spirits of Anchorage are wandering around Europe. But actually there are some very vivid events. They too have transformed, if not from the day before yesterday, then from the day before that. But they have taken on a certain shape. So, a block of various kinds of resources has been hit in Russia. Telegram, of course, outraged everyone, because Durov is supposedly Russian. Well, supposedly “Pashka, Tanash,” all that stuff. You see? But it’s not only that; in general, the servers of YouTube, WhatsApp, Facebook—by evening everyone reported that they had all been blocked. Telegram is being slowed down. Also an interesting formulation regarding Telegram. Anyway, they’re slowing down, turning off, strangling. There’s already a discussion in the Russian Federation. There are deputies who said, “We need this, because it’s a fight against NATO.” Others say, even Peskov commented: “Oh, listen, I don’t think the military uses Telegram; it’s incomprehensible to them, they have their own communications.” But there are deputies who came out and said, “What are you doing? Scoundrels.” And a joyful ‘podalyak’ runs up to the Russian migrants, these migrants, and says, “Listen, how good, how good that you’ve already finished off this Telegram. Finish it off, please. Otherwise, Ukrainians are reading your Two Majors, various others, I don’t know, all sorts, well, you get the idea, in general.” The largest number of Russian Telegram channels—these “Strelkovs,” these, well, these. So there are actually many sane channels, many sane thoughts. I, for example, enjoy reading Ihor Dymytriev there—a great mind. I read there, well obviously, Yevhen Minchenko, etc. There are a huge number, hundreds of channels I read. Including Ukrainian ones.
Shelest: Why this? And why is Russia doing this precisely now?
Bondarenko: You know, yes, there’s a formal side, there’s an informal side. The formal side is reporting that “we are all fighting the enemy, because the enemy is hostile and influences us.” Accordingly, “we need to stop access to certain information, that through the Telegram channel there is a possibility of influencing unsteady minds, so we will now cut this off.” On the other hand, there is the position, traditional for all Slavic peoples, including Russians and Ukrainians: “Make a fool pray to God, and he’ll bash his forehead.” This also exists. The third position—you know, I don’t remember who said that mental illnesses have a viral basis. And accordingly, the contact between Ukrainians and Russians leads to, I don’t know, who infects whom more.
Shelest: Well, you know, I get the feeling we’ve come into contact with our ‘kazyavochnik’ Yurchyshyn, who is asleep. I am generally a big opponent of any bans in the media sphere. I am a big opponent of any bans. And you know, I criticize equally when our idiots ban Russian classics, ban Bulgakov, ban Russian-language classics, etc. When they ban or restrict the operation of certain sites, certain messengers, and so on, and so on, I have always criticized when, say, VKontakte was blocked on the territory of Ukraine, etc. And I criticize just the same when their idiots block [channels]… Today alone, the ‘Day of Wrath’ radio station played over 20 times. Doesn’t it seem to you that this is a certain technical preparation for something?
Bondarenko: Quite possible. But the point is that not every time some words are uttered on the Day of Wrath radio station are they accompanied by further steps. Sometimes there are false signals.
Shelest: No, seriously. That is, turn off and strike at social networks like that, although everyone in the stream chat is writing that everything works.
Bondarenko: I understand, but it’s one thing that it works, another thing to make a decision. So we understand that again, in the post-Soviet space, there is a rule: the severity of the law is compensated by the non-obligatoriness of its enforcement. That is, Russia is not preparing for something extraordinary at the front?
Bondarenko: I don’t know. I won’t assert it, because obviously only a few people are privy to this, a small number of people with certain competencies, certain access to state or military secrets. We can only guess from coffee grounds. It will, it won’t. Something will happen, it won’t. Well, everyone, look, no one will care if Russia, for example, finishes off Ukrainian energy. Wipe it out completely. And there are essentially four more strikes left to hit Ukraine. And Ukraine will have no energy left. And then what will happen? What will happen? Spring is coming soon. We already said that some of our state figures in Ukraine, when asked “how much longer must we wait?” they said “approximately until the end of February. Then it’ll get a little easier.” Excuse me, but this is cynicism; I’m just repeating what Ukrainian politicians say.
