ГРОЗА европейцев!” / Орешник, Starlink и битва роботов // “Стрелы бога” из США и белорусская оптика
Информационное агентство БелТА
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1b-qf3GGt0

Here is a synopsis of the interview, followed by a full English translation and an explanation of any potentially obscure language, idioms, or sarcasm.

SYNOPSIS

This interview with military expert Andrey Klinsevich (affiliated with BelTA) presents a comprehensive Russian perspective on the state of the war in Ukraine. It frames the conflict as an industrial, systemic war of attrition rather than a territorial scramble. Key points include:

1. Evolution of Warfare: The frontline is now a 20-30 km “grey zone” dominated by FPV drones and electronic warfare, shifting the focus from infantry to a “battle of robots.”
2. Starlink: While its potential restriction by Elon Musk is a tactical inconvenience for Russian forces, it is not crippling. Russia relies on alternatives (Mesh networks, Molniya) and is developing its own capabilities, with China expected to field a system by 2027-28.
3. Strategy: Russia is systematically “thinning” Ukrainian forces and targeting logistics, energy, and production hubs. The goal is the exhaustion of the Ukrainian army and its NATO support systems, not just terrain capture.
4. “Oreshnik”: This new intermediate-range ballistic missile is described as a conventional “kinetic” weapon designed to deliver massive damage at hypersonic speeds without crossing the nuclear threshold. It is framed as a “thunderstorm for Europeans”—a demonstration that NATO air defenses cannot counter it.
5. Economy & Adaptation: Russia (and Belarus) is credited with rapid “strategic adaptation,” out-producing Western projections and modernizing weapons on the front lines faster than NATO bureaucracies.
6. Geopolitics: The US is viewed as pressuring Iran to maintain dollar hegemony. The UN is dismissed as impotent, controlled by Western double standards. Ukraine’s resilience is acknowledged; expectations of its rapid collapse are called naive. Poland and the Baltics are portrayed as actively preparing for direct conflict with Russia/Belarus.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES

(Note: The text is a transcript of spoken Russian. It contains filler words, grammatical fragments, and abrupt topic shifts. This translation aims to convey the exact meaning and tone, with clarifications in brackets.)

BelTA: We, China, are now massively trying to launch satellites. I think by 2027-28 we will have some working systems. It’s like an orchestra now: you don’t place a battery in a row like we saw in the movies, you spread it out over, let’s say, a distance of 15-20 kilometers. When they start shelling targets one by one, then camouflage themselves, cover up with nets, they aren’t so easy to detect.

[Host]: …Zelensky is a very dangerous and terrifying adversary for Europeans. They aren’t shy about saying it, even though they talk about it. And I’ll remind you that Belarus’s neighbor, Poland, in the person of Foreign Minister Sikorski, once said in an emotional outburst: “We are not happy that the fighting will end now. Because the Ukrainian military, drunk on blood, accustomed to money, looting, and everything else, will go with their families to Europe, to us, and we won’t be able to contain that level of terrorism.”

[DYNAMIC MUSIC]

Host: Andrey, greetings.
Andrey: Good afternoon.
Host: Yes. The first question, as a military man and military expert, is primarily about the dynamics at the front of the special military operation. Your assessments: how is it going, what is happening, and is it happening correctly?

Andrey: In the zone of the special military operation, right now the front—I’d put it this way—you shouldn’t focus on captured populated points or villages, because a lot of actions are currently happening in the grey zone. The nature of combat has changed so much that the front line isn’t 500 meters between trenches like it used to be; it’s 20-30 kilometers between the points where the operators of FPV drones are located. And in this grey zone, some groups are moving around, others are moving… so the so-called “control” is very conditional.

That is, we need to act much deeper, and in this regard, Russia is currently inventing new forms and methods of impacting the enemy in order to cut them off, actually, in their staging areas. In particular, we are developing the theme of strike capabilities in depth quite quickly and dynamically—for example, glide bombs. They used to fly 60 kilometers; now, with the addition of a small solid-fuel motor, they already fly 160 kilometers. And 500 kg of warhead hitting at 160 kilometers—that’s serious. It’s like a cruise missile; it’s a large charge, similar to what a ballistic missile carries on average.

So, I’m not going to go over the entire line of the front, so to speak, in terms of those populated points, because we are advancing everywhere, little by little. In some places, the enemy tries to counterattack; in some places, some village falls under their control. Well, overall, you need to look at how many reserves the enemy is committing. They are forced to do this constantly to parry our strikes.

But, as I already said, the war is starting to be measured by the number of UAVs and strike assets that reach the front. That is, essentially, robots are starting to fight each other. We see the most bizarre configurations happening; it’s no secret to anyone anymore: these are “mother” drones that fly in and bring FPV drones, say, over the sums [likely a technical term or proper name] at a considerable distance, or in Zaporozhye, where we, bypassing the Kakhovka Reservoir from the east, are already within 15 kilometers.

There are now many systems trying to combat drones in the radio-electronic spectrum. So, laser systems have appeared with us, and I think the enemy will have them soon too, and possibly some are already in place and operational. We see the massive introduction of ground-based systems—moving platforms, not so much combat platforms as supply platforms. Because, for example, you can drop a group off in the fog or under the cover of drones into, say, some basement of some house; they can stay there for quite a while. But providing their supplies—food, batteries, and primarily water, which is the most valuable resource—that’s more difficult. Now, when people carry it on themselves or transport it, they are targets for strikes…

Host: And in that regard, is it possible that this [supplies] has long been delivered only by drones?
Andrey: No, well, drones aren’t everywhere. You have to understand that both we and the enemy are limited by resources to some extent. Yes, ideally, you’d just launch a continuous stream of self-propelled carts that would bring fuel there and take the wounded back. But there simply aren’t enough of them. The front is enormous, it consumes a huge amount of resources, and the grouping needs to be supplied. And sometimes you need to bring people in, because those who are there need to be rotated out; it’s very difficult to stay there.

Host: Andrey, what can you say about Starlink? Lately, there has been a lot of news that Elon Musk reached out to the Ukrainian side and turned off the terminals that Russian military personnel were also using. First of all, how critical is this? Maybe it’s not important at all.
Andrey: I don’t think command and control of our troops will collapse completely because we weren’t planning to be their clients anyway. And I’ll remind you—and just two or three days later, other reports came out on this same topic as a follow-up—that they are managing without it. And the whole gimmick was that you could fly very low and control [drones] in real-time with Starlink, and they are continuing to fly.

Let’s separate two things. First, strike capabilities using Starlink, and second, the communication system that allows forward positions to stay in contact. Starlink is convenient, that’s no secret. It’s a small device, costing 30,000 Russian rubles, that allows you to deploy it anywhere on the battlefield, and you’ll get a live feed to the command center. Otherwise, with other algorithms, you have to run Wi-Fi bridges, you need some kind of broadband internet access system. Voice communication systems aren’t a problem here—guys are out there with radios, working by voice.

Of course, FPV drone operators, earlier, using it from their secretive positions, were happy to transmit everything they “clicked” [filmed/destroyed] from the enemy side to higher headquarters, and they’d relay it further via fiber optics. “Geraniums” [Iranian/Russian Shahed drones], cruise missiles, ballistic missiles—they always operated using other technologies, hitting coordinates. “Geraniums” that hit and continue to hit, for example, road convoys that are moving—we can destroy their movement. This is actually a purely Russian know-how. We created this through a so-called Mesh network, where UAVs create communication links between themselves, and our reconnaissance units place certain repeaters on the territory of Ukraine as non-duplicating components.

Of course, with Starlink it’s simpler and faster to do this. You set it up, and it allows you to get the same, sometimes even higher-speed, internet access on the move, and it allows you to control things. The enemy always used this, the so-called “Babayaga” [witch], causing difficulties for our troops. These are octocopters, multi-rotor drones, that, thanks to Starlink and not being susceptible to EW [Electronic Warfare], could move and strike. That is, they could only be destroyed physically, by shooting them down with small arms or some other means.

Yes, indeed, this [Musk’s restriction] has hit hard now because a number of units—let’s say—didn’t have a backup; they threw themselves entirely into this convenient direction. So we have to adapt. And the enemy, I think, is partly trying to take advantage now in the grey zone, where our communication system was built on Starlink; they are trying to maneuver and counterattack to reclaim positions.

But, as I said, it won’t collapse entirely, for several reasons. First, headquarters, probably from the company level and up, for the most part, tried to and are creating native [alternative] channels; there are several variants. Second, Russian satellite communication terminals are entering the troops in large numbers, both through private channels and from the Ministry of Defense. This is the Molniya satellite system. Yes, they don’t allow you to do this on the move, because the satellite is geostationary; you need to aim at it, and then you have a communication system. But this is, let’s say, a replacement for Starlink on the ground. A pure replacement for Starlink in motion or on water? No, that doesn’t exist. That is a truly unique development, and we—China—are now massively trying to launch satellites. I think by 2027-28 we will have some working systems. And eventually, I think we’ll figure out how to register, we’ll find some ways. After all, Ukrainian sales units will register Starlinks for themselves, which will work for us. It’s impossible to determine, based on coordinates, where their Starlink is located. The main thing is where it’s registered; you can lose its trail later.

Host: Support this or not? The German publication Junge Welt published an article that, in general, is so flattering, I think, for the Russian side, and not very [flattering] for everyone else. And I’ll paraphrase: “Russia is waging war like a factory: standardized, based on data, sequentially, and the main goal is not territory, but the predictable thinning of the enemy’s systems.” I’m interested in your opinion: if this is really true, and it’s not another piece of propaganda for the Western consumer, then what does it look like?

Andrey: Well, firstly, it’s real. It is expressed in, indeed, a systemic approach to supplying troops, planning, and everything else. So, for a start, for context, I’ll list the three so-called centers of gravity of any state in conflict: the capital, its allies, and the army. Break all three centers, and you win. Notice, territory isn’t here. That is, territory might not change at all, or might even increase. You simply exhaust the army, and it collapses, and a sharp decline begins. An example is the WWI frontline; it didn’t shift much towards Germany, but Germany lost. It just couldn’t hold out.

Another example: a racing car will run almost to the last drop of fuel at full speed, and then it will just start coughing and stop. But until that last drop of fuel is gone, it will be racing at full speed. It’s the same here. So, indeed, we are impacting the enemy, impacting them in depth, impacting logistics, factories, energy, capabilities, training, supply, repair, and everything else.

Yes, currently, we may have to deal with quite serious problems: allies. Because Ukraine has moved a lot of its production, training, supply, treatment, and all the infrastructure that could be within our reach, abroad, to NATO countries. The Baltics have essentially turned into one big conveyor belt for the production of FPV drones. They go to the front under the label “baby food.” It’s impossible to determine which one is military and which one is actually carrying baby formula. They unload them at the front, and we see this data from intercepts. And the UAVs that fall into our hands, we see markings from Riga or other cities, because the source codes are visible.

So, yes, Russia is impacting [the enemy] to the maximum extent possible in each situation. Moreover, the second point is the military economy of the ongoing processes. The enemy has long admitted that Russia is the leader in strategic adaptation, because we change and move fast enough to counter all their sanctions regimes. What would take them—I don’t know, due to sluggishness, maybe some very serious bureaucracy—we solve in a very short time, even though it seems to us that it’s not enough, but against their backdrop, it’s very good. As an example, the speed at which we modernize and invent something new at the front: the first “turtle tanks” [“mangals”—cope cages/sheds] appeared, everyone laughed, and now everyone is trying to launch them.

This is also very well illustrated in comparison: the Americans made themselves a new tank modernization package for the Abrams. They paint it with a different paint that is slightly less visible in thermal imagers and make small “mangals” on top and on the sides; they weld grilles. So, the timeline for conducting this kind of work for them is up to the end of 2027, and they started it last year. You understand? They are allocating two years for these innovations. For us, repair brigades right in the units would probably do it within a month; they’d just say, “Bring us electrodes and metal, we’ll weld it all ourselves.” For them, it has to go to a factory, etc.

We remember how many Leopards in their latest modifications burned from strikes and FPV drones because they had nothing. Now they are coming with some “mangals,” with some additional ERA blocks. But our speed is quite fast, and it really allows us to change both on the battlefield and strategically, as a system.

And finally, I’d like to add that any military conflict is, first and foremost, a confrontation of systems. And here we are lucky, because our system of the military-industrial complex—and in Belarus, too, by the way—we inherited from our common ancestors, the Soviet Union. There were large stockpiles, state-owned, and there were so-called mothballed workshops for producing shells and consumables. As specialists told me, when they were de-mothballed and started up now, we exceeded the Soviet Union’s design capacity by 4 times with modern technology. That is, Russia, together with its allies, produces much more shells, tanks, and everything else than the collective West put together. Because in terms of price-to-quality ratio, we have one of the best in the world. So, yes, we are indeed changing dynamically.

There are delays, as we already talked about, in the satellite constellation—not only communication systems but also Earth remote sensing. And here we still have room to move, and we are urgently catching up on this, so to speak, this lag. And here I think we need, of course, to allow civilians to launch this, to follow the experience of the West. They said, “No problem, let the private sector launch their satellites for monitoring the earth’s surface in different ranges; when a conflict starts, they will give us the images too.” And so it happened. So the US Army has 40 satellites, and civilians have 400. And this entire constellation works for the AFU. Therefore, for example, our advanced Earth remote sensing satellites—we need them for situational awareness. They rely on Belarusian optical systems. That is, everything that is, let’s call it, the “eyes,” that’s Belarusian production. And here we have room to develop and keep our enterprises busy.

Host: You mentioned these capacities, which, you see, turned out to be very significant. But against the backdrop of what is happening today—well, as many say, and from our conversation, one can understand—it’s a war of drones. In essence, yes. Does the importance of that large caliber, I mean artillery, 152mm, is it changing somehow, decreasing? Or is this artillery still the “God of War”?

Andrey: It remains. Another question is that we need to transition faster to third-generation artillery. This is a very conditional direction, because for the most part, we—and Belarus, unfortunately, too—still use second-generation artillery. What’s the difference? Well, firstly, [a drone] is a very cool device; it can fly in, circle the target, fly through a window, maneuver inside, and strike. But the warhead it carries is usually not very large. So, the power—let’s say, the destructive capabilities, or the high-explosive properties of a 152mm shell—they are serious. It collapses a residential building. An FPV drone can partially destroy it; [a 152mm shell] guarantees it collapses. And it can work regardless of any weather conditions, fog, rain. That’s no problem for it at all. It penetrates all anti-drone nets or hits vehicles. Any “mangals”—it penetrates all of that immediately. So, this is important.

Another issue should be accuracy and range. Regarding this, what is a third-generation projectile? It involves very long guns; they are measured in calibers. For example, 39 [calibers]. That’s 39 calibers, meaning the diameter of the barrel times its length. The standard NATO variant is 52. Experimentally, they can already stretch it to 62, and this allows them to throw a projectile with additional gas generator systems up to 100 kilometers. That’s very cheap artillery, and it’s important. Most likely, we will come to the point where artillery remains, but the shells will transition. The Americans were the first to do this here; we probably won’t lag behind. They are quickly modifying basic shells using glide bomb technology. Add little wings, a control unit, and then this shell turns into a small flying bomb. So, artillery itself—no matter how much they’ve tried to switch to rockets—is a very cheap and convenient tool.

Another issue is “TTP dispersion” as artillerymen call it [Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures; referring to the inherent inaccuracy of artillery], needs to be narrowed. This requires higher quality manufacturing of shells, because Western shells, in the first stage, well, definitely for us, they were more accurate, with better geometry of the modern shape. And here we understand that, for example, the 152mm shell from the new “Koalitsiya-SV” gun doesn’t fit old guns. First, the shape of the shell is slightly different; second, the charges are modular, like tablets in the West—theirs are white, ours are green. Here you can vary the power of the charge in a more, well, convenient way. Not just two types of charges, but different combinations. You can fire at very high muzzle energies over long distances. This is convenient, of course, because the enemy was shelling at 40-50 kilometers with guided shells. Now they are experiencing difficulties, of course, and it’s not always possible to use that.