Shelest: Yes, these politicians, of course, can tell us a lot more. Can you explain how, on a parallel track, the aggravation regarding language is happening—when they put up notices in minibuses addressing internally displaced persons (IDPs): “IDPs, speak Ukrainian.” And yesterday’s situation, it’s just some kind of, really, some kind of horror film. We see people simply losing their minds. In Western Ukraine, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, a small town, and there’s a school there. No one has attended this school for a long time; there are no children. Well, the building is there, but no school. Understandably, when evacuation began, some local churches, communities, mayors, village heads—they took care of it. Funds, by the way, help in this regard. It’s not just like that. Grants are allocated, and this school is being converted into some kind of hotel rooms, or, as they used to say, ‘chambers.’ So people could live there later. And this, in principle, was a successful experiment. And then a social worker comes there, he’s on some salary, looks after them, and they bring destitute old people, displaced by the war, there. Five people. A 72-year-old grandfather from Donetsk region, but the people he hit with a hammer, a shovel—on the background of the conflict—and the ones he hit, they are also 68 years old, also old people. And all this happened in silk, and they are displaced persons. And this is what they write to them on buses in that same Western Ukraine. You see, the atmosphere is just nervous. And today in Poltava region, they reported—well, it was earlier, the court decision, news about the court decision—a grandmother, a pensioner, ‘brutally’ ordered a hit on a neighbor for 500 dollars. Ordered a killer. For what? He wouldn’t let her near the army recruitment center, Lubeyk? Such a pensioner—gouge out eyes, etc.—a very tough pensioner. Not just already, you see, everyone is losing their minds, and the rest. Even old people are starting to lose their minds in this country.
Bondarenko: Old people often are the first to go crazy. Obviously, they find themselves in a situation they cannot come to terms with. They feel helpless in this situation, feel they cannot influence it in any way. Moreover, they are very often primarily susceptible to the influence of propaganda. For them, what they hear on the same unified news feed, they often take at face value, they perceive that this is exactly how it should be, not otherwise. Under the influence of this, certain mental shifts begin. Well, accordingly, it’s no secret that a lot of people are in a state of inadequacy in this situation. The language of hate that is propagandized, openly propagandized through mass media, generates this hate in the masses. It transforms into this quintessence of hate. And then, accordingly, it doesn’t matter what the irritant is; it is precisely then that these irritants start processes that have no brakes. Society is truly sick today. And this isn’t only post-traumatic syndrome caused by the war. It’s primarily the war itself. Combat actions are secondary. Primary is propaganda, which brainwashes, which makes people more aggressive. You see how it all looks—very aggressive and stupid.
Shelest: Take, for example, the referendum. Zelensky, when outlining it, says, “Well, the Americans propose this, a special economic zone.” He repeats this formula again. I’m already tired of repeating it in broadcasts, because Lavrov comes out today clearly and says, “We haven’t received the 20 points officially. No, Ukraine hasn’t. Russia hasn’t received them. Not from the USA, no. They’re not in Russia,” Lavrov says. That is, he implies they weren’t given to him, not officially handed over. This means the Americans couldn’t have handed over these points. I’ve already explained this too. In one of our previous programs, I explained that they developed 28 points in Anchorage. The Russian side and the American side met. “Agreed, agreed. This works, this works.” Well, now it’s necessary to acquaint Zelensky with this. Then Zelensky takes these points, through diplomatic mail, through diplomatic channels, Zelensky takes these points and goes to the Europeans. “What shall we do, gentlemen Europeans?” The gentlemen Europeans invite Rubio, who was only there as an observer, and say, “No, this one doesn’t suit us, but these ones we can combine, and this one, let’s circumvent it.” This is, conditionally speaking, not on point. And accordingly, what do they do? They make it into 19-20 points, depending on the version. Rubio was present; they said, “Well, the American side didn’t protest.” They didn’t coordinate it, and they hand it over to Trump. They go and say, “Look, we creatively processed it, we believe this should be the unified position in negotiations with Russia.” Do you understand the stupidity of this? Trump, where would he put these points they gave him? Then, finally, accordingly, he gives them back to Rubio, his national security advisors, and they start this whole rigmarole anew. Of course not. So the point is, final coordination of these points was planned with Zelensky, European leaders, and Trump were supposed to agree on them in Davos. And then Trump makes an even more cunning move. When everyone gathers in Davos to discuss the issue of Ukraine and security for Ukraine, etc., Trump says, “Let’s talk about Greenland. We need Greenland.” Europeans: “But we were talking about…” “No, let’s, for us, the primary issue now is Greenland. The United States needs Greenland.” He arrives with a new agenda. Moreover, it was done so quickly, lightning-fast, not letting the Europeans come to their senses, that they were flabbergasted, they didn’t know how to react. They demonstrated they were not ready for such a conversation. Macron generally fled an hour before Trump’s arrival. Zelensky said, “I’m not going anywhere at all.” Then he still had to go and speak somewhere, addressing the Europeans who, as he saw it, had thrown him under the bus. And that’s it, Trump removed it from the agenda. Moreover, the Europeans weren’t even invited, as they had previously proposed, to the negotiations, to participate in the negotiation process. Then Lavrov finished it off: “We haven’t received anything at all. And we continue to stand on the position of these 28 points.”