An artillery piece becomes quite noticeable. By the way, there is a bit of a, you know, renaissance of towed artillery. Because, by camouflaging it well on different positions—it’s like an orchestra: you don’t place a battery in a row, as we saw in the movies, but you spread it out over, let’s say, a distance of 15-20 kilometers. When they start shelling targets one by one, then camouflage themselves, cover up with nets, they aren’t so easy to detect. You can check your own positions with drones; a thermal imager doesn’t see you, and we and the enemy are using this now.

Any towed equipment is, of course, noticeable; it leaves tracks, and someone leaves the position, in some cases. In general, camouflage has now risen to a completely different level. Can you imagine that some guys on the front line are even refusing to have cats that save them from mice and rats? Because cats are a de-masking factor. The enemy sees a completely camouflaged position because of cats walking around up there. Excuse the expression, [a cat] urinating—with good optics, that’s all visible, especially in the cold season.

Host: I’d like to ask about another type of weapon, especially since it’s interesting for Belarusians too, as it’s on combat duty on our territory. I’m talking about the much-discussed “Oreshnik”. Well, the world has seen two deployments, right? The first and the second, all with conventional warheads, or so it’s claimed. Well, I’m sure many, especially in Russia, confidently—you can see it in the comments—people ask: “Why? There are excellent targets, why aren’t we using it further if we have such a thing?”

Andrey: Two important points. First, it’s important to understand that “Oreshnik” is a special intermediate-range weapon (up to 5,000 km) specifically designed not to cross the nuclear threshold. Therefore, the warhead is in the form of a dummy round [slug] made of a refractory alloy, accelerated to hypersonic speeds. Hitting the ground, it creates very strong destruction, probably comparable to small strikes, including tactical nuclear weapons. This is its main warhead. Why “Oreshnik” [Hazel tree]? Because of the large number of warheads, most likely without fairings, it looks like a cluster of hazelnuts, hung with these warheads. I assume that’s probably how it was designed. So, deploying that many nuclear warheads on a medium-range missile makes no sense at all. That is, in my understanding, it’s not intended for a nuclear version at all. For that, you can launch either a cruise missile or a hypersonic “Zircon” or the same “Kinzhal” with one nuclear warhead, which, in fact, will hit somewhere at hypersonic speed with all the impact. You don’t need 30 warheads for that. That many warheads isn’t even on strategic intercontinental missiles; they have up to 10-12, some of which are decoys.

Therefore, this is a weapon that allows inflicting very serious damage under conditions where interception is impossible, in the intermediate-range category. In principle, it’s a kind of “Thunderstorm for Europeans,” primarily sending the message: “Guys, we can reach any target on your territory.” And the latest deployment, I think, near the borders of Poland, within the framework of the huge number of radars and air defense systems in the “Eastern Shield” program—German systems were sent there, and a number of other European ones—it was a special demonstration of capabilities. The message: “Guys, even the Israeli ‘Arrow-3’ system, which was deployed in Germany, I think, isn’t even capable of detecting these targets, let alone engaging or trying to shoot them down.”

In principle, this can be called the real embodiment of the American strategy or concept of orbital weaponry called “Rods from God.” They calculated that if you place tungsten rods—just like that, a refractory alloy—in orbit and simply drop them onto the earth by gravity, they would accelerate to hypersonic speeds. Upon impacting the ground or a target, a huge amount of kinetic energy would be released; it penetrates deep, and shock waves spread out, destroying everything, as they say, into fine rubble. They couldn’t implement this. Maybe they didn’t want to violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, etc. Nevertheless, “Oreshnik” has implemented this concept.

So, yes, indeed, it is now located at access points, including to Britain from Belarus. It is, first and foremost, a very expensive, precision weapon against them, because for targets on Ukrainian territory, we can shell them cheaper. That could be done with “Geraniums,” for example, or “Kalibrs.” Why use such a complex weapon? So, with these two launches, we simply demonstrated it, tested it, and now confirmed that all systems work very clearly. It’s a very expensive salvo.

Host: Of course, of course. It all comes down to money. War is generally an extremely mathematical component, and money is one of those important arguments. For example, hypothetically, launch a cheap “Geranium.” If it’s shot down by expensive Patriot missiles, you’ve drained the enemy of money—serious millions of dollars—in anti-aircraft missiles. That’s a plus, even if it’s shot down. You’re just exhausting their air defense system. Naturally, if it’s possible to hit a target with “Geraniums,” you hit it with them. If not, you raise the bar a bit higher each time, up to hypersonic missiles, which we use primarily on high-value targets, mainly Patriot air defense systems or the airfields they cover, where there are, you know, as the military likes to say, “fat targets.”

[Advertisement for videobel.by]

Host: …we’ve talked about such powerful weapons systems. I’d like to ask your opinion on the fate of the START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] treaty. Who needs it more now? As I prepared to talk to you, I saw the point of view that it’s actually more important for the States now than for Russia. Because Russia currently has a technological advantage, including possessing “Oreshnik,” and even in its nuclear potential and nuclear delivery vehicles, they are more modern. It would be beneficial for the States to sign such a treaty, but for some reason, no one is seriously talking about it yet.

Andrey: Not exactly. Look, the Americans have the so-called Strategic Command, which actually defines strategic tasks. They reported two things to Trump. First: we are losing to the Russians, and most likely to the Chinese, in the quality of our strategic weapons. Our silo-based missiles, they have no ground-based complexes, and their sea-based ones are from the 70s. Yes, we extend their service life, we do the 10th modernization, but nevertheless, the function and modularity are outdated, vacuum tube control systems, etc. Well, actually, there weren’t even computers back then. It has a lot of mechanical parts inside. I remember being at one of our military plants that makes—well, not warheads, but control units for anti-aircraft missiles. A modern control unit is small and compact. But for Soviet systems, they are still producing missiles that can be used. They have huge blocks, lots of mechanics; it reminds me of Swiss watches, some gyroscopes, rotating parts. These are all so-called points of failure. Something might jam somewhere, something might not spin up. This is a serious problem.

For example, the former UK Defense Minister experienced this when the British launched an unarmed American Trident missile from their submarine. Well, it took off and landed next to the destroyer they were observing from, nearly killing them. The Americans do it differently; they pull the missile out, do a complete overhaul, and only then extend the service life. So here, they urgently need to achieve qualitative indicators.

Second: quantity. They say, “Look, the Russians have one and a half thousand deployed [warheads] in accordance with START, well, a little more. And China is catching up very fast, at the fastest rate. Most likely by 2030 they’ll have a thousand warheads, by 2035, one and a half thousand, matching us. What do we do?” Trump asks. They say, “We need to introduce new systems that will allow us to improve qualitatively.” And the Americans immediately launched four expensive projects to completely change their entire triad.

First, new Columbia-class submarines. Expensive, yes. They’ll make 12-16 of them. Second, a new silo-based missile called the Sentinel. It’s larger, bigger, and can’t be used in old silos. This is completely new, from scratch. Third, a new aircraft, the B-21 Raider, to replace the aircraft they are currently using. And fourth, the warheads themselves, new generation, because the old ones are degrading. There’s further development.

But they tell Trump, “There’s a problem. If we—and it’s very logical for us—if China doesn’t plan to limit its weapons, then we must be ready for a war with the Russians and the Chinese simultaneously. That means we need to double the number of warheads. Not 1,500 as per START, but at least 3,000 deployed warheads.”

Second point: if we start producing new items—for example, in 2026, three aircraft will enter service—and the number of launchers is also limited to 700, including aircraft and submarines. Then we need to remove some from service, like the Russians did when they introduced their new systems. Trump says, “Why? Let’s withdraw from START, and we’ll immediately address both issues. We’ll start introducing new systems without taking old ones off combat duty. We’ll grow both qualitatively and quantitatively. And then we will dominate, together with the old weapons.”

If, by some chance, China agrees—which we highly doubt—well, then we’ll try to talk, we’ll see. But nevertheless, the Americans are now launching a very serious arms race. They are excluding [the possibility of restraint]. They have old warheads lying in storage—our limitation is on deployed warheads; there are also non-deployed ones, not on launchers. They will start putting these on old missiles or start ramping up something else.

So, unfortunately, an arms race is coming. And China isn’t ready. And we, in general, say, “Guys, wait a second. You want to drag China in, even though we have no mutual assistance treaties with them. And wouldn’t you also like to drag France and Britain into this treaty? With their 600, well, 700 warheads, which are already in your coordinate system and will be aimed at us in the event of a big nuclear war. Let’s count all those warheads then.”

Furthermore, there’s the so-called missile defense. There’s an imbalance in our favor? No, an imbalance against us because the interceptors and radar systems are located near our borders. To level this out, either we need to remove them from Europe, or we need to deploy in Latin America, in Cuba, or somewhere in Venezuela. But now we understand that’s hardly possible. Then there’s the militarization of space—launching satellites that will have laser interceptor capabilities or something else. That is, actual weapons. This causes a new arms race.

In general, actually, everything is very turbulent, and Trump will easily bury START because he needs to introduce new systems right now.

Host: Well, regarding the effectiveness of the weapons that exist: that American armada that approached Iran and is still there, not going anywhere. And generally, the question hangs in the air: what will happen next? Iran has very serious weapons. Most importantly, they have hypersonic missiles. And even their last exchange, or what they call the “12-day war,” showed that it’s not so simple with Iran. You can’t just throw hats at them. It seems to me that even the Americans are taking a huge risk by bringing an aircraft carrier group so close. Because the sinking of an aircraft carrier would be a major blow. Having hypersonic missiles, theoretically, sinking an aircraft carrier isn’t that difficult. Confirm this for the people who understand this. How much are they risking right now? First and foremost, reputational damage. It seems to me that if it comes to action, there could be a very serious, well, a small Pearl Harbor.

Andrey: Two aspects. First, the Americans are used to acting with brute force, using so-called “aircraft carrier diplomacy”—formerly “gunboat diplomacy.” They bring in a carrier strike group and start bargaining for favorable document signings, strategies, everything else. Actually, what’s happening around Iran isn’t about nuclear weapons, because Iran doesn’t threaten America. They perfectly understand that Iran is unlikely to launch anything because they would get their entire territory destroyed in response. It’s not about protecting protesters—everyone’s forgotten about them already; they were shot or jailed, no one cares. It’s about maintaining global dominance.

Because the main problem for America—we and China are systematically hitting, India is hesitating, sometimes for us, sometimes unclear—is de-dollarization. We are making American securities unwanted by anyone in the world. Indeed, this process has started. A sharp, huge growth in US public debt accumulation, a virtually vertical curve, because all the world’s central banks are simply getting rid of American securities, almost by half. The Chinese have reduced from 1.3 trillion to 600 billion. Japan, too, partly sells, partly buys. Other countries of the world? Their own budget buys them—they print money and buy their own bonds.

For the dollar to be back in circulation, it must be tied to some carrier. People will need to hold this money to buy [that carrier]. And through oil, they will return this power. So, Venezuela will now sell via dollars to India and China? The Americans say, “We won’t restrict anyone.” Second, of course, is the Middle East. By defeating Iran, forcing them to act by their rules, then the other Persian Gulf monarchies will also switch back to dollars. How dare Saudi Arabia refuse to peg to the dollar and trade its oil in dirhams, or worst of all, in yuan? And place some exchanges there, something else? Such unheard-of insolence. By punishing one, they will force all the others to switch. The dollar will strengthen, they can print it calmly again, and buy goods and services worldwide.

Iran, in this regard, is a tough nut to crack. It’s not that simple here. This isn’t the betrayal in Venezuela, where the president was handed over due to an invasion, and not a single anti-aircraft missile was fired from a single helicopter, even though many training exercises were shown, etc. Trump boasts about some miracle energy weapon called the “deconsolidator” [likely a sarcastic reference to a fictional weapon]. He’s proud of this word he invented. We and China look at this with a slight smile, because the anti-aircraft missiles of our systems that didn’t fire couldn’t have done so from hangars—mothballed, not brought to combat positions.

But with Iran, of course, it will be different. However, I have this opinion: Iran is not afraid, nor do they act like the Russians. We [Russians] tear our shirts open and charge at a machine-gun nest to cover it with our chests so our comrades can capture it. They are very precise. Everything they do is measured. In my understanding, the “Polygraph” [Shahed drone] operation, when they hit that mountain, was a “fixed match” [a setup, a pre-arranged deal]. Because the S-300 complexes and other air defense systems there would have guaranteed to shoot something down—some plane, or they could have unexpectedly emerged from some cave and fired at these drones they call “stealth” for us (they are just low-observable, not stealth). They would have swept all this away without question. But there were no shots fired. So they allowed this to happen, hoping it would appease the Americans for a while.

And the Americans, being in this coordinate system, are not used to it—the so-called “precedent.” If there was a precedent, a fixed match, if it happened, and last time they struck an American base somewhere in a field, and no one was hurt, why can’t it happen again? Another issue is that this doesn’t suit Israel.

Israel is truly afraid, first, of Iran’s serious missile program. Because Iran has done its “mistake analysis.” Iran, launching a huge line of its ballistic missiles, including hypersonic ones, saw how the missiles hit, that they weren’t intercepted by atmospheric THAAD systems, American or Israeli. And they are, of course, ramping them up in their underground plants, which the DPRK helped create. That’s a big problem for Israel. Plus, of course, the nuclear program. They [Israel] don’t want a ground operation so much as they want to bomb everything there, roll it all back, like in the Gaza Strip. Iran said, “Guys, firstly, you won’t be able to do it with the same ease you had before, because we’ve caught all the spies. That whole pager operation, etc.—Iran has now cleared all that out.” Especially in the latest demonstrations, they’ve caught all the disloyal ones. We can say the regime there is very stable now.

And from a military standpoint, Iran has, of course, powerful hypersonic capabilities, including anti-ship hypersonic missiles. This threatens the American aircraft carriers and everything else. Sinking one? Well, maybe one missile won’t sink an aircraft carrier, but it will guaranteed put it out of action. And for the Americans, that’s a serious geopolitical blow. And for Trump now, on the eve of midterm elections, when he has a lot of domestic issues in America, starting such an operation is, of course, very difficult. He’s trying to play, to pressure Iran. Iran understands this perfectly well. It seems to me that Iran is even playing along to some extent. Well, at least, that’s how it might appear.

Host: Another topic that is probably for a separate conversation, but you’ve spoken on this issue, so I decided to ask. The UN and its leader, Guterres, who spoke about Greenland in comparison to Crimea and Donbas. He spoke, but the comparison was: when it comes to Greenland, territorial integrity and the people’s right to self-determination are paramount. So, some can self-determine, others can’t. Here integrity must be observed, there it can be observed. This kind of approach. You’ve already spoken about this topic. But in your opinion, why and when did it start, when the UN began to lose its role as a place where issues could be resolved? The UN Security Council—it was created for this, to resolve such situations. Now it’s clear everything is hypertrophied, but even now with Iran, Greenland, etc., etc., to resolve there, not on the battlefield. But this hasn’t happened for a long time.

Andrey: You know, I’ll probably put it differently. I worked a lot in Russia in the foreign economic field, as a diplomat, and in Belarus, including at the Russian Embassy in Minsk, and at the Ministry of Economic Development, responsible for intergovernmental commissions, etc. I saw how closed negotiation tracks go, including when we held the first meeting between Armenia and Azerbaijan at the vice-premier level, how this exchange of opinions goes, etc. I came to the following conclusion: Within the framework of international interactions, any treaty, any piece of paper, has absolutely no significance.

I heard with my own ears, when one of the CIS countries completely violated financial agreements, we asked, “Guys, we have a signed document with you; you are obliged to do this according to it.” They said, “We didn’t.” “Well, it just happened that way, we didn’t do it.” And only after the inclusion of some additional decisions, some restrictions, did they immediately begin to fulfill their obligations. Only some kind of interlinking of events [works].

Therefore, in my understanding, it [the UN] has never, throughout its entire history, been a platform that allowed for the resolution of complex geopolitical processes. It’s just one big forum that allows people to meet and negotiate. And the decisions that were implemented by countries were already a consensus formulated by the great powers, so to speak. Yes, it happened on the UN platform—it’s convenient, there are people, everyone can communicate in one place. But if it didn’t exist, they would meet, say, in Geneva, in a hotel, and hold the same forum, agreeing on what suits them. Because only great powers can negotiate. That’s it.

Any resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council are not implemented. They are simply ignored, or they pretend, “You know, we have reasons why we didn’t do it.” We see this with a number of issues. We see Israel violates one set of documents, and then simultaneously, after that, they appeal to others and say, “Look, there’s a resolution, why are you violating it in Libya, or something else?” So, there is always some ability to manipulate.

We see that international courts don’t work. Nothing works. Why? Because there is no force that can compel it. The UN doesn’t have its own troops that it can directly command. These are peacekeepers, who are national; they always have very strong restrictions. If there is no consensus among the great powers, none of this works at all.

Therefore, Guterres’s speech, the speeches of the heads of the IAEA and others—this double standard—is an indicator that, unfortunately, the Western civilization, which is currently cracking at the seams and beginning to segment, controls these organizations. Like the Olympic Games. The Israeli delegation was booed, and immediately the heads of the Olympic Movement said in a speech, “It is unacceptable for athletes to be held responsible for the policies of their state, the sports charter…” Then everyone asks the question, “What about the Russians?” But it remains unanswered. It’s different. So, unfortunately, it’s different. We’re losing on this issue.

So, right now, a very serious restructuring is underway. Trump made a loud bid with his “Peace Council,” and we saw how quickly Belarus reacted by joining. True, there was such an unacceptable level of protocol error, when Belarus was confused with Belgium in the signing document. Belarus was not included in the final lists when Trump signed in Davos, but Belgium—which didn’t confirm this—was included. And this topic has now faded; it’s unclear how it will work. By the way, Russia’s proposal also hangs in the air: that we are ready to contribute a billion dollars from our frozen assets in the US, and Trump could easily allocate it, but he, apparently, is not taking these actions. He’s also not implementing his other, probably, promises he gave us.

Host: I don’t know why leaders of such organizations make statements like that—and him in particular. Even if he showed even some diplomacy, not making such comparisons. At a minimum, some authority would be preserved for someone in someone’s eyes. But here, everything is just being destroyed over nothing. Why do it? I don’t understand. That is, either he understands that the organization has completely lost everything that can be lost—especially since they have financial problems, and the States, as I understand it, don’t support them strongly…

Andrey: Well, you remember correctly. Guterres is an age-limited guy. He wants to meet old age calmly, not be indicted anywhere, to leave this position peacefully, and not have his accounts seized. These goals, actually, are already in this category. Therefore, he understands who has the power, who can do bad and painful things to him. And in this regard, unfortunately, it’s not made [in China/Russia], but the Americans, who are not shy about it at all. They have no moral qualms here; they act exclusively from a position of strength. And it works, as we can see.

Host: With your permission, I’ll return to the beginning of our conversation, the situation on the territory of Ukraine. You described in detail what is happening, how it is happening, and the principles. But look, maybe this is a distorted perception, but the layman often sees reports on the internet, for example, that up to 70%—such figures are also mentioned—of mobilized servicemen inside Ukraine go AWOL, they desert. That is, the morale of the AFU, judging by these reports, is below the plinth. Material supply, technical support, ammunition, etc.—everything is so bad. And the next question, probably, should already be asked somewhere. But somehow, this isn’t happening. That is, either we have an incorrect understanding of what is actually happening, or we don’t know something.

Andrey: No, we, unfortunately, have slightly inflated expectations of the speed of the disintegration of the Ukrainian authorities and everything else. And here, in this regard, I am not shy about saying that the enemy should not be underestimated. He is sophisticated, smart, and he devises ways to continue resisting. Because if everything were as we see it, then why isn’t the front crumbling? Why are we advancing with such difficulty? A question that the average person, reading the news, looking, looking, doesn’t understand. Because, unfortunately, it’s not like that.

I argued with colleagues on air that one shouldn’t count on NABU [National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine], which just got involved last year, to just sweep Zelensky away. No, this is a show they are putting on for foreigners to show that something works, that even Zelensky’s friends can suffer, etc. He completely controls the situation.

Moreover, Zelensky is a very dangerous and terrifying adversary for Europeans. They aren’t shy about saying it. And I’ll remind you that Belarus’s neighbor, Poland, in the person of Foreign Minister Sikorski, once said in an emotional outburst: “We are not happy that the fighting will end now. Because the Ukrainian military, drunk on blood, accustomed to money, looting, and everything else, will go with their families to Europe, to us, and we won’t be able to contain that level of terrorism.”

And worst of all, if suddenly they have elections and a pro-Russian leader comes to power, and the combined grouping of Ukraine and Russia unites—this Slavic brotherhood—and if they go West with Belarus, then we [Europe] will never stop them. They speak openly about this: that Russians must die there. And, by the way, they don’t distinguish between Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians. These are all “Russians” for them, who are a threat from the East.

So Zelensky understands all this very skillfully, exploits it, and receives new money. Unfortunately, when people say now, “The Americans have reduced supplies,” we used to measure this in tanks. Now we need to measure it in drones. And those 50 billion that the G7 promised Zelensky for 2026, translate that into not-very-expensive drones. When one drone costs a thousand dollars, and one artillery shell costs 10 thousand dollars, plus the gun and everything else… They plan to produce 7 million drones this year. These are simply mind-boggling figures.

Moreover, as I already said, we Russians need to think about whether we will impact enterprises located in EU countries or not. Because the situation is incorrect: they can strike wherever they want, and we are only up to this border. And beyond that, they are, as they say, “in the house” [safe]. And in this regard, indeed, all of this is heading towards a very big conflict with Europe. They are preparing for it, citing dates like 2028. The same German 45th Brigade, which is currently massively deploying in the Baltics, in Lithuania—that’s against Belarus. Just like the 16th and 18th heavy mechanized divisions of Poland, which is the leader in militarization—that’s also against Kaliningrad and Belarus. They are preparing for a confrontation on the ground. It’s unclear yet whether this will be defensive actions or if they will provoke us somewhere, but everything is heading that way.

Zelensky is counting on this too. He understands that they will hold on until the Europeans enter. And, unfortunately, now—and I don’t rule out that such plans are being developed—we need to either escalate the conflict either with targets we haven’t shelled before, or by increasing the power, up to more serious weapon systems we have, including non-nuclear ones.

Host: It’s not for nothing that I asked about “Oreshnik,” you understand?
Andrey: The same “Oreshnik” could be used against hydraulic structures, bridges, tunnels, and everything else. By blocking, say, some Carpathian tunnels, or something else, the interaction with Europe… of course, there will be howling from the Europeans. But I don’t rule out that in some time we will have to do this. This, again, goes back to the questions you can… I look at the comments just in case, when it comes to the topic: why are those Carpathian tunnels still alive and working? The ports—how many times have they been hit, but still, they are still receiving ships. And what are they carrying there? It seems easy to us, but it’s not as easy as you say. They packed drones into a car, wrote “baby food,” and drove. So what? You’re going to strike baby food? Well, if it actually is baby food? Well, it’s complicated. Somehow, up to now, it’s all holding together.

Host: Thank you very much, Andrey, for your assessments and for this conversation. Good luck.
Andrey: Thank you.

EXPLANATION OF OBSCURITIES, IDIOMS, AND SARCASM

1. ГРОЗА европейцев! (Thunderstorm/Scourge of Europeans!): Used as a dramatic headline. “Гроза” (Grozа) means thunderstorm, but idiomatically it means a “scourge,” “terror,” or “menace.” It implies the “Oreshnik” missile is something that strikes fear into Europe.
2. Как оркестр получается (It’s like an orchestra): An analogy for coordination and dispersal. An orchestra has many instruments playing different parts in different locations, but they are synchronized. Here, it means spreading artillery batteries over a wide area (15-20 km) and having them fire in a coordinated, sequenced manner, making them hard to find and suppress.
3. напившиеся крови (drunk on blood): A very strong, visceral idiom. It doesn’t just mean “bloodthirsty”; it implies a state of addiction or intoxication from violence, dehumanizing the subject (Ukrainian soldiers) and presenting them as a danger even after the war.
4. “Бабойка” (Babayaga): This is a crucial term. In Slavic folklore, Baba Yaga is a witch who lives in a hut on chicken legs. In the context of the war, it has become slang for large, night-flying Ukrainian octocopter drones used for bombing. They are quiet, hard to see, and appear suddenly—hence the witch comparison. The expert uses it as a well-known code word.
5. “Мангалы” (Mangals): Literally a “barbecue” or “brazier.” This is the now-famous Russian military slang for the cope cages / anti-drone sheds welded onto tank turrets. It started as a mocking term but became standard. The expert uses it to highlight Russian adaptability and Western bureaucracy.
6. Штабы… пытались и создают нативные каналы (Headquarters… tried to and are creating native channels): “Native” (нативные) here means domestic, indigenous, or alternative/in-house solutions, as opposed to foreign (American/Starlink).
7. Чисто российское ноу-хау (Purely Russian know-how): Used sarcastically/defensively? Or proudly. It acknowledges the Mesh network as a unique Russian invention, implicitly countering the narrative that Russia is completely dependent on Western tech (Starlink).
8. Болванка (Dummy round/Slug): A critical description of the “Oreshnik” warhead. He states it uses inert metal slugs (tungsten/refractory alloy) rather than high explosives, relying solely on kinetic energy. This frames it as a “humane” or “non-escalatory” weapon of mass destruction.
9. Стрелы бога (Rods from God): A direct reference to the real-world US hypothetical space weapon project “Project Thor” or “Rods from God.” He uses this to legitimize the “Oreshnik” by saying, “The Americans wanted to do this sci-fi thing, we actually did it.”
10. гонка вооружения (arms race) / ДСНВ (START): The expert’s analysis of the US Strategic Command report to Trump is speculative but presented as fact. It frames US intentions as aggressive and intent on breaking treaties to achieve superiority.
11. Декомбулятор (Deconsolidator): This is pure sarcasm/mockery. He is making fun of Donald Trump’s tendency to invent grandiose-sounding, simplistic names for complex things (like “The Concept” for the Afghanistan withdrawal plan). He’s implying Trump’s threats are comical and ineffective.
12. Договорняк (Fixed match / Setup): A strong colloquialism for a sporting event where the outcome is pre-arranged (match-fixing). By saying the Iranian strike on the US base was a “договорняк,” he is claiming it was a secret deal: Iran got to save face by “attacking,” and the US agreed not to fire back. This implies the current threats are also theater.
13. не в ряд, а раскидываешь (not in a row, but you spread it out): Refers to the old Soviet/WW2 tactic of placing artillery in a long line (“в ряд”) for a massive barrage. Modern warfare, he argues, requires the “orchestra” method: dispersal.
14. кошки… демаскирующий фактор (Cats… a de-masking factor): A darkly humorous, hyper-realistic detail. It underscores how advanced surveillance has become. It’s not sarcasm, but a striking “obscure” fact that highlights the absurdity and intensity of modern camouflage.
15. Славянское братство (Slavic brotherhood): The expert uses this as a threat from the European perspective, not as his own sentiment. He is saying Europeans are terrified of the historic, cultural, and military re-unification of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus against the West.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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”).
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.

From the Youtube Video: “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abr6Pxqhs94“

УКРАИНСКИЙ ПЬЕМОНТ: МИФ ЗАПАДНОЙ УКРАИНЫ

Synopsis

This video presents a critical analysis of the modern “decolonization” narrative promoted in Ukraine, arguing that it is an imported ideological construct used to justify illiberal policies.

The speaker deconstructs the myth of Western Ukraine (Galicia/Bukovyna) as a “Ukrainian Piedmont”—a pure, ancient bastion of Ukrainian culture that enlightened the rest of the country.

Using historical census data and quotes from Ukrainian intellectuals like Ivan Franko and Volodymyr Vynnychenko, he demonstrates that major western cities like Lviv were historically predominantly Polish and Jewish, with Ukrainians forming a modest intellectual minority. He argues that a predominantly Ukrainian character in these regions emerged only after the mid-20th century due to the genocide of Jews, the deportation of Poles, and the expulsion of Germans—actions perpetrated by Nazi Germany, Ukrainian nationalist partisans, and the Soviet state.

The speaker contends that portraying Ukrainian history solely as one of victimhood under empires ignores periods where Ukrainians were also perpetrators and simplifies a complex past. He warns that using this oversimplified “myth of oppression” to justify banning languages, renaming places, and replacing one culture with another is a destructive path that prevents Ukraine from building a pluralistic, forward-looking future based on the interaction of its diverse cultural heritage.

Text: Andrii Baumeister

Hello, dear friends! We live in a world not only of hot wars, where a powerful state invades the territory of weaker ones, violating the boundaries of international law and dictating its will. But we also live in a world of cultural wars, ideological wars. When those same powerful states, using more powerful resources, intellectual propaganda media, create certain myths, certain narratives, which also act and are used as instruments of influence.

One such instrument of influence at the end of the 20th, but more so, at the beginning of the 21st century, became the so-called “new agendas,” which were spread worldwide by organizations like USAID, programs like DEI. These are programs and ideologies according to which the entire history of the West is a history of colonialism, imperialism, oppression, the restriction of freedoms. Liberation and decolonization are linked to a kind of revenge by the formerly colonized and oppressed peoples.

This ideology still needs to be studied, because we see for what purposes and in which countries it was used. But my current modest discussion on the topic of how this ideology bore fruit in my country, in Ukraine—I think this conversation will be the beginning of a whole cycle of discussions, so please don’t judge me too harshly.

Why did I decide to address this conversation? Primarily because I see how we are hindered by those clichés and ideological traps that were set by this ideology. Once again, they were invented not in Ukraine, not even in Eastern Europe, but invented in rather distant centers, yet sufficiently powerful in the United States and partly in Western Europe. By the way, Third World countries are also already trying to imitate such things, understanding the importance of soft power, but that’s not the conversation for now.

So, I want to analyze several important ideas of that myth, which can be called the myth of oppression and decolonization, but with a more specific refraction. What is the goal of my discussion? The goal of my discussion is to contribute to the liberation of the thinking of part of my fellow citizens, so that they might look a little from the outside at what seems to them to be axioms, what seems to them to be historical facts, what seems to them to be documented main principles. Most often, propaganda clichés are understood as facts; under certain rigid, understandable principles, there are often ideas concocted by small groups. And one such idea is the representation of Western Ukraine as the Ukrainian “Piedmont.” Let’s begin with a sort of prelude, an overture to this symphony. The overture might sound like this:

There was a terrible Russian Empire, then a terrible Soviet Union, where Ukrainian culture was oppressed, where there were very strong persecutions in the 19th and early 20th centuries, where Ukrainian culture broke through certain obstacles until 1917. But fortunately, fortunately for Ukrainian culture, there existed a Ukrainian Piedmont, namely Galicia and Bukovyna, where Ukrainian culture developed, where books were published, where there was a whole galaxy of intellectuals, writers, philosophers, composers, architects who developed this Ukrainian culture. And so when, having passed through the complexities of the 20th century (we’ll skip the details for now), Ukraine became an independent state in 1991, it was precisely this Ukrainian Piedmont that raised high the banner of the Ukrainian national idea, of Ukrainian cultural enlightenment, and began to spread it to other, less conscious parts of Ukraine: Central Ukraine, Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Poltava, Cherkasy, Kirovohrad (now Kropyvnytskyi), and to the completely unconscious (politically inert) territories of Ukraine, such as Luhansk Oblast, Donetsk Oblast, Kherson Oblast, and so on, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast. In this idea, in this myth of the Ukrainian Piedmont, there is much that is contrived.