Shelest: You see, points are points—no matter how many there are—they are not being implemented. Not 20, not 28.
Bondarenko: I understand, the thing is, even if 27 out of 28 points are agreed upon, and 1 is not, then it means no agreement was reached.
Shelest: Well, there’s a wonderful point: tolerance, for the Russian language, for example.
Bondarenko: Simply, you see, Russia is talking about what? It’s saying that we will change our demands. Already toughening them. That is, the conditions will be even worse. And we are on the verge of the conditions becoming even worse if these 28 points are not accepted. Yes. That is, if it doesn’t happen, then now everyone is already discussing Odesa, cutting it off from the sea, and so on. Why? Yes, because the state’s policy is like this. It turns out we have—I didn’t see it, maybe I missed it, sorry, I didn’t catch it—a report about the Kyiv police I didn’t see, when they took down the last Pushkin in Kyiv, and it was a small bust. Yesterday, Shumei was showing it. Not a small bust, as a decoration. On Kostiantynivska Street, on the facade of a building. So they climbed up and are so happy. There, at the site, there’s just a torn-out piece of the wall. Where the bust itself went, they didn’t say. They didn’t break it, and thank God for that. It will probably go to some collection or stand somewhere else. They laugh and mock on social media. They say, “Look, they shot him down. Some mountaineers must have climbed up there with equipment. Ah, how cool!” Kostyantyn Petrovych, for example, in the town of Zhmerynka, they dismantled a plaque installed at the city railway station. And the plaque—well, there was nothing terrible there, no, nothing scary. Well, obviously, a star, [symbol of] Victory, May 9th. In short, in honor of the liberation of the city of Zhmerynka from the Nazis, which occurred on March 18, 1944, just for the record. This plaque stood there, didn’t bother anyone, everything. It got in the way. That is, the conditions won’t end with Donbas and even the constitutional, well, those territories adopted into the Constitution as Russian territories.
Bondarenko: Well, look, the point is that a very serious process of revising the results of the Great Patriotic War, World War II, is underway today. And, accordingly, sometimes this leads to, I don’t know, absolutely brazen consequences. Sometimes now, things that are taken for granted are perceived as, I don’t know, anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. Let me give an example. Literally, literally before our program, I saw a photo in one of the Telegram channels: they write that in schools in Mariupol, under the occupying authorities, they conduct lessons promoting anti-Ukrainian or Ukraine-hating ideology. And a photo, a photo of a blackboard in a classroom, the lesson topic written: “Hoisting the Victory Banner over the Reichstag.” That is, hoisting the Victory Banner over the Reichstag is Ukraine-hating rhetoric. That’s exactly how it is perceived by many. Everything connected with the Red Army, everything connected with the victory over Nazism, over fascism—this is already, in some people’s heads, perceived as anti-Ukrainian rhetoric. So who do these gentlemen identify themselves with?
Shelest: It’s clear with whom. We politely don’t say it, but if they took it down, we need to ask, “Who did he bother in Zhmerynka, Kostyantyn Petrovych?” Well, obviously, it’s disrespect. A railway junction, a town in Vinnytsia region. So, yes. Immortalized by Yuriy Smolych in his famous trilogy, so there. So, in principle, that’s what we have. Friends, let’s sum up the question, sum up the results of our live broadcast poll. Many questions from you, we’ll move to them right now. So, the results. “What is Zelensky preparing for May this year?” 10%: capitulation, peace. Well, in general, he will accept the conditions of Russia, maybe the USA, maybe Russia and the USA together. In short, 10%. 20%: resignation, escape, without the end of the war. That is, he will leave, escape, but no one will end the war and, in general, he’ll leave it to, how to say, the judgment of history. Like, “I did my part, and what happens next is no longer my responsibility.” That sort of thing. I, by the way, already mentioned on air that, to be honest, I was also interested, probably like you as the author of the book “The Immortal Joker,” which needs to be finished, but there’s not much left, we hope. Yes, yes, yes. I’m waiting for the time when I can finally finish writing it. I saw a caricature, admitted on air, but really, nothing is keeping him in Ukraine. Well, I mean, not that there are some enterprises there, responsibility, collective responsibility for people, some big, I don’t know, personal obligations to someone. His family is already not in Ukraine, part of the 95th Kvartal team is already not in Ukraine. So, in principle, yes, indeed.
Bondarenko: Well, look, they haven’t been in Ukraine for a long time, or let’s say, “the shield” has not been in Ukraine for a long time. Some, I don’t know, super houses, for example, dream houses, that he’s attached to, or some large objects. Well, look, here’s also a paradox, yes, everyone remembers they mocked Yanukovych? Mezhyhirya, ostriches—he said, “I support them.” Remember? That’s how it seemed.
Bondarenko: You know, there was such a figure, Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson, Johnson-Sirleaf, former president of Liberia. Nobel laureate, by the way, she received it in 2012; Yulia Tymoshenko was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize that year, but Ellen Johnson Sirleaf got it. So, she governed Liberia from her apartment in New York. Therefore, yes, you know, attachment to territory is absolutely optional nowadays.
Shelest: Well, meaning, he took a flash drive with his digital currency and buggered off wherever he wants, so actually, who’s holding him back? So, 10% think it’s capitulation/peace—they will accept conditions. 20%: resignation/escape. 29%: re-election of himself, his beloved, and a possible referendum. And 41%: new strikes, a counteroffensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will still happen. And in general, if there was a possibility for a fifth option, I think it would have been considered too. Traditionally, when Zelensky is asked about plans for May, he says, “Shashlyk, a May picnic.” May picnic, shashlyk, yes, only now it’s somehow sad, you know.
Bondarenko: Shashlyk made from whom?
Shelest: Let’s not specify. It’s old Stalinists. Yes. So, I glanced at the chat and one user writes: “Mr. Shelest, sometime arrange a poll: who is for the war, who is against, who abstained. And everything will become clear immediately.” He’s apparently judging by the chat conversation. Well, why keep people in suspense? Let’s arrange such a question. At the very end, in the finale, we’ll sum up who is for, who is against, who abstained. A poll will appear now, I’ll write it now. Meanwhile, let’s move on to your questions, our esteemed viewers. Let’s start with the Shelest Viewers’ Club, as they say. Directly. So, viewers’ club, here we go. Questions of the following nature: Yes, here someone asks: “Do you have contact with Dmytro Dzhangirov, and the person wants to see you together with him. Is this possible?”
Bondarenko: Unfortunately, today we have no contact with Dmytro Heorhiyovych. We last saw each other at the very beginning of the war. I know there were attempts to conduct a joint broadcast, but Dmytro Heorhiyovych is currently refusing to do a joint broadcast. He says, “After the war.”
Shelest: A question to Kostyantyn Petrovych: “You always draw historical parallels with certain events, compare wars, revolutions, and so on. But it recently occurred to me that today’s wars cannot be compared with past ones, because the demographic situation is completely different worldwide. In all countries except Africa, birth rates are declining. Even the Persian Gulf countries, China, and India have crossed or come close to the second demographic transition. In 10-15 years, there will be a battle for migrants, judging by trends. All Ukrainian experts and politicians make plans for the revival of Ukraine after the war, but in 2025, the fertility rate is 0.5-0.6 children per woman, the point of no return is 1.3. Tell me, why does no one take demographics into account? There will be no recovery; women won’t give birth like before. Shouldn’t this factor be considered?” writes Anna.
Bondarenko: Some analysts and experts do indeed take this into account. I have personally seen analytical studies, materials that show negative trends. Demographers are indeed sounding the alarm. Back in 2023, they began comparing the war in Ukraine to the famous Paraguayan War of 1871, from which Paraguay still hasn’t recovered demographically. It is necessary to distinguish between bravura statements that “the war will stop now and we will turn into a prosperous state. In four years, there will be a garden city” (Mayakovsky), or let’s be absolute realists: this war will leave a very, very deep negative mark on Ukraine, from which we will be recovering for no less than several decades. Demographically, even longer.