It must be said that this Ukrainian Piedmont, from 1939-1940, became part of the Soviet Union, and much happened on the territory of not only these three regions. By the way, I will use the word “Galicia” so as not to grate on the ears of my Ukrainian compatriots (Halychyna, Bukovyna), since I’m speaking Russian, I will speak as is customary, say, in a certain language. But I will also quote directly from the page various Ukrainian texts, important testimonies, translating them immediately, and if I allow any inaccuracies, I will sometimes read fragments from the original texts.

Also, concluding the overture, I want to warn those who are incapable of reasoning calmly, objectively, who immediately turn on reactive emotions and react absolutely irrationally. I am addressing thinking people. I understand that what I’m about to say will irritate many, but I emphasize: what I’m about to say will be based on the texts of Ukrainian classics, on solid numbers from social surveys, and on solid historical facts, recorded in all the historiography of all historians who study the history of Ukraine—I mean American, European, and Ukrainian historians.

So, we are agreed. Let’s begin.

So, the Ukrainian Piedmont. We are talking about these three regions: Galicia, Bukovyna, and also Transcarpathia. Mainly Galicia and Bukovyna.

I call my first witness: Ivan Franko, who in 1905 writes an open letter, titled in the original language “An Open Letter to Ukrainian Youth.” By the way, the original Ukrainian is substantially different from the Ukrainian language we use today. Sometimes it’s even difficult to quote the Ukrainian original. For example, this letter “є” with two dots. It feels like Ivan Franko, our classic, overuses this letter. Also, there are many atypical phrases that today would more likely be understood as Polonisms or Germanisms. And they don’t look much like modern Ukrainian.

So, this “Open Letter” was written in 1905. What was the occasion? A revolution occurred in the Russian Empire in 1905. Emperor Nicholas II issued a decree (what would later be called a constitutional reform). And Ivan Franko insightfully understands that the era is changing. This is before World War I, before the 1905 revolution. And he understands that soon the barriers for various reasons—cultural, historical—between different parts of Ukraine will fall. And Galician youth will become part of a large cultural effort with other parts of Ukraine.

By the way, when I say “other parts of Ukraine”—and in his text, or for example, in the correspondence of Lesya Ukrainka from the late 19th, early 20th century—”Ukraine” very often refers to the Ukraine that is on the territory of the Russian Empire. Sometimes he calls it “Russian Ukraine,” and those Ukrainians “Russian Ukrainians.” And Lesya Ukrainka, for example, in letters often says that “we in Ukraine,” and “they in Galicia, where they do such and such.” And often, for example, Franko might use phrases like “Bukovynian Ukrainians,” “Galician Ukrainians,” “Russian Ukrainians.” We see the language was not settled.

So, what is the main pathos? A great cultural effort is beginning. Galician youth must remember that—this is directly in the letter—I quote the original published in 1905 with old orthography: “Since history is not created by heroes,” says Ivan Franko, “but history is a mass movement. Mass movement. You see, I’m quoting: ‘history is the movement of masses.’ And therefore, youth, especially intelligent Ukrainian youth, must participate in this great process, understanding that the masses decide everything.”

Here’s an interesting contradiction: he says much depends on these young people in the future, the near future. But simultaneously he says history is made by masses. We see here a populist ideology. This, by the way, distinguishes Franko from other Ukrainian figures I will talk about later.

But when we read this “Open Letter” (I advise reading it, it’s only about 15 pages), we can find much that is interesting for ourselves. I want to highlight, otherwise my analysis will take too much time, only some important points.

For example, he says that the existing, for now, Chinese walls that separate us from Ukraine will fall. He says, not even from Russia, just “from Ukraine.” Our literature and press must move to a higher level if it does not want to perish in competition with that type of literature and press which has been developed in Russia. Very wise. Ivan Franko is a wise man. He says that we will have to compete on the level of text quality and the quality of ideas. There is a certain quality there. We must compete. By the way, this differs sharply from how cultural struggle is understood today: as bans, one culture instead of another, not free competition.

Let’s go further. He talks about the necessity to compete. Then he says that you, Galician youth, must help the brothers in Ukraine who are on the other side of the border for now. And in the concluding part of the letter, he tries to answer the question: how exactly to help? This is very interesting. Starting from page 17—this is literally a reprint from the journal “Literaturno-Naukovyi Vistnyk,” issue 30. He enumerates what young Galicians cannot help Ukrainians there with, and what they can.

They cannot help financially, because “we are not rich in capital,” he says. No investments will go from us there. It sounds a bit strained because the modern world is a bit different. But then I’ll go into more detail.

Also, let me give the original and then translate for those who don’t understand Ukrainian, especially Franko’s Ukrainian:

“We also will not impress Ukrainians with our intelligence, with our zeal for theoretical enlightenment. A bitter fate forced us to grow up and educate ourselves in a land where, thanks to a gentry regime, science is considered an unsafe weapon.”

And then he continues. Translating more concisely: He says we also cannot help that Ukraine with cultural levels, since here, where we live, a bitter gentry regime, which does not consider science something serious, has ingrained in Ukrainians a low level of culture, a low level of intellectual work. Let’s note for ourselves: For current decolonizers, the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union are the main spawn of Hell, which oppressed Ukraine for 300 years. At the same time, they forget that a significant part of Ukraine, this very Ukrainian Piedmont, was part of other empires—for example, the Austro-Hungarian. And for Ivan Franko, the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and at the end of the letter we’ll see he contradicts himself) is for him a system of oppression. That is, the Austro-Hungarian one, but then also the Poles—the territory of Lviv, the autonomy, and with the Poles the situation is better since they are more culturally developed, and this Polish level very much influences us Ukrainians. So, we cannot help with culture either.

With what, then? Further, he says what we cannot help with: school textbooks. Because, unfortunately, it must be said, there is very little hope. Our textbooks written here by our Ukrainians in Volhynia are of a very low level.

And now the last two paragraphs. He asks: what can we help our brothers with? And, nevertheless, we here have something that can be useful to Ukrainians in Russia:

“I have in mind a practical mindset, a habit of paying more attention to concrete facts than to theories, and a more developed habit for public life, for organizations and parliamentarism. The long struggle for national rights has developed in us a certain tradition and not a small reserve of experience…” etc.

That is, what does he say? He speaks of the experience of public life of Ukrainians in Galicia, participation in parliamentarism, participation in debates in the Sejm, in the parliament in Vienna, including, for example, the Galician Sejm. And he says, with this we will help.

And let’s sum up: Ivan Franko perfectly understands the low financial levels—he himself was in need all his life. By the way, he wrote for Russian newspapers. He wrote for Polish ones, until he wrote a text that angered the Poles and they refused his texts. He was in need all his life. A man who never had a sufficient material level—very low, because he always lived in a very difficult atmosphere, and the Ukrainian idea in Galicia was not funded. One had to publish in Polish, Russian, Austrian, Berlin journals. There they paid money; here there is no money. So, not with finances, not with the level of education, not with the level of textbooks, but with parliamentarism. Remember? This is very important.

So, this is 1905.

Now let’s take another author, also a classic, after whom streets are also named in our country. This is Volodymyr Vynnychenko. “Revival of the Nation,” the third volume (the last, three volumes in total). And there he—I will refer to his book several times today, and maybe analyze it separately sometime—speaks about how when, during the Directory, the UNR, and then the Directory, we began to interact with the Galicians, one terrible thing was revealed. And what exactly, I will quote for you. Actually, this book is a bombshell. Immediately—a bombshell. Because when students read textbooks in school, or when the broad public is fed certain myths, again “revival of the nation,” “executed revival”—this is not a myth, it’s a fact, but the meaning is a myth. We will now see in what sense Vynnychenko uses “revival.” A little spoiler: In the sense of revival as a communist idea. This is Ukrainian Bolshevism. For him, bourgeois, liberal, religious, right-wing ideas are not the core of the nation’s revival. And his entire three-volume epic, “Revival of the Nation,” is aimed at justifying that we must become communists. And he collaborated with communists for a long time. He started as a leftist. He broke with them only around 1933. That is, throughout this period, he came to the Soviet Union, he offered his services. Moreover, in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, his collected works were published twice when many were banned. Once a 21-volume collected works of Vynnychenko, I think in 1923, and a second time a 23-volume collected works. Can you imagine what authority he enjoyed.

And so he writes about the Galicians the following:

“Sons of a poor, small country, beaten down by Polish lords and priests, raised on a degenerate-gentry Polish culture. A degenerate-gentry Polish culture.” (Asterisk: this is not me, this is a quote.) “Great Polish culture. Suckled on a pseudo-European civilization worldview.” Actually, these three volumes are one long rant. He has no analysis, no arguments. These are his great documents, where he writes declarations, texts, letters. And this is a rant.

And then he says that these sons of a beaten-down province, instead of turning to the popular masses or calling for an axe, a sickle, they engage in parliamentarism. They are used to chattering in courts and chattering in parliaments of different levels in Austria-Hungary. That is, for him, the European experience of parliamentarism is bad, it’s backwardness. What’s needed is revolution—that’s the constant pathos of revolution.

So it turns out Vynnychenko has a thought absolutely opposite to Franko’s. And if we add to this the radicals, like Bandera and all that group, or different groups (I won’t study different groups today that went under abbreviations like OUN, etc., I won’t talk about that now. I’ll speak about it as a general phenomenon), so for this group, the parliamentarism of the old ones, that is, the parliamentarism of the fathers, is bad. The fathers were intimidated by such young people as Bandera—literally intimidating their Ukrainian fathers. They humiliated them. They believed the path to a new Ukraine was through terror.

Look how interesting: For Franko, the future of Ukraine is parliamentarism. One. For Vynnychenko, the future of Ukraine is communist revolution. First here, then worldwide. Two. For Bandera, the revival of Ukraine is terror. Three. Parliamentarism—revolution—terror. You judge.

But then, when he speaks of these guys, he also says, when negotiations began in 1919, in Paris in 1919, he speaks of “little calves” wearing embroidered shirts and suddenly dressing in tailcoats, never knowing how to wear them. Young Galicians who poured into the best restaurants and best hotels of Europe—Paris, Berlin, Vienna—to there with a smart look, eating expensive food and pretending to be diplomats, having a great time. He hates diplomacy, hates parliament, hates lawyerly activity. He, by the way, was involved in that in his time.

I won’t even talk about how Poles are described here, just a few main metaphors. And, by the way, he hates the Entente (France and England), he doesn’t like them either. For example, he speaks of the Poles in Lviv and speaks of the revolution that had already choked in November 1918. “Having deceived Ukrainians with their submissiveness, they gathered forces, that is, the Poles, prepared, and attacked the Ukrainians on November 4th in Lviv itself. And it turned out the Poles had more forces.” And they had more forces because the majority of the population in Lviv was Polish. And it could help its military. The struggle in Lviv and its surroundings lasted three weeks, and the Ukrainians had to yield. We’ll talk a little about this today.

But then he tears into the Poles, and for several pages we read, for example, like this. By the way, he tears the Entente and the Poles to shreds because they attack Bolshevik Russia, the worker-peasant state, and try to overthrow the regime there. And so he says, when speaking of the Poles: “the most repulsive branch of social parasites. The gentry, aristocracy, professors, engineers, scientists, artists. This is the most repulsive branch of social parasites.” Further: “Polish divisions of Haller, reformed, trained, armed by the French, seeded with French officers. These divisions, in which the Polish was only cannon fodder, were little suited to go to the Bolshevik front, they eagerly rushed against Russian workers-peasants. The Polish gentry, and its servants, socialists in lapty [bast shoes], like Piłsudski, Daszyński, etc., against Ukrainians.” And further he says they sat like spiders on the land, that this Poland, which for a century and a half crawled in royal antechambers of the whole world, and complained about oppression and injustice from the tsars, this Poland now revealed its knightly nature. “Like a villainous and insolent lackey, who, instead of being given pennies for this dirty-pan work, steals them and does speculation, so the Entente’s Eastern boor and gendarme.” And so it continues. This is what he says about Poland. Degenerate gentry, boors, gendarmes, spiders, bloodsuckers.

Why did I cite these two texts? Both Franko and Vynnychenko understand that Galicia is no Piedmont. That cultural life there is only in its very infancy. And that in comparison with German, Polish, Jewish cultures (I mean culture: all texts, novels, philosophy, social science, natural sciences), to put it mildly, they are lacking. But if Franko sees Galicia’s advantage in parliamentarism and the ability to conduct politics in an evolutionary way, for Vynnychenko this is the curse of a beaten-down province. These are the two images.

Thus, we have taken the first step in our conversation.

Now we’ll move to numbers. Numbers before World War I and between the world wars. The percentage of residents of the main cities of “Western Ukraine.” I put “Western Ukraine” in quotes because it’s a construct assembled from different histories, different cultures. Primarily, of course, this is Lviv Oblast, Chernivtsi Oblast, Transcarpathia. Volhynia is a bit different; Volhynia is mistakenly called Western Ukraine, but it was a different culture, a different cultural code, primarily connected with Orthodoxy.

So, numbers. If you can’t keep up with the numbers, you can rewind, go back, and listen again.

So, population of Lviv Voivodeship. This is the first general census of population, September 30, 1921. Polish census—I give references to it, and also to the original text. So, Lviv Voivodeship (I’m not talking about all of the Second Polish Republic). Poles: 1,537,986 people, 56.5% of the population. Ukrainians: 975,268, that’s 35.88% of the population. Jews: 190,368, 7% of the population. Germans: 12,436 people.

Statistics for all of Poland: This census showed (I looked into this specifically at the time), total population of the Second Polish Republic: 25,694,700 people. All of Poland. Same 1921 census. Poles: 17,789,287, that’s 69.23%. Ukrainians: 3,898,428, that’s 15.17%, a bit over 15%. Jews: 2,048, that’s 7.97%. Look, the total number of Ukrainians is only just over a million more than Jews. So, to reflect. Belarusians: 1,035, 4% of the population. Germans: 769, almost 3% of the population. Lithuanians: 24,000, 0.9% of the population. Russians: 48,920, that’s 0.19%, more than Lithuanians. “Tutejsi” (locals): 38,000, people who didn’t identify. Czechs: 30,628, that’s 0.12%. And others also couldn’t identify: 9,856 people, 0.4%. That’s how it was for all of Poland.

And now the population of Lviv. You see how I took Lviv Voivodeship, all of Poland, and the population of Lviv. This is the same 1921 census? No, this is already the population of Lviv in 1931. That was 1921, now population of Lviv in 1931. Poles: 63.5%. Jews: 24.1%. Ukrainians: 7.8%. Ruthenians: 3.5%. And Germans: 0.8%. Thus, Poles and Jews according to the census make up 87.6% of the residents of Lviv. Again, 87% of Lviv residents.

Now, let’s go on. Life passed from 1921, 1931, 1939—shortly before World War II. Population of Lviv in August 1939: total 333,500. By the way, if you think this is a forgery by Polish lords and professors, go into these documents, these censuses, and you’ll see that the Poles, especially in the early years, around 1920 and early 1930s, turned to French sociologists for help. They didn’t have experience yet, and so it’s interesting. This census often, the Polish language is duplicated by French in main terms, main titles.

So, population of Lviv in August 1939, a month before World War II: total 333,500. Poles: 169,900, that’s 50.9%. Jews: 104,700, that’s 31.4%. Accordingly, Poles and Jews together: that’s 81.3%, it was 84, remember? Ukrainians and Ruthenians here together (because they argue, and sometimes attack me: “What are you doing? What does it mean? Nothing of the sort—read, compare, and you’ll learn that sometimes one term is used as a synonym, consciousness of different groups differs from each other”). So, Ukrainians and Ruthenians: 53,200, 16% of Lviv residents. Germans: 2,600. And others: 3,100. So that’s our statistics for 1939.