Shelest: “Respected Kostyantyn Petrovych, Vasyl writes: Thank you for your intellect, courage, and honesty. You have said many times in various interviews that the Ukrainian people will have to admit obvious defeat in the war and agree to unfavorable conditions. These conditions, which Russia is demanding, have been detailed more than once, including personally by… Mr. Putin, the President. Kostyantyn Petrovych, can you specify concretely what in them is unfavorable for the Ukrainian people and why?”
Bondarenko: Any conditions that the losing side accepts are unfavorable from the start. Regarding this situation, it’s either an unfavorable peace, i.e., either a bad peace… In what way unfavorable? Wait, let’s be clear. Unfavorable in that… Well, obviously: loss of territory, loss of… Why loss? You know, this joke is, of course, stupid, bitter, someone will say “Zetniks” invented it or bad people. Well, look, you could easily return Crimea to Ukraine. [Sarcastic tone] I understand. I understand you, yes, because let’s not continue developing your… No, I mean, okay, I’m exaggerating, but if we’re being thorough: checkpoints, movement, goods, business will handle everything itself, connections will handle everything themselves. Yes, but the thing is, we don’t know which economic sectors will be locomotive, what will develop the economy, etc. We don’t know yet. We agree to these agreements, we lose part of the territory. From the point of view—I understand we lost them in 2014, essentially. We lost them… Maidan lost them, not Ukraine. Maidan led to this, because I said back then that Ukraine cannot develop as a state that leans either to one side or the other. It could only… It could only develop as a state of balances. Balances between East and West, between different interests. An imbalance towards any side—in this situation, the imbalance towards the West—is the death of the Ukraine we had until 2014. Which is what we observe, and now the current war is essentially a continuation of those processes that began on the Maidan in 2014. As for the state perspective, the loss of this or that territory is a big catastrophe. From the state perspective. Although I understand, as a historian, that no state is insured against the loss of territory. Moreover, the borders of states are constantly changing. This is a constant, living process. But if we’re already talking about who loses the most, the peace that will be signed is first and foremost a verdict on Zelensky. Zelensky is a war president; he can only exist as a president under conditions of war. That’s precisely why he clings to Europe’s position, which also says, “You must fight.” He finds like-minded people there; they form a united war party. Obviously, they say that under no circumstances can peace be allowed. It’s impossible.
Shelest: Yes, friends, these are the answer options. I see the stream chat didn’t quite understand us. Well, that’s fine. This about “returning Crimea.” Good. It’s actually good that you misunderstood us or me regarding that anecdote that’s going around. Okay. “You are for war or against?” you asked for a poll for/against. Attention: “I don’t know how to answer” and “I’ll refrain from answering for now.” Vote, we’ll sum it up at the end. This is the fresh voting in the chat at the request of the chat. So, let’s continue. “Does the government hear the people, or have people gotten used to the silence?”
Bondarenko: A significant part of people now live by the principle of needing to wait it out, endure, survive. They live by the principle of “as long as nothing happens.” A significant part. You know, once Aaron Yakovlevich Gurevich, a famous medieval historian, named one of his books about Medieval Europe: The Culture of the Silent Majority. In Ukraine now, it’s also the Culture of the Silent Majority. A society of the silent majority.
Shelest: “Respected Kostyantyn, let’s be honest. Those who left won’t return, Ukrainians aren’t being born. Even what remains of Ukraine will, in general, have to [repopulate?] unto the seventh generation. Tell me, I can’t find a single model where the remaining two generations will see change. Maybe you can correct me? Are there hints in history for a way out? Thank you, all the best.”
Bondarenko: No, there will be a way out, of course. Ukraine—well, the territory where Ukraine is now located—it has been called different things in different eras, but it has experienced total depopulation at least twice. The first time was in the 13th century after the Mongol-Tatars, the second time in the 17th century after the so-called Ruin. So it revived. I understand that this territory will revive sooner or later. Yes, maybe not in our lifetime.
Shelest: Next. “Hello. Svitlana writes a question to Kostyantyn: Based on your experience and inner instinct, how would you describe post-war Ukraine, specifically: which processes will be inevitable, which are in question. Hatred towards [something], fragmentation, caste system, economic situation, political situation, and even what lessons our fellow citizens are likely to learn from this war. And the main question: will they learn lessons?”
Bondarenko: You know, in ’23, even before sanctions were imposed on me—at the end of ’23, beginning of ’24, a representative of a certain institute of power in Ukraine approached me to write my vision of the war’s results, what will happen to Ukraine after, as a result of the war. I wrote a 12-page document. And the sanctions were imposed. No, no, the sanctions weren’t imposed for this. They called me and said, “You know, you’re too pessimistic.” So, since then I’ve become even more pessimistic. Because I see many things, I constantly say, in communication with many people, “God forbid Lenin’s thesis about the imperialist war turning into a civil war is realized.” Let’s hope we avoid this. And now the situation in society is so electrified, hatred is so extreme, that any pretext could lead precisely to this kind of scenario, where Ukraine simply turns into a quagmire in the center of Europe. That’s the first point. The second point: the end of the war will lead to a serious, serious increase in the crime situation, for which the state has no answer. The state must have a sufficiently serious law enforcement, repressive system to counter organized and unorganized crime. And when tomorrow’s current heroes become bandits—this is inevitable—many will howl. Next: the issue of economic revival. I already asked today, and not only today: what will become the locomotive that pulls the Ukrainian economy? We lost the metallurgical industry. We lost several other industries. We lost a significant part of the agro-industrial complex. We lost opportunities for, let’s say, transit; Ukraine’s transit capabilities are lost. What will we build our economy on? Yesterday, with one economist, a well-known, very well-known economist, we talked for a very long time. He says, “I was convinced for a long time that Russia, under the pressure of all these sanctions and the problems existing in the Russian economy, would simply collapse. Just wait a little longer.” Well, excuse me, Ukraine is 10 times smaller, its economy is 10 times smaller, and its capabilities are 10 times less. So who will collapse first in this situation? Well, in short, you know, these are also questions without answers today. And no one is talking about this today. On the contrary, costumed Ukrainians travel to various foreign forums, bring some tables, diagrams, and say: “As soon as the war ends, the flow of investments will increase exponentially, and accordingly, we will immediately become top-tier, we will become an economic and financial tiger, we will immediately attract all the world’s money.” And does anyone even believe this?
Shelest: Next question. “Kostyantyn Petrovych, I would like to know your opinion. The topic of political prisoners was last discussed in point 28 of Trump’s peace plan. After that, Zelensky changed this point from ‘rehabilitation’ to ‘amnesty,’ then completely removed it in his version of the peace treaty. After that, the topic has not surfaced anywhere. In your opinion, how will things stand with political prisoners after a peace agreement is concluded? Thank you in advance.”
Bondarenko: First, they need to be granted the status of political prisoners. That’s the first point. Because Ukraine always says, “We have no political prisoners. Where would we get political prisoners? We don’t have political prisoners. We have people who are either undergoing proceedings or who are arrested by court decision because they violated Ukrainian legislation—Article 111, Article 160 if I’m not mistaken, first part, Article 109, 110, etc.” That is, those who are actually political prisoners. But they are not recognized as political in Ukraine. That’s the first point. Second point: And who will monitor the implementation of these aspects? How many? Oleksandr Dubinsky speaks of 42,000 political prisoners. Someone says about 50,000. Diana Panchenko created her own list of political prisoners. And so on, and so on. That is, there really needs to be its own understanding. Yes, they talk. They talk, but not at the official level. And the human rights system, human rights activists are not in favor today. Somehow, you know, we consider and appeal to the Helsinki Accords here. But there, we ignore the Helsinki Accords.
Shelest: Next. “Kostyantyn Petrovych, why don’t global oil prices react to the beginning of the fight against Russia’s shadow fleet?”
Bondarenko: Because, because many consider it not serious. That’s the first point. Second point: So far, the fight against this fleet has never been a factor that could seriously influence price formation. Moreover, a large number of such processes concerning Venezuela, concerning the situation around Iran, etc., are a more serious factor that can affect oil prices than the fight against tankers.
Shelest: And this question. “Hello. Alexander asks: Lavrov’s statement that ‘persons committing provocations in the maritime space, seizing ships, will soon realize the full gravity of the consequences of their actions.’ And why is Russia preparing 20,000 shelters in 82 regions designed to protect against the consequences of nuclear weapons? What will this be? Such an escalation?”