Now let’s go through cities not as large as Lviv. I’m giving numbers now, and then we’ll discuss these numbers. In this case, these numbers, population of Lviv 1939, I quote from the book by Grzegorz Hryciuk, “Polacy we Lwowie, 1939-1944. Życie społeczne” (Warsaw, 2000), where he also references the census.

Population of Stanyslaviv (only from 1962 was it called Ivano-Frankivsk—Soviet power also loved to rename everything—Ivano-Frankivsk, it was Stanyslaviv, it was connected with the name of a king, the gentry created this city). So, before September 17, 1939, Stanyslaviv: Jews 46%, Poles 36%, Ruthenians about 15%, Armenians 2%, Hungarians, Germans, Roma about 1%. Reference to Raimund Piłsudski, “Polskie Kresy, z dziejów…” Warsaw, 1921, page 152. Again, Stanyslaviv: Jews 46%, Poles 36%, in total that’s 82%. Armenians 2% = 84%, plus 1% Hungarians, Germans, Roma = 85%. And there could be Ukrainians and Ruthenians, total 15%.

Population of Vilnius in September 1939, that is, directly before World War II: total in the city of Vilnius (often Vilnius, capital of a whole country, maybe Vilna people will forgive) lives 209,000 people in 1939 in September. Poles: 137,000, 66%. Jews: 58,000, that’s 28%. Russians: 7,000, that’s 3%. Lithuanians: 1,500 people, 1%. Belarusians: 1,600 people, also a bit over 1%. And so, Poles and Jews, that’s already 94% of the population of Vilnius. 94% of the population.

Here, Raimund Piłsudski in this book on page 13 even says: “We became a nation that, in comparison with other nations, lost the greatest percentage of its population in the course of World War II: 20%. Even greater losses were among the elite, for Germans, Ukrainians, and Russians destroyed, left to their conscience, more than 50% of our intelligentsia. Poland lost more than 30% of its territory.”

Now, Lutsk. Population of Lutsk on January 1, 1939. This is data from the English-language Wikipedia for now; I compared several sources. Actually, if you go to Ukrainian Wikipedia pages for Lviv, Rivne, Stanyslaviv, you’ll see that in these articles, all of this is either very little or not there at all. The authors of Wikipedia don’t want to know these numbers. Sometimes they mention them, but after or before this period.

So, Lutsk on January 1, 1939: total 39,000 people. Lutsk: Jews 17,500, Poles 13,500. Out of 39,000 people, 31,000 are Jews and Poles. No other data according to English Wikipedia. So Poles and Jews constitute the overwhelming majority.

Lutsk County—now I’m referencing a county, a whole region: total 316,000 people. Ukrainians 59% (so no one says I’m not objective). Rural areas of Volhynia and Galicia in certain regions have more Ukrainian peasants; some of them don’t know they are Ukrainian peasants, some call themselves Ruthenians. But when we evaluate these numbers, we’ll talk about the quantity of population, about elites, which are still created in cities, not in villages. In villages of the Second Polish Republic lived who? There’s the gentry, palaces, libraries, concert halls, breweries, wine industry—mainly beer industry. This culture, which goes from the city to the village, is a gentry village. And a peasant village is not only connected with Ukrainians, Belarusians, other peasants; they don’t yet live by cultural interests, and for them questions of identity, culture, philosophy, natural sciences, classical music simply don’t exist. This must be understood. They will later receive, in another system, including the Soviet system, general access to education, to musical culture, to science, etc.

Poviat: Ukrainians 59%, Poles 19.5%, Jews 14%. Poles 19.5%. Czechs, Germans: 23,000 people—such compact groups. And as far as I know, even in later Soviet times, in Volhynia there were whole Czech villages where Czechs lived and Czech traditions, etc.

Population of Lutsk, 31… I told you before the war, August 1931: total 35,500. Here I’m already quoting Polish data, Polish Wikipedia: total 35,500 in Lutsk. Jews 17,000, Poles 11,000, Ukrainians 3,000. Ukrainian-language Wikipedia does not provide any detailed statistics except general for Lutsk: “Чисельність мешканців зросла з 30 тисяч одразу після війни до 40 тисяч у 1932 р.” Translation: they indicate the general growth of population in Lutsk after World War I until 1939, absolutely not asking who and what, to whom it belongs.

Volhynian Voivodeship in 1931: Ukrainians 68% of the population in 1931. Czechs, Jews, Germans. And finally, Rivne. We talked about Lutsk, now Rivne. Population of Rivne in 1939, Polish Wikipedia: population 41,500. Jews 21,000, Poles 15,000. So Jews and Poles, majority of the population: 36,000 out of 41,500. Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia do not provide any data for the periods we are interested in, 1918-1939. No data. But it’s not advantageous for them.

And I’ll conclude with the population of Chernivtsi and Uzhhorod; this is also interesting.

So, population of Chernivtsi in 1930 (English Wikipedia): in Chernivtsi live 112,400 people in 1930. Jews 26.8%, Romanians 23.2%, Germans 20.8%, Ukrainians 18.6%. That’s Chernivtsi. German Wikipedia provides data for 1925, 5 years earlier for Chernivtsi: total in Chernivtsi then 90,000 (we see in 5 years growth of several tens of thousands). So in 1925 in Chernivtsi: 90,000, Jews 40%, Germans 20%, Romanians 20%, Ukrainians 20%. That regarding Chernivtsi.

And finally, Uzhhorod. In 1910, total there live 16,919 people, a small city in 1910. Hungarians constitute 80.3%. Hungarians in Uzhhorod in 1910. Germans 6.8%, Slovaks 7.2%, Ruthenians 641 people, Czechs 1.6%. Again, Ruthenians—that means there could be Ukrainians, could be Ruthenians—641 people, that’s what? Let’s now see other data: Jews, by the way, are not indicated in Uzhhorod. But in the same paragraph, the next sentence (I mean the English Wikipedia), the religious composition of the population is indicated: there 5,305 people profess Judaism, and then Roman Catholics, Calvinists. That’s the data.

And finally, I will quote Timothy Snyder, “Bloodlands,” translation 2021, where there is this: “The territory of the Second Polish Republic” (all this you’ve seen, Polish data, English, German data; Ukrainian data are absent, and Russian-language data most often conceal this). “The territory of the Second Polish Republic was smaller than that of the First Polish Republic, but its population was still very heterogeneous. Up to 65% of the population of the Second Polish Republic were ethnic Poles, and Ukrainians, Jews, Germans, Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Russians were considered national minorities. About 5 million Ukrainians, constituting about 16% of the total population, were the largest minority of the Second Polish Republic of the country. Ukrainians constituted the majority: about 3.5 million of them lived in the former Habsburg Eastern Galicia, and about 1.5 million in the once Russian Volhynia. At the same time, the population of both large and small cities of southeastern Poland consisted mainly of Jews and Poles. Ukrainians of Galicia…” etc. I won’t quote further.

What do these numbers tell us? On what is built this modern agenda or new agenda ideology, which was brought into Ukraine along with funds at the end of the 20th century? The main pillars, main ideas of this agenda consisted in that this was an imperial system, dominance, imperial oppression; this was a colonial regime. Accordingly, Ukraine’s task is to decolonize, and since the communists were also colonizers, to decommunize. Remember: decommunization and decolonization are two aspects of one problem. In order to justify intolerant, non-European politics regarding languages, culture, especially after 2014-2015, in all Ukrainian history, the most tragic episodes were taken, which were declared intentional genocide by imperial forces.

What we know from 20th-century history: we are taught, first of all, about the Bolshevik massacre or the Makhnovist bands that came from the north, captured Kyiv, Kharkiv, Kyiv, and established themselves and created an empire here, and Ukraine failed to defend a liberal republican path. Then they tell us about, after Makhno’s bands and Stalinism, they tell us about the “Executed Renaissance,” that’s the early 1930s. And after the Executed Renaissance, they tell us about the Holodomor. After 1945, they focus on the dissident movement and the heroic struggle of the UPA, conditionally from 1943 to 1950, as a resistance movement, which also partly got their sentences, lived, returned, etc. That is, we get the feeling this is total oppression where Ukraine is always the victim.

Therefore, the decolonizer or new agenda, in order to justify modern non-European, non-democratic, illiberal moves, portrays 20th-century history as total destruction. We need to understand this. First, not only was Ukraine not always the victim; it was also a perpetrator. One of the first holocausts was carried out by Khmelnytsky with his Cossacks—they killed Jews and Poles on a national basis. That’s genocide. The Koliivshchyna, sung by Taras Shevchenko—that’s simply massacre and genocide. Jewish pogroms under Petliura—they were also under Denikin. Now they try to justify Petliura, saying he didn’t know, couldn’t influence his atamans. In this book, Vynnychenko directly accuses Petliura of doing nothing to prevent actual genocide or actual pogroms. Summer of 1941, when Germans enter Lviv—that’s a heavy stain on our history. And that’s genocide. Terrible photos, terrible memories: people were simply humiliated and killed and beaten right on the streets. That’s summer 1941. Further, 1943-44, the so-called Volhynia massacre, but simply Volhynia became a byword.

I’m not saying now, since I’m addressing thinking people, that Ukraine is a perpetrator and Ukrainians committed genocide. But I’m also not saying that Ukraine is a victim and always a victim. I’m saying something else: that in the history of humankind, in the history of European nations, especially the last 150 years, often the same nation was both oppressor and victim. Like the Poles between the world wars: it wasn’t Stalinism, not the Gulag, but still an unfair policy towards Ukrainians. But simultaneously Poles were later victims, starting with the arrival of the Germans and in Soviet times when they were simply deported. So too the Germans: they were both victims and, you know what they did. And the French in the 20th century: they were often punishers, but were also victims. The English, Italians, Spaniards, and so on and so forth.

But when your main historical message and construction of history is built on the cult of the absolute victim, and when they tell you that all of Ukraine’s 20th-century history is an attempt to survive in total genocide, the destruction of our culture, and our current state is caused by the Executed Renaissance, the Holodomor, and the struggle of the young guys who fought for the Ukrainian idea under the banner of various groups of Melnyk, Bandera, different groups—this is propaganda falsehood. Because from it conclusions are drawn for modern practical politics: to ban, to cancel, to put one thing instead of another.

And why did I talk about this with a focus on Galicia as the Ukrainian Piedmont? Because if we calmly, without emotions and without inventions (I’ll talk about inventions a little), look at the numbers and ask ourselves, especially addressing residents of Central Ukraine, and also Western Ukraine: when you come to Lviv (I love this city very much and am on very good terms with a number of intellectuals in this city; maybe there are now), my feeling is that this city, this architecture, these churches were created by some other people. And that after 1945, a completely different life began to flow there. And the university, and science, and architecture, and music, and theater—as I quoted, as a young man was told by his teacher, also a very famous philosopher: “You are lucky, we are such lucky people, we live in the most beautiful, most European city of Europe.” That was said in the 1920s of the 20th century.

That is, if we apply these numbers to this (you remember, I hope), then what we call Western Ukraine, in terms of the development of Ukrainian culture and language, arose on three pillars: genocide (of three peoples). The Germans destroyed the Jews with the help of local Ukrainian, Belarusian police in the Baltic countries; they took less part, did not provoke massacres, and the Einsatzgruppen with the command. First, the Jews were destroyed. Then the Germans took on the Poles. And what they didn’t finish, Soviet power finished by deporting Poles from the territory of Western Ukraine. Look: there are no more Jews (I’m talking 1945-46), no more Poles (deportation), Germans—those not killed, what the Czechs did terribly to the Germans, either killed or arrested somewhere, sent to Siberia, or they are waves of refugees who fled further west. What do we see? We see that three peoples, in different percentage, demographic relations—Poles, Jews, and Germans—on the territory of Lviv, Chernivtsi, Lutsk, Rivne created the majority of the intellectual product and determined the profile of city life. Ukrainians in this regard, as we recall from Vynnychenko, from Franko, were a very modest intellectual-cultural group. Many Ukrainian peasants lived in villages, but again, generally ideas of identity are not created by peasants who don’t even know who they are—”tuteishi” (locals), others, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, etc.

So, it is precisely these three peoples that strangely, in quotes, disappeared from these cities, disappeared from this territory. After them remained houses, lands, art galleries, libraries (like the Ossolineum Library), libraries, industry (because although there were few Germans, there still existed industry; for example, Poland, if we talk about Żywiec, or talk about Wedel chocolate, Żywiec beer—that’s all German production). It turns out that this is genocide, linguicide, because in these cities after 1945, at the level of 20-30%, no one spoke German, no one spoke Yiddish, no one spoke Polish on such a scale. That is, it’s linguicide and culturicide.

I’m not saying this is a characteristic of one or another nation. Again, my thesis: that in history, often the same nation can be in one sense a victim, in another a perpetrator. I’m talking about something else. I’m addressing my intellectual colleagues who, like sirens, sing hymns of these new agendas and tell of the terrible genocidal legacy of the empire, simultaneously banning, demolishing, renaming, and putting one culture not as an addition to another, but instead of another. If you think that what I’m saying is only based on Polish, European sources, then for example, if we take the books of the well-known friend of Ukraine, namely Timothy Snyder, we will find there very many facts and arguments that work precisely for my position, although I think in many, most cases we have disagreements.

Here I’ll quote several books from Timothy Snyder’s “Bloodlands.” He speaks of the Polish operation of Soviet power, when they came to Poland in 1939, and already after 1945, there remained about 70% of the number of Poles in the entire Soviet Union in Western Ukraine, and only… In the course of the Polish operation in Soviet Ukraine, 55,928 people were arrested (this is immediately, the end of the 1930s), of which 47,000 were executed. That is, Soviet power kills Poles starting from 1939-40. In 1937-38, Poles had a probability 12 times higher than the rest of the new population of Soviet Ukraine to be arrested, etc. And further numbers: pages 140, 145, 179—we won’t quote them.

I want to come to other numbers. The Germans destroyed about 1,300,000 Jews in the former eastern Poland from 1941 to 1942 with the help of local police. Some of these Ukrainian police helped. Ukrainian partisan armies in 1943, which under the leadership of Ukrainian nationalists cleansed the once southeastern Poland. This is quoted, “Bloodlands,” pages 424-425, Russian translation. “The OUN of Bandera,” Snyder writes, “a nationalist organization leading a partisan army, had long promised to free and kill Poles. Its ability to kill Poles depended on German training, and the resolve to kill Poles was connected to the desire to cleanse the territory of an assumed enemy before the final confrontation with the Red Army. The UPA killed tens of thousands of Poles and provoked revenge by Poles against the Ukrainian civilian population.” And now attention: “Although the UPA were implacable opponents of communism, the ethnic conflict it began only strengthened the Stalinist empire. Stalin finished what the Ukrainian nationalists started. He continued to remove Poles, attaching the contested Polish territory to Soviet Ukraine.“

That is, what we call Western Ukraine—and this is not propaganda, these are numbers, judgments of historians, judgments of philosophers—what we now call Western Ukraine, where the majority are Ukrainians, where the Ukrainian language is dominant, from here was born the complex idea of the Ukrainian Piedmont in some golden periods of the late 19th, early 20th century, as a result of imperial politics at the beginning, of National Socialists, then of Ukrainian nationalists (not imperial, but nationalist politics), and of the imperial politics of Stalin (if you like, you call all this empires). Essentially, Hitler and Stalin cleared for Ukraine the predominance of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainians in this region, especially in large cities. That’s one.