Bondarenko: I don’t think it’s that kind of escalation, but actually, the question is: Russia will obviously react somehow to the seizure of ships, even if the ships are not sailing under Russian flags. Clearly, there will be a reaction. And now they are trying to test Russia, to see if it’s weak. I don’t think these two things—bomb shelters and the tanker fleet—are interconnected, but the situation today is indeed on the brink of a big war. Whether they will cross this line on this issue…
Shelest: We move to the chat. Question to Kostyantyn: “Do you think Putin and Zelensky, given the current consequences of their decisions in ’22, would they have decided on what they decided on? On refusing peace in Turkey?”
Bondarenko: Look, the thing is, obviously—Stalin liked to repeat the phrase, “We are all strong in hindsight.” At that time, the parties viewed the situation completely differently. Zelensky didn’t believe until the end that Putin would risk attacking. He didn’t believe it, even when his intelligence reported, and foreign states said war would come. He thought Putin was bluffing. Putin thought this attack would be an easy walk. Much indicates that he thought everything was ready to practically repeat approximately the success that happened in 2008. So, yes, probably if the situation were different, then probably things would have developed differently. But we don’t know very much. We still don’t know very, very much. The secrets of World War II are only being revealed today. Secrets, many documents that explain certain processes and behaviors of specific politicians. I think many processes related to this war will also be revealed decades later. And they will show whether there was a possibility to avoid this war, or whether someone was placed in such a framework that it was impossible to postpone this war.
Shelest: “Hello. We live in Germany, so I want to ask you: when will you pay back the money for Nord Stream? And the loans—when, or who will pay them back at all? Thanks.”
Bondarenko: I think no one will. And accordingly, in this situation, it seems to me only the naive can believe that the version about the involvement of Ukrainian yachtsmen who are also GRU agents in the explosion of Nord Stream—that this version has any basis. I think significantly more serious, significantly more trained people worked there.
Shelest: “Question to Kostyantyn. Meeting in Munich, February 15. Merz, Rubio, California Governor Gavin Newsom, Democratic presidential contender. Head of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, and Zelensky. Question: What was Newsom doing there? As a representative of the globalists?”
Bondarenko: We need to look at the organizers. Newsom is not just a Democrat, he’s the candidate of the Clintons, who will try to promote him as the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election, 2028. A rising star, needs to be presented somehow. That’s it. Again, non-traditional people, non-traditional orientation, and sexual minorities—they must have their own representation. It depends on the event.
Shelest: “If Kyivites don’t take to the Maidan, it means they are satisfied with this government. If they are satisfied with the government, why overthrow Yanukovych? If they are not satisfied, why overthrow Yanukovych? They could have just asked him to turn off the light and heating.” Rhetorical question.
Bondarenko: Again, let’s not touch sensitive issues, because many have already reconsidered their positions, reconsidered their attitudes. By the way, those who supported Yanukovych in 2014, many became disillusioned with him. Those who supported the Maidan became disillusioned with their anti-Yanukovych positions.
Shelest: Friends, they ask about Kazakhstan. What will happen to Kazakhstan against the backdrop of the American visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan? Many are interested.
Bondarenko: Regarding the visit to Yerevan: indeed a historic visit. Indeed, the United States is trying to show that they, having achieved certain conditions of peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, haven’t actually left them unattended. Let’s not forget that Armenia is a very specific state, both due to its geopolitical position and because the largest US embassy in the entire post-Soviet space is located there, and so on. The Caspian, Iran, Turkey—everything is strung on a single thread. And Yens [Antony Blinken] probably didn’t make this visit by chance. As for Kazakhstan, their own processes are underway; they are preparing a new constitution, as far as I understand, a new constitutional transformation. President Tokayev is moving towards creating a new political reality, so everything is fine in Kazakhstan. The main thing is that they learn from Ukraine’s lessons. You know, in 2020, during the presidential elections in Belarus, I was in Minsk, and I spoke with many activists who later came out against Lukashenko the day after the presidential elections. I told them, “Don’t repeat Ukraine’s mistakes.” But, you know, usually everyone thinks, “We’re definitely better, we definitely won’t make those mistakes.” Now I’m also telling people in Telegram: “Don’t repeat Ukraine’s mistakes.”
Shelest: In the end, did they not repeat them?