And second, initially the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, and then the Yalta agreements, which secured the theft, part of then internationally recognized Polish territory, and its alienation into the composition… And it’s interesting: when people hear that Stalin essentially annexed Western Ukraine to the Soviet Union, and therefore Ukraine within the 1991 borders is a product of, unquestionably on one hand Lenin (because those, Hrushevsky, Vynnychenko, and Petliura, lost; who annexed? Lenin), that this is essentially a product of the imperial activity of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin—people whom I do not accept, but these are facts. And when these facts are named, they say to me: “This is all propaganda.” What, did Bandera create the 1991 borders? Or Vynnychenko with Hrushevsky? Again, Hrushevsky went to serve the Soviet Union and even served as the head of a major academic institution and died under mysterious circumstances in the years of arrests, even before a very old age, in the mid-1930s. Vynnychenko, in conclusion…

I’ll return to this book: Vynnychenko, who called for world revolution, for communism, and said that Petliura’s problems consisted in that he wanted to be a mystical petty-bourgeois worldview person with the masses, the peasantry, and the workers. And both Vynnychenko and Hrushevsky, and partly Petliura, were practically communists in politics. Because the texts of the Directory, the program with which the Directory entered Kyiv in the winter of 1918, is the expropriation of landowners’ lands, the expropriation of factories and plants. That is, how do they differ from communists? Therefore Vynnychenko—practically no difference, only “we bet on revolution,” and Petliura got scared. That is, people came and said: we will take land from owners, give it just like that to peasants; we will take factories and plants and give them just like that to workers. Question: the 1990s showed, can workers manage a plant without special preparation? Can they manage a factory, a large industrial object, large land spaces? A person who had a small plot—can he manage if he has no skills, no machinery, no special education? No, he cannot. Then who will manage? And so Vynnychenko, Petliura, and Hrushevsky, and their like, they thought so. Or Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin. That is, the communist top took everything under the guise of giving away someone else’s property for free. Just as Ukrainians received wonderful apartments in wonderful old buildings built by Poles, Jews, Germans in Lviv, Chernivtsi—these houses were expropriated, stolen, and given for what? For serving the new system. A Ukrainian family settling into a wonderful apartment in the old town—this family was settled by Soviet power not for struggle, but for service to Soviet power.

And therefore, when someone says, “I’m a native Lvivian, we are such-and-such guys,” we heard the numbers about native Lvivians. One, just as many Kyivans, and exactly the same, these people who lived there, and the laundry was still warm, dinner just cooked, or a book opened for reading—these people disappeared.

I’m saying this not in order to stir up, say, one anger against another. This is a rational discussion in order that we change, stop throwing around phrases: decolonization, decommunization, “they oppressed us, they hindered us, we are like this because all our flower was executed, killed, strangled.”

In conclusion, I’ll say about… Sometimes in comments: “But the Executed Renaissance.” Look at the matter: the image of the “Executed Renaissance,” which is invented here… Have just 10 more minutes of patience, I want you to literally understand. This has entered and gone into schools, universities, since the 1990s. But what did Vynnychenko himself understand by this? Have you thought about it? And I’ll tell you now.

Generally, the last chapter, well, simply “To the New Order” evokes communist. He believes that only the friendship of Ukraine with Russia, of two Bolshevik systems, can change the world and defeat capital, the bourgeoisie, and the liberal world. Here’s what he writes now about the “Revival”: “The revival of the Ukrainian nation”—this is page 497, reprint, Kyiv-Vienna, 1920, 3 volumes. “The revival of the Ukrainian nation in the national Ukraine is decided and timely in harmony with social liberation. This is also the axiom of the three-year experience of our revolution: that the more rightist and reactionary were all regimes in Ukraine, the greater and deeper was the humiliation of the Ukrainian nationality.” Translating concisely: the more rightist ideas, the more destruction of Ukrainians.

And then on the next page, 499, he says directly: the more leftist the idea, the more social-political revolution, the more Ukrainian revival. Quoting the original so no one thinks I’m making it up: page 499: “Already it is clear: the more leftist (he writes through ‘щ’) the social-political regime in Ukraine will be, the more it will be favorable for the national revival of our people. The fuller the social liberation, the more necessarily it will bring with it the full national revival. From this point of view, it is clear that of all the regimes that can be in Ukraine, the fullest can ensure the national revival of our people is the regime of national-Ukrainian Soviet socialist power.”

And finally, page 500: “The revolution in Ukraine, as in Russia, so or otherwise, its fate depends on the Great World Revolution in Western Europe. And so, it can be said that the fate of the revival and liberation of the Ukrainian nation depends on the worldwide struggle of socialism with capital.” That is, the revival of the national Ukraine is communism. There it’s called socialism, social liberation. But in a number of pages it directly says that we were more Bolshevik than the Bolsheviks. And the 1920s showed how he collaborated with the Bolsheviks. He even, first, personally knew Lenin, and then when he was invited in the early 1920s, he met with Stalin and with Trotsky; he quotes Trotsky perfectly as an authority, and very, very respectfully.

So, when we speak of the “Executed Renaissance,” everything falls into place. This is the early 1930s. But before this tragic and terrible act of history was committed, the Bolsheviks from 1917 to the 1920s executed the flower of the officer corps, the flower of the financial and industrial empire. Many writers, intellectuals, scientists were executed; many were lucky in 1922 to be expelled from the country—the philosophers’ ships, philosophers’ trains, etc. Already in 1921, Shpet was executed in Lviv. And already, parallel with the execution of the Ukrainian revival, parallel, they take on Shpet, who would be executed, a Kyivite; father Pavel Florensky almost perished in a camp; then still young Likhachev; hundreds and thousands of representatives of the elite of that old, in the eyes of Stalinism, were doomed to death.

But if Florensky, Shpet, or Mandelstam (died in a camp), or someone else—that’s still a bit of the intelligentsia and elite of deeper roots—then those people who are called the Ukrainian revival, these are all people who served communism. This is not to justify in any way, because in some of you a shift, displacement of the brain occurs when you hear this. Again, this is a crime. This crime was committed parallel with the execution of elites, not only Russian-speaking, but of other nations. When the Baltic countries were annexed, they went through the Baltic countries. When Lviv was annexed, they went through the Polish, German elites, etc.

This I say to what? Because it was parallel. And when you say that the reason for the execution, the “Executed Renaissance,” is the reason for the decline of our elites, culture, art, etc., don’t forget that a much greater number of representatives of the imperial elite were executed earlier, in the early 1930s. And Stalinism fought with the Russian… For him, the fight for the Russian… to execute the Ukrainian—this is a construction of guys who studied for 5-6 months only in some American leftist universities. Because Stalinism all through the 1920s, as you know, conducted the most brutal Ukrainization. That’s what appealed to Vynnychenko and Hrushevsky. Two of Franko’s sons did everything to reunite with the Soviet Republic—also one of them later perished in NKVD walls, but they fought on the side of communism. Yuriy Kotlyubynsky entered Kyiv together, leading the Bolsheviks. He later in the 1920s interacted with Petro Shelest, Yevhen… wrote this “unification” or “union,” two terms. On January 20, 1919, when we once again will write this nonsense, don’t forget that when the Ukrainian power of the Directory and part of the Sich Riflemen found themselves squeezed between two forces—Poles and Denikin in the summer of 1919—then in Kamianets-Podilskyi there was a split. And one part, actually part of the Petliurists, said we will now interact with the Poles and for this interaction give them all of Galicia and all of Volhynia and Podillia. And another group, the Sich Riflemen, and all these wonderful creators who say, said: we will be with Denikin and will be part of a united indivisible Russia and demand autonomy from Denikin. That is, they had a split. And it was precisely the Galicians who went to serve the idea of a united indivisible Russia, and the Petliurists went to conspire with Piłsudski. And it was precisely the Poles together with the Petliurists who entered Kyiv in May, early June, and then history went on.

But also remember this: and when these treaties were concluded between the Sich Riflemen and the Denikinists, the Act of Union was denounced by the same people who signed it. But we are not told about this. They point to it as some symbol, some symbolic fact. But then already the Petliurists were leaving, enemies were squeezing them out; essentially it was such a gesture: let’s write something. But it was denounced half a year later, less than a year later.

We will continue to live by myths, or should we after all, my conclusion on a positive note, make a small transformation of our consciousness and understand that we did not have a golden past, we did not have some hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands of great representatives of the elite, and that all that was created in the 20th century was created practically from scratch in different difficult situations, and that Ukraine is a project of the future, and that we need to think about how to build a complex space for interaction of different cultures and languages. In this is our future.

They establish theirs instead of another, eradicating the other. The myth of the Ukrainian Piedmont, of Galicia as the center of spreading the correct teaching, as you see, is false. It arose through the displacement and replacement, to put it mildly, of culture. And if we in the 21st century, as a revanche, turning to this past, justify our barbarism, bans, pressure, by saying, “But they did that to us then, and now we do to them,” this means a path to nowhere. We will not have a future because the majority of those who are banned today are natives of Ukraine, praised Ukraine, and such cities as Kyiv, I will call the old name—Yelysavethrad, by the way Vynnychenko also was born in present-day Kropyvnytskyi, as was the great poet Arseniy Tarkovsky. Katerynoslav, Dnipro, Poltava, Zhytomyr, Cherkasy—so now I understand how many interesting people were born in Cherkasy, in Zhytomyr how many people were born—this is all the flower of science, culture, art, etc.

Therefore, I call on you not to be captivated by these ideological propaganda stories about a genocidal past, about a colonial imperial past, which, as you see, I tried to show in my conversation, is told not with the goals of learning history as it really was (that is not interesting to anyone, historians are complex, they argue among themselves), but I, having pointed to facts, with the goal of creating an instrument for dominance, not competition of ideas, but destruction of competitors; not building interaction between cultures, but destruction of one culture at the expense of another. One cannot build a culture on the destruction of another culture. One cannot create real elites by destroying other elites. One cannot create civilization by destroying civilization. This is a path to nowhere.

And this was the goal of my conversation: precisely to reveal this main idea. And so, of course, comment, criticize, write your vision, give your sources. All this exists, is not deleted, and everyone can read, learn sources exist; we must rely on them. Subscribe to my channel, like, don’t forget to subscribe to Polis space, to my Patreon channel. And of course, we are resuming classes at the school; you are welcome to join at any time. All information is in the description. Goodbye.

AI translation from YT vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLmFtkabDTk

Trump DANCED OUT on Ukraine: THE PEAK OF PEACE FORCES! The withdrawal of the Ukrainian Armed Forces is ONLY THE BEGINNING! – Voskresensky

Alexander SHELEST

Note: That’s a Clickbait Title. See the bottom of this post for summary.

English Translation:

shelest with yuri voskresensky

I welcome you, dear friends, esteemed guests, and subscribers of my channel. A big thank you to everyone for following the new episodes. Yuri Voskresensky, an expert from Belarus, is on the line right now. Yuri, I welcome you.

Hello, Alexander. Hello, dear viewers and listeners.

Friends, a big thank you to everyone for waiting for our meeting and this analysis because, you know, if you think about it, we are currently in some kind of race, some kind of steeplechase, so to speak. Abu Dhabi, negotiations. And then, here you go, as if on cue, shelling of Kyiv and the Kyiv region last night. And it all clearly leads to… And Kharkiv, of course, also suffered a major strike.

And it all clearly points us to the fact that, in principle, the second day in Abu Dhabi could be “Diplomarch” [a play on words: “diplomacy” + “march”]. Because, well, look, we are here at negotiations, and then such shellings occur. And the picture emerges that someone is managing this.

I want to start with this. Who is managing this process now, if we agree that everything is moving towards the end of the war?

Well, first I would like to make a clarification regarding our previous broadcast. Our vigilant commentators corrected me about that poem I cited, that it was not by Varlamov but by Galich. Well, I just read, now I re-read his two Lamovs. Here, and, of course, the poem “Brakum” is by Galich. That is, a huge thank you to our commentators.

Next, in the comments, people often ask about the national composition, well, of your speakers, particularly me. Well, in some kind of, well, national breakdown. Well, I also want to say within the framework of this answer that if we take genetics, I have 50% Belarusian blood, 40% Russian, and 10% Ukrainian. That is, I am the very son of our three peoples. The only state of civilization.

Regarding who is managing, you just said, Alexander, I just finished reading another interesting book. Here, I recommend it to you and the viewers: who actually manages all the events happening on planet Earth. From this, it’s understandable, obvious, that we are witnessing some broader plan. And what causes a certain discomfort is that this plan is not entirely clear to everyone. Although we already saw its outline in the speech of the US President in Davos.

And when the plan is not entirely clear, it’s not entirely possible to make accurate forecasts, including regarding a peaceful settlement. Because if those who manage our planet and place pieces on the chessboard, if they don’t want peace, then there won’t be peace. No one will ask our peoples, who actually need peace—both Russians, and Ukrainians, and Belarusians, all our commentators, all our experts—no one will ask us.

And considering the experience, primarily of British intelligence, you know how easily any negotiations can be derailed. This is very important to understand for any forecasts.

It seems to me that these plans could still be, at the very least, blocked if there were the will of the political class. That is, figuratively speaking, Zelensky is a very stubborn person. If he were to be just as stubborn not in continuing the war, but in concluding peace, then maybe the result would be different, even though he is not a sovereign politician and carries out the will of his, primarily, British allies.

Therefore, it is difficult to predict any result from these negotiations in Abu Dhabi. Overall, I can say for sure that the war will continue. We discussed this before. For 2026, all budgets are drafted, weapons continue to flow. That is, there is no fundamental turning point with the breaking of the backbone of the Ukrainian army. It doesn’t exist, despite the fact that the advance of the Russian military, even in these incredible, winter, cold conditions, is obvious, but this is not a strategic turning point. This is called tactical or operational initiative.

Accordingly, even in this mode, even without funding from the United States of America, the Ukrainian army can hold out, at least through 2026. Therefore, it seems to me there will be no turn towards peace.

However, if there are sensible people at the negotiations in Abu Dhabi, then perhaps a deal could be reached, even a small one, within the framework of preparing for some kind of peace track, regarding an energy truce, something we, you, and our experts have been talking about for a year.

But why would you [Ukraine] strike Russian military command and infrastructure if you will immediately have five to ten times more of your own infrastructure struck? That is why I hope that some kind of energy truce would still be beneficial. And, by the way, for the Russian side too, and for the Ukrainian.

And maybe this would be a good example that would lead to discussing other steps. But at least we need to start with an energy truce. To do this, the Kyiv puppet regime simply needs to stop launching these aircraft-type unmanned aerial vehicles on a daily basis. I am sure that in response, the Russian Federation will also stop striking Ukraine’s energy and gas infrastructure.

Then what is the point of these attacks that were on Ukraine? Now another 6,000 houses are without electricity. Loud statements from the Center for Countering Disinformation saying, look, Kyiv is being cut off energetically. That is, the statement, look, is quite loud. Well, imagine, Kyiv is cut off. Cut off, not cut off. Probably more no than yes, but still.

Well, okay, an energy-cut-off Kyiv is also some kind of strategy and goal of the Russian side. I’m asking this precisely because, well, as if Abu Dhabi began, because you are indeed right. The key events of the week are Davos, Greenland, Trump’s speech, even Zelensky spoke. And now these, let’s say, responses from Europe to these, let’s say, attacks from Zelensky have started. This is also all very interesting geopolitically, we’ll talk about it now.

But then the strategy is unclear, because, if conditionally, just yesterday the main topic about Abu Dhabi, well, as presented by the Ukrainian side, was the Donbas, well, the withdrawal of troops from the Donbas. Right? And now it’s an energy truce. That is, we then don’t quite understand the strategy and plans, precisely of the Russian side. If they cut off, plunge into darkness, then right in Abu Dhabi they will gather and say, oh, let’s not? Well, let’s not. Then what will we do? Then how and by what means will the goals of the Russian side be achieved, well, further? And accordingly, yes, what will the Ukrainian side do next if the war doesn’t stop?

Look, first, every action has its consequences. Some time ago, the Ukrainian puppet regime congratulated the President of the Russian Federation on his anniversary, his 70th birthday. And, well, carried out a terrorist act on the Crimean Bridge, resulting in the deaths of innocent people. Therefore, tomorrow we will celebrate a big holiday, the birthday of the Supreme Leader of Ukraine. No one has canceled gifts. That’s first.

Second. What happened today, when dozens of cruise ballistic missiles with UAV support continued to implement the goals of the Special Military Operation, must be viewed as coercion to peace. It’s an attempt at a catalyst. If someone says, well this, on the contrary, might cause some kind of, as you correctly noted, attempt at “Diplomarch” from the Ukrainian delegation, and a breakdown of negotiations.

You know, that’s the Ukrainian delegation’s problem. The fact is that for three years now—three years, already the fourth, four years, yes, it will be in February—but for three years overall, the Russian side has behaved exceptionally peace-loving from the point of view of conducting military operations. From the military’s point of view, despite the fact that bloggers, volunteers, and Russian journalists in every post write, listen, when will we fight like in Gaza, when? And now this “when” has arrived. It seems to me this will be a catalyst, strange as it may sound, for peace negotiations.

You see, the thing is, one can always answer such bloggers, “how much is there in Gaza?” Logical, right? That is, the fifth piece of land and, let’s say, Tsahal, which bombs all this, you understand, it all flies to one point. Ukraine is still a big country, and I still, as it were, appeal to, clarify the previous question, about the Russian side’s strategy.

That is, look, you are now emphasizing an energy truce. But they tell us that the issue of the Donbas will be resolved, the withdrawal of troops from the Donbas. Therefore, finishing the topic about Abu Dhabi, it’s still interesting, these three-party negotiations now, they are already sitting together with the Americans. And there are interesting faces there, there’s Witkow on the Ukrainian side, Kushner on the Russian side, let’s say, these contacts. This all preceded all this, let’s say, the meeting in the Kremlin. And an interesting meeting, where besides Kushner and Witkow, they brought another Greenbaum, introduced him to Putin. That is, there’s some completely other agreement regarding these negotiations.

So, let’s put it this way. About strategy. Yes, about Russia’s strategy. And now many are asking the question. Wait, well okay, Ukraine withdraws and leaves the entire Donetsk region, but they are still discussing. Wait, 700-800 thousand troops. Okay, but what to maintain them with? And this issue is unresolved. Mobilization continues as it was. Borders remain closed as they were. This pumping up against everything Russian, the Russian language. They persecute Lviv dancers for Swan Lake because they collect money in Europe for Tchaikovsky. And other things. That is, monuments, the church, and so on. That is, the issue is not being resolved.

And it turns out that we have a four-year war for conditionally the Donbas. Was it even worth starting then? Was it worth getting out of bed, conditionally, for this goal? You see, the thing is, in modern Russian political-diplomatic practice, it is not customary to use the tools of megaphone diplomacy. And who said the war is only for the Donbas? Who said that the Donbas is the main goal?

Look, now in Abu Dhabi, the Russian side is in a Win-Win situation. And the Ukrainian side is in a Lose-Lose situation. That is, there is no good option for the Ukrainian side and all options are good for the Russian side. For example, the Ukrainian side does not propose such a sound, wonderful idea as an energy truce. Fine, we continue the war. We continue to take out the gas, oil, energy infrastructure. This will lead to severe disruptions in fuel, in fuel supplies. This will lead to a collapse of the civilian population. Within this collapse, it will be much easier to embed agents for direct action operations. If the terrorist Budanov and the terrorist Malyuk thought that the Russian side forgot about their hands, from which blood drips, they are mistaken. We are absolutely confident that we remember all the generals killed by terrorist acts. Primarily General Kirillov, General Maskalik, and General Sarvarov.

The Ukrainian side has crossed a red line in organizing terrorist acts. One thing is when military personnel die on the front line within the framework of hostilities. Another thing is a direct action operation. As a result of such chaos, it will be very convenient to carry out these direct action operations.

If we consider the second option of signing an energy truce, and especially considering the issue of withdrawal from the Donbas, here Russia also wins. Even simply, if Ukrainian troops leave the Donbas, then Zelensky will be politically defeated. Simply, these nationalist forces will take him out. If not now, then in the spring, in the summer, when it warms up, they will simply carry him out on pitchforks, he understands this perfectly.

Now look further. Since Russia is not saying everything, what was in Anchorage? The withdrawal of Ukraine, its troops from the Donbas, from the occupied Donbas, because this is the territory of the Russian Federation, and Belarus views this territory precisely as such.

Wait, stop, in the sense of the Russian Federation? I mean, this territory, I mean according to the constitution. No, wait, then we have double standards. According to Russia’s constitution, Kherson is also the territory of the Russian Federation, but no one talks about it differently, and everyone says, well, we stand where we stand, but here we must do this.

Look, look, addition, Alexander, this is what I’m leading to. This is the prelude to holding elections in Ukraine, elections and a referendum. That is, only in this case can Russia suspend hostilities for some time, for 30-60 days, so that the Ukrainian side can hold elections, and we can then continue, well, discuss how we will live further, considering that Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are also territory, according to current constitutional realities of the Russian Federation, they are the territory of the Russian Federation. No one will give away Zaporizhzhia or Kherson, but the Ukrainian side simply needs legitimacy. Legitimacy is needed, we’re spelling it out, it is acquired only as a result of elections. Elections are held only as a result of the cancellation of martial law. Martial law can be canceled when hostilities cease. The Russian side is ready to temporarily—temporarily—cease hostilities in the case of the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from the Donbas.

Do you understand the whole picture now, how it all adds up? In order for Zelensky or some other political force to obtain this legitimacy, and for us to then continue, how we will implement, fulfill, and approach a common denominator. That’s what we’re talking about.

That is, no one, if anyone thinks that Ukrainian, well, military personnel leave the Donbas, and that’s it, peace is signed? No. We have the goals of the Special Military Operation, and even from the point of view of the national security of the Republic of Belarus, what’s the use if the Donbas is in the Russian Federation, but in Kyiv sits a puppet misanthropic regime that gets a respite? No use at all. We, excuse me, have the goals of demilitarization and denazification. And we will achieve, together with the Russian Federation, well, the fulfillment of these goals. That’s all, that’s all the math.

Ukraine needs elections. On this, Trump, if you remember, a year ago spoke, he called Zelensky a dictator. That’s all. The Americans, through their political developers, asked for the key to this puzzle. And the Russian side provided the key. Withdraw from the Donbas, then, well, we establish a silence regime. Then you hold elections and we continue further.

The entire year 2026 will pass under the sign of war. There will be no global peaceful truce. But such a tactical one is possible. That’s what’s happening. Understand?

Well, in Davos, Zelensky mentioned Belarus. He says… Thank you. He says, are you Europeans even in your right mind? The “Oreshnik” [a Russian missile system] is already in Belarus looking and aiming at every country. This is because the people lost in 2020.

What’s interesting is that now, little by little, they are starting to respond to this speech by Zelensky. Ursula [von der Leyen], Roberta [Metsola]. Well, there, she juggled numbers. 192 billion under the common program. A bunch of other programs. That is, some journalists are noting. They say, wait, but this is not gratitude from Zelensky. And no one can understand the motive. Why did he lash out at Europe like that?

With Iran it’s the same story. A very interesting, let’s say, discussion, indirect though, but still Zelensky’s. He talks there… About the regime, about the situation in Iran. Dictators. In general, the Minister of Strange Affairs is in shock. As if criticizing Zelensky. The Minister of Strange Affairs of Iran answers the Minister of Strange Affairs of Ukraine. There he quotes a verse from the Quran about truth, although what truth. Well, in general, about Belarus. He says, “Oreshnik” is looking. And in 2020, if the people had won, this wouldn’t have happened. But as it is, “Oreshnik” threatens.

It’s interesting that the topic of Belarus is fundamentally important now. Because it’s not in Zelensky’s Peace Council. It’s not in his Peace Council because Russia and Belarus are there. And he says it directly, we are at war. Maybe after the war, but in general, as if we… Enemy Belarus, and also Putin. They are so directly striving into this Peace Council. Well, and so, friends, globalists. Merz says, I’ll go first. And then says, no, no, no, no, I won’t go. Because, you know, Britain probably refused. Or other countries.

How do you assess this geopolitical story with the Peace Council? Well, first, the billion. Does it exist or not? Lukashenko says no. There, Putin says, well, take it from the frozen assets. Second, in reality, what does this Peace Council change in understanding the attention to the Ukrainian outcomes of the war. Ukrainian. Because this Peace Council was created for Gaza. There Kushner showed slides about, look, how we will rebuild all these square meters of Gaza and some paradise on Earth will be there. But everyone still understands that the Peace Council is also involved in the settlement of the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation.

Well, let’s start with the first, Zelensky’s speech regarding Belarus. In Belarus, it was perceived extremely negatively. Because we perfectly understood that in 2020, if there had been an attempt at a color revolution coup, then we would have been first. We would have been first, not Ukraine. Who would have been thrown into the fire of war, the fire of artificial confrontation with the Russian Federation. Everyone understands this now. And despite the fact that, yes, under the influence of emotions, people did indeed take to the streets. For the first time, this protest went beyond such an opposition ghetto. Yes, that is because they always came out. But those who came out and supported the opposition were no more than 10%. For the first time, circumstances developed such that they went beyond this opposition ghetto. But thank God, including thanks to the tough position of the President of Belarus, who did not flee to Rostov, and the Belarusian security forces, the country was saved. Some suffered, of course, some suffered accidentally, that always happens. But overall, now the unified political consensus in Belarus is that, thank God, we did not get drawn into a confrontation with Russia, and in 2020 the state held out. Thereby ensuring the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Belarus.

Therefore, this biting of Belarus by Zelensky is not the first time. He simply needed it, you know, for some additional argumentation. That is, he listed Iran, Hungary, Belarus, and the “Oreshnik.” Although even if we take tactical characteristics, Alexander, well the “Oreshnik,” well what difference does it make? Well, if it were stationed 200-300 kilometers to the east, in Smolensk. But it flies up to 10,000 kilometers, you understand? Here. Well, 5,000 for sure. Well, what difference does it make? It flies all through Europe. That is, this is not some fundamental point from the point of view of a threat to European security. This is a fundamental point for protecting Belarusian national security. That is, here we have tactical nuclear weapons, here we have the “Oreshnik.” And it doesn’t matter what anyone says, well the Kremlin will make the decision. Well, how to strike? How do you know? Probably, if such weapons are deployed, probably the Kremlin and Minsk have long ago agreed on all algorithms. And on all procedures for the use of this “Oreshnik.” And surely the crossing of the state border of Belarus is considered such a red line.

Therefore, regarding Zelensky’s attacks on Belarus, this is, first, not nice. Second, it is perceived extremely negatively by us. And, third, perhaps some pain speaks in him, that he did not keep his country from war. And we kept ours. And now we move on to your second question. And not just kept. And now together with Daddy [Trump], with Washington, we will form a new international architecture. Because, when they talk about Gaza, well people, well you read the charter. There, they don’t even remember Gaza anymore. The charter of the Peace Council. This is an influential international organization that in perspective could replace the UN. The UN, incapable of anything. And the fact that the President of Belarus and we, Belarusians, in his person, received one of the first invitations. Naturally, President Lukashenko, as a brilliant politician, immediately grabbed this very straw. One of the first signed, in a live broadcast, in each “Week of Peace.” Why?

Well, look, to be honest, for me this remains a mystery. Yes. Here look, that is, a completely unclear situation. Some countries now, there Spain, for example, yes, the Prime Minister of Spain, says, no, no, no, guys, this contradicts the UN. We won’t, there Merz, I already said, above, yes, moved away from the topic. Well, Britain is clear there, yes, and all this against the backdrop of also Greenland, all these, let’s say, moments. But Lukashenko is almost the only one who, in front of cameras, as if, brought a barely existing, unclear, yes, project, the Peace Council, into his legislation, by his order, that all, as if, laws inside Belarus will be coordinated or how, well, in general, yes, well, not that decisions of the Peace Council are above, but they will be taken into account, decisions of the Peace Council in internal legislation.

Here, you understand, here, as if, what they try to do in the press, they try to say that, there, look, Sanchez didn’t go, there, the Prime Minister of Belgium didn’t go, Macron there, there, Merz recalled. That is, personalities, personalities, that is, but here he invited Putin, and here also, no, guys, this is about countries, this is not about specific leaders.

Look, we, in a live broadcast, the president signed all documents on joining the Peace Council. In our country, by constitution, national law takes precedence, not international law. This does not mean we will carry out its decisions. But the fact is that in that modern architecture, well, which has effectively collapsed, yes, that is, one can say that legally, and in fact it collapsed even earlier, well, you know, modern, well, illegal dismemberment of Yugoslavia and recognition of Kosovo’s independence. We, by the way, said then that this is Pandora’s box. For the first time since 1945, the alienation of someone else’s, Serbian territory at that time, under international law, was revised. You are doing this in vain, but the West went for this unprecedented act. And in fact, the Yalta-Potsdam system was in a state of decline, it was collapsing. And already legally, Trump put the final point with the signing of this Peace Council.

Therefore, if a new system is being formed, why shouldn’t we participate? This does not mean we will kiss Daddy’s boots, like they kissed in Davos, you understand? After all, Lukashenko, Putin, well, other politicians who were invited to the Peace Council, they conduct normal discussions. Well, for example, remember, as soon as the US conducted an unprecedented operation, violating all norms of international law in Venezuela, Lukashenko immediately in his official channel, in big letters, wrote that I condemn this act of seizing the president of an independent state. The same regarding the Iranian venture, when the US tried, well, to add gasoline to the canister, to the fire, to stir up the situation, Lukashenko also, and our Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated, we categorically condemn these actions.

But Trump’s good ideas, Trump’s good ideas, why not support them? That’s what politics is, you understand?

And what’s good? Wait, let’s think, what’s good? Well, it’s good that he tramples like an elephant in a china shop over all his allies, accordingly, weakening them. Good that he’s taking Greenland for himself. This is a boomerang, especially the highest pilotage in that he’s taking Greenland from a pathetic country called Denmark, which was the first and most, if you take the specific weight, sponsored the Ukrainian Nazi regime. It, Denmark, even transferred all its planes to the Ukrainian Nazis. So you get in return, well, an elephant in a china shop.

Good that all Europeans, it’s not just us, it’s European journalists, bloggers, despite the total censorship there, podcast hosts. They watch what is happening in Davos, and not all are in shock. Remember the words of Gavin Newsom, the Governor of California. He says, I, when I watched the meeting in Davos and all the subsequent speeches, I was horrified at how degraded the world leaders have become. And, well, Gavin Newsom said that they might as well buy kneepads, can you imagine? This is the person who will likely be nominated, well, as a single candidate from the Democratic Party of the USA. He says, they need to buy kneepads, they have turned into political cuckolds, this is not him saying this anymore, this is part I’m adding. You understand, everyone laughs at them, Trump comes, humiliates, pours water, tramples, they stand up, applaud. Zelensky comes, humiliates, tramples, he is your dependent, you all sponsor him. But even from the point of view of some political correctness, it is inadmissible to allow him to speak to you like that, but they stand up and clap. Comes, well, the Prime Minister of Canada speaks, says the opposite of, well, what Trump says, they stand up in ovation. So you are complete degenerates, therefore this arrival of Trump, what’s good about it, it completely destroyed this dominance of the West, it mixed up all their cards. He should be thanked separately for destroying the US-led world order, this is a very big deal for world progress in general.

Well, and that, well, Americans are climbing into regions that from our point of view it is not expedient to go and climb into, for example, Iran or the sphere of influence of the Russian Federation, near the borders, Central Asia, well we will say this to Daddy’s face right at the Peace Council. You understand, Alexander, why do we need all these international organizations? Here look, they deprive our athletes of performing under their flag. Here we take the Belarusian-Russian agenda, they, well, impose sanctions constantly. 30 thousand restriction sanctions introduced against Russia, 1,700 sanctions against Belarus. They invite some incomprehensible freaks, saying that this is the government of Belarus to a meeting. Why do we need such a system and such organizations?