Bondarenko: In the end… Plus, you know, there’s a joke going around about Belarus now, it’s interesting. They say, against the backdrop of everything happening, it will become an island of freedom. Any social network is available there, alcohol is sold 24/7, there’s something else, some other point of freedom—well, obviously there’s no curfew, nothing like that, well, something else from the liberal side that everyone has already forgotten about.
Bondarenko: Actually, in his time, Lukashenko became the person who very carefully studied Yanukovych’s mistakes. He understood what Yanukovych’s mistake was. He understood that under no circumstances, in conditions of an attempted color revolution, should you negotiate with the crowd. If the government, if the president, starts talking to the crowd gathered on the Maidan, the crowd immediately turns into a political force; it gains subjectivity, it is legitimized. And Lukashenko understood that as long as he did not negotiate with them, they would remain a crowd, not a political subject. And a crowd very quickly loses manageability; it cannot be in tension indefinitely. Therefore, all attempts at color revolutions after the Ukrainian one were essentially doomed, because everyone understood the main principle: you cannot subjectivize, you cannot politicize, you cannot legitimize the crowd.
Shelest: Yes, here’s another question. Serhiy asks: “Why was the TCC system created before the start of the SMO and the full-scale invasion?”
Bondarenko: No, actually, the process of transforming, transforming military commissariats into TCCs was one of the reform options.
Shelest: Wait, accelerated two days before the start?
Bondarenko: No, the development, the development was ongoing before. No, so why adopt it? No. And then, accordingly, this was a recommendation from our partners. “Let’s do it faster. Let’s hurry up to abandon the old system.” Moreover, that old system of military commissariats was very clearly tied to local self-government. It was quite a cumbersome decision-making system; there was control over this system. And the TCC—this system is inherently uncontrolled.
Shelest: “What do you think about two million ‘two hundredths’? [Military slang: casualties/killed] Is this a dead loss? Oleh asks. Thanks for the broadcast. This number includes those killed, whom they simply don’t want to announce in order not to pay 15 million to their families. Question to Kostyantyn Petrovych: Do you think the Joker should have played chess?”
Bondarenko: Well, he didn’t play chess. They showed him a chessboard, and he realized that the only type of game he knows how to play is chequers.
Shelest: “Why did Durov get out of the Paris prison?” This is a question.
Bondarenko: We can suspect for a very long time, propose various conspiracy theories, say that he was bought, re-recruited, that he agreed to the conditions they gave him. But today we don’t even have evidence to charge him with anything. Something happened there; we don’t know what. Durov knows, and those who were with him know.
Shelest: “They write, there was no TCC before the war, stop lying. No. All decisions, regulations, and the TCC were created either a day or two before. Explain.”
Bondarenko: I’m explaining. The reform itself was presented, presented in 2021. According to it, the hated system of military commissariats created in Soviet times would be replaced by a more streamlined system. The system was a bit different: there was the Territorial Center for Recruitment and Social Support, I think that’s what it was called. Then, further, recruitment centers were envisioned, etc. When the war started, they began to act absolutely, they decided, as they say, to hastily implement what had been presented before. This was a recommendation from Western structures. Why am I saying this again? I said today that the system of military commissariats, their functionality was clearly prescribed, regulated, they were tied to the actions of certain structures, they could be appealed, and so on. There was control over these actions. And the TCC is an absolutely new structure, whose function is actually not prescribed anywhere, not prescribed in the law. And that means, you know, there is a category of people for whom the law is not written.
Shelest: Yes, friends, thank you all very much for being on our live broadcast today. Let’s sum up the results of our poll. They are obvious, but nevertheless, you asked for it, please: “Are you for the war or against?” “I don’t know how to answer”: 3%. “I’ll refrain from answering for now”: 8%. 7% for, and 82% against. Well, that’s the result. And you know, it’s pleasant that no matter what arguments there are, you are against the war. That’s great.
Bondarenko: I once said, about 25 years ago, even more, 27, I was at a seminar conducted by gurus of political technology. They gave the briefing: “The electorate’s opinion can be neglected.” Approximately according to this scheme, the people’s opinion is neglected. This mindset is in the heads of our politicians.
Shelest: Friends, thank you all very much for being on our live broadcast. Kostyantyn Petrovych, thank you for your time and thoughts.
Bondarenko: Thank you, and to you, and until next time.
Shelest: Take care, peace and light. See you.