We’d rather sit, well, in another structure, from which a very good replacement for the United Nations could emerge. And it’s the highest pilotage that Belarus, let’s say, a small country, small within the planet and Earth, was given a seat to sit as equals, for example, with Russia and Turkey.

Now, regarding money, Lukashenko said an absolutely correct thing. No, there is no billion for those who do not want to be a permanent member. Understand? That’s all. That is, sit for free for three years, then there will be either rotation or if you prove yourself, maybe active, this will be decided by the chairman of the council, who has already elected himself. There was no election, true, but there is a chairman. And he will decide who will be free, who will be with a discount, or maybe they’ll give a jar of jam, an order will be given, and then you can, well, negotiate with a discount. Understand? Funny as it may sound, this is now such real politics, and it’s not a fact that it will change after Trump leaves. Not a fact, because a very powerful team of managers has formed around Trump.

Here, and you understand, well, therefore this billion is for those who want to be a permanent member. Belarus will not give any billion. We have enough… Putin will give. Putin gave for himself, will give for us too. Look at how he performed political judo, yes, a move. This is also highest pilotage. So take, yes. There, how much do we have? Five billion USD frozen. Take, take for Belarus. I think Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko] will agree with him.

Therefore, this is a wonderful formation of a new world architecture. And, well, wonderful trampling on the remnants of, well, some reason of European politicians. They are simply laughed at now… Well, only the lazy don’t laugh. What’s left of Europe is not even the backyard. It’s not even the backyard of the world. They have completely destroyed themselves as some kind of subject of world politics.

Well, The Wall Street Journal, Boyan Panchevski, writes. “Zelensky is losing touch with reality. His attacks on Europe are perceived as deep ingratitude at a time when the Ukrainian state literally exists on European money. Meanwhile, a criminal investigation of large-scale corruption has touched Zelensky’s inner circle, whose representatives were forced to resign or leave the country. According to investigators and Western intelligence agencies, about a third of each major transaction with donor funds is embezzled. The situation inside the country is terrible. Due to Russian airstrikes, families are freezing in the dark, but attacks on Europe will not help him.” Well, that’s the opinion, yes, of The Wall Street Journal.

Look, I’m just very interested here in view of the situation we are observing now. Why? What’s the plan? What’s Zelensky’s strategy to behave exactly like this? If there is no plan, but I don’t believe that, because the situation is really critical. In Ukraine, besides, of course, the cold, disruptions, many noticed how, like from some machine-gun burst, criminal cases are being filed. I can’t say that someone is sitting there, but nevertheless, problems are starting. Border guards, some deputies, like queues, anti-corruption bodies are shooting. And this doesn’t only concern these big cases, like Tymoshenko and others. No, there are smaller cases, but many of them. And now there is a feeling that they’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest. This always happens, for example, they stole on cigarettes, right? And then they come and say, you’re stealing, wow. So this is what, routine? This is what he sits for, well, mainly, right, for example. Well, this is theoretically, yes, here, if you approach this or that question.

Moreover, they find some old cases, in short, they’ve stirred up this anthill in Ukraine regarding various kinds of corruption. How do you think, how right is Orban, yes, that… Well, he, as he said, I will not allow, Hungary will not let Ukraine into the EU for another hundred years, and lays out, rolls out a plan, yes, of Europe for Ukraine, because we will take Ukraine into Europe by 2027, but somehow on a probationary basis, there 800 billion these like, well, like some super prize, that is, you will go for all conditions, you will have incomplete membership in incomplete Europe, you will have 800 billion, well, some perks, that is some, not just a stick, but also a carrot.

But surely they won’t forget about this theft? They will definitely remember this theft. The power that the Ukrainian people will endow with legitimacy, I am sure of this, that sooner or later all this money that they stole from the country’s budget, in this happiness will bring to these political class of these worthless people who now sit in the Rada, in the government of Ukraine. By the way, note the scale, the scale of theft overall. Yanukovych with his ostriches didn’t even stand nearby, that is, take anyone, any, well, big shot, from the TCC [Territorial Recruitment Center], a doctor with a commission, listen, all nightstands, sofas, mattresses, all in dollars.

Therefore, the fact that Europe is not so actively paying attention to this now, you understand, they understand that if we also start cutting this branch from our side, then generally we will, well simply the Ukrainian regime will go. When the Ukrainian regime goes and European voters start asking questions, what was that, why did you give money?

Therefore, it is now important for Europe to make sure that the Ukrainian regime lasts as long as possible, so that later they can somehow deal with all this corruption component. But will they deal with it? That’s for sure, when the war is over, let it be in 5, in 10 years, I am sure that including the Ukrainian authorities will deal with all the stolen resources. And this, you know, Alexander, money is especially hard to hide, right? Well, okay, you transferred it to some crypto exchange, right? Here, some Mindich, conditional, yes, or Zelensky’s accomplices, here his godfathers, some matchmakers, there are already so many varieties of these green thieves that I’m confused in them. Listen, well, they are taken under a Red Notice from Interpol, put in a cell and told, according to our information you stole 300 million dollars from Ukraine. Until you return it, you won’t get out. That’s all, this is the Belarusian method, which put an end to corruption in the early 2000s. Here, and those who even continued, well, using their official position to obtain such benefits, they still later gave back 2-3 times more than they stole for freedom, you understand?

Therefore, it is very important that these facts at this stage are documented, that they are documented. Here, and I watch the social networks of some obsessed Ukrainian activists, yes, all these nationalists, here, well, and they have already started writing in their posts, that, look, we, of course, hate Russia, but we hate our authorities even more, and here they have such dualism, because wartime, by the way, they put it correctly, wartime they act as marauders, they rob the elderly, women, children, they rob the future, well, of Ukraine. Finally, it has reached these obsessed ones, who are some truly ideological Ukrainian nationalists, that this is simply a big embezzlement business project, they are not going to make any prosperous country, tolerant, inclusive, well. And if you listen to the advice they give to the Ukrainian people, but we here in Belarus are just tired of being in a state of shock, I imagine in what state Ukrainians are. You’ve probably been discussing all week the advice of this Kuleba [Dmytro Kuleba, Foreign Minister], who, well, advised using these imitators, vibrators to wrap yourself to keep warm, or insert them inside, I don’t know, of course, users wrote. I’d like instructions, if not from Kuleba’s wife, then at least from Kuleba, here. But this shows, this is a very important marker, it shows how they treat, how they treat, yes, people. Here, even take this very, this scoundrel Kuleba, yes, says, sit in restaurants more often. Remember, you know, it immediately reminded me of Marie Antoinette, yes, “why are they protesting? So there’s no bread? Well, let them eat cake,” here. It seems she didn’t say that, well that’s how it is. Well yes, okay, yes, in such mythology, yes, but it says a lot. And so Kuleba, so eat in restaurants, and this says, so warm yourselves with vibrators. Well, you understand, who do they consider all of you, Ukrainians, and something must be done about this, this must somehow be ended.

But probably, for Ukraine, it will be an option, probably a tough one, if the Russian army ends it. Probably, it would still be better if the Ukrainian political class, we keep harping on this, sorry, for a year now, I harp, and you on air have been talking for four years. If maybe even Ukrainians themselves came to their senses, took up their minds, created some kind of government of national trust and tried to work out a full-fledged roadmap. Because this group that is now sitting in Abu Dhabi, yes, even if they with their meager minds come to the necessity of an energy truce, well sorry, we know why they are doing this. In order to get a respite, soon the cold will subside, well, get new weapons, get new tranches from these 800-700 billion euros that Ursula [von der Leyen] approved again and continue the war. They are still not aimed at a full-fledged peaceful track and at creating a comfortable state on the territory of Ukraine.

Well, look, if we take your logic, which you laid out above, then everything is going towards a withdrawal from the Donbas, then some pause, re-election and a referendum. And then further there will be, well the people must vote, will there be war, won’t there be war, but here exactly this mechanism will kick in, that here you also have, as if, carrots, therefore, look, there, in short, they will start stealing not for weapons, but for restoration, well conditionally, yes. As is obvious.

And, well, by the way, there are, there are radical differences, I can’t say that I agree with this, yes, but there are also such direct elements of some, yes, a certain similarity, they show photos of young Putin and young Budanov. Well, like, also from the special services, yes, like, look, now here you go,
This response was/is AI-generated by Deepseek for reference only, directly from the video.

                                                                                                                 Core Summary

The expert, Yuri Voskresensky, argues that the war in Ukraine will continue through 2026, and no fundamental peace is on the horizon. He posits that events are being managed by external, global players with a broader plan that is not fully transparent. The immediate negotiations in Abu Dhabi are just one tactical move in this larger, protracted conflict.
Key Arguments and Predictions:

War is Set to Continue:

    Budgets for 2026 are set, and weapons keep flowing. While Russia makes tactical gains, there is no imminent "breaking" of the Ukrainian army.

    He dismisses the idea of a strategic Russian defeat or a sudden Ukrainian collapse, stating the conflict is in a phase of "tactical initiative."

The Abu Dhabi Negotiations are Tactical, Not Strategic:

    The talks are a "Win-Win" for Russia and a "Lose-Lose" for Ukraine, from his perspective.

    He sees two possible, cynical outcomes from the talks, both favoring Russia:

        No Deal: The war continues, and Russia escalates strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure to cause civilian collapse, making it easier to conduct intelligence operations.

        A Small Deal (Energy Truce / Withdrawal from Donbas): This would be a Russian victory. An energy truce stops Ukrainian strikes on Russian infrastructure. A withdrawal from Donbas would politically destroy Zelensky and be a major concession.

The Hidden Russian Strategy (The "Key" to the Puzzle):

    Voskresensky claims the real Russian goal presented in Abu Dhabi is a sequenced plan to give Zelensky a political off-ramp and create a "legitimate" Ukrainian partner for future talks.

    The alleged sequence is:

        Ukraine withdraws troops from Donbas.

        Russia temporarily (30-60 days) halts hostilities.

        Ukraine cancels martial law and holds elections/referendums, giving a new leader (or Zelensky) "legitimacy."

        Crucially: With a "legitimate" government in place, Russia would then negotiate from a position where it considers Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia as already part of Russia. The war's ultimate goals of "demilitarization and denazification" remain.

Geopolitical Context (U.S. & Europe):

    He mocks European leaders as weak and degraded, applauding even when insulted by Trump and Zelensky.

    He praises Trump for disrupting the Western-led world order and views the new, Trump-proposed "Council of Peace" as a potential future replacement for the UN, where Belarus (and Russia) have a seat at the table.

    He argues Zelensky's harsh criticism of Europe is an act of desperation, noting massive corruption is crippling Ukraine from within.

Belarusian Perspective:

    He strongly defends Belarus's sovereignty, its alliance with Russia, and the stationing of Russian tactical nuclear weapons ("Oreshnik") as necessary for its defense.

    He frames Belarus's 2020 protests as a Western-backed attempt to install a puppet regime that would have dragged Belarus into war with Russia. He sees the current government's stability as having saved the country from this fate.

The One, Simple Message:

“The war is a managed, protracted conflict driven by larger global forces. There will be no real peace in 2026, only tactical pauses or localized deals (like a potential energy truce) that serve the long-term strategic goals of the major players, particularly Russia. Ukraine’s current leadership is a corrupt puppet, and true resolution will require a new, ‘legitimate’ government in Kyiv that acknowledges Russia’s gains and security interests.”

In essence: Don’t expect peace from Abu Dhabi. Expect calibrated, tactical maneuvers within a longer, wider war whose endgame is still being written by powers above the battlefield.

So it was a clickbait Title:
The Real Message vs. The Clickbait:

• Clickbait Title: Implies a sudden, dramatic turning point driven by Trump, leading to imminent peace through Ukrainian surrender/collapse.
  
• Expert’s Actual Analysis: Describes a protracted, managed conflict with no near-term peace. Any tactical moves (withdrawal, truce) are just steps in a long-term Russian strategy to achieve its maximalist goals (demilitarization, denazification, recognition of annexed territories), all while global power dynamics shift with Trump’s return.

The title takes a complex, pessimistic analysis about a prolonged war and repackages it as a sensational, triumphant headline about a quick peace deal. It’s designed to generate clicks by promising a shocking conclusion that the content itself explicitly rejects. You correctly identified the core message as singular and simple—“the war continues, managed by larger forces”—which the clickbait title completely inverts.

AI translation of Oleg Soskin’s report
Тепла нет, воды нет, света нет. Новый удар, Киев, прилеты, люди страдают. Когда все прекратится
YT 21 Jan. 2026

Here is a translation and explanation of the provided text. The original is a rambling, emotional monologue in Russian, filled with colloquialisms, sarcasm, fragmented thoughts, and cultural references. The translation aims to clarify the meaning while noting the tone and figures of speech.

Translated Text with Explanatory Notes

Vadya, let’s discuss the following processes – namely, the destruction of what’s left of Ukraine’s energy system at the city level.

And, consequently, at the level of the entire country.

So, today there were again heavy strikes somewhere,
Very heavy strikes right in the center of Kharkiv, houses destroyed, and so on.
And against energy infrastructure targets.

That is, Kharkiv is practically almost without light already,
It appears in some districts, then gets cut off,
and there are already entire districts that have been without light for not hours,
but for days.

Odessa, the same story, there were very heavy strikes, they are finishing off
the remnants of the energy system.
That is, Chernihiv too, the same, there in Chernihiv Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast,
they are finishing off the remnants at the same time.

Kherson, as a region, Kherson, is almost completely finished off,
and there are almost no people left there either.
It’s also a ghost city, practically no one lives there anymore,
very few people remain.

In Sumy and Sumy Oblast, the same thing is being systematically destroyed,
very much so.

The authorities are hiding the information, a policeman is standing there to ensure it.
That is, the way the President’s office works now,
the office under Budanov’s leadership, all this must be classified,
everything classified and no information given out.
That comrade there fits right under this directive,
everything else there is practically already destroyed, that is,
in a way, the region is already, in essence, destroyed, and the city too.
They live there somehow.

What’s the population in Sumy?
Hard to say, maybe those who live there
will write something, but I think no more than 50% remains.
That is, perhaps 10% of the personnel [ферсони – likely a slurred version of “personnel” or “people”] remained,
but in Sumy it’s not that bad yet.
Well, by somewhere around January-February they’ll finish it off there, maybe 20% will remain,
all the others will leave, what is there to do there?
What can you do in ruins?
No water, no heat, no gas, well, we’ll be like cave dwellers.
Water, heat, sewage, food, public transport,
light… well, there is no light, everything, that means everything stops working.

Especially since you remember Shmyhal’s statement, it’s already been almost a week
since he said that there is fuel for 20 days, already day 12, maybe 12 left, maybe less.
So in fact, the frosts will last until the end of the week, they are absolutely here,
it might warm up a little by Friday-Saturday,
then the frosts will return, so there are no options, in short,
it’s just constantly ongoing.

Well, if the cold [штаты – likely a mistake for “cold” (холода) or a reference to US weather? Context suggests a cold front] has already reached almost Florida,
there in that Miami somewhere around 12 degrees, one of the degrees,
so it has already almost reached that Florida peninsula, already started to cover it with cold,
it’s quite possible it will reach them completely, those…
Yes, this cold will reach them, therefore, especially Ukraine will be under frosts,
Moscow, this Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland.

So why sit there?
Chernihiv in Chernihiv Oblast, they keep hitting it all the time, heavy strikes,
well there’s just fewer people there, there are whole, these villages,
I remember, there was one where there were no people at all, everything was empty already and so on,
it’s dying out, just like Zhytomyr Oblast, therefore
and Volynska, by the way, there are almost no people left there either,
so it’s already complete extinction there, therefore they also hit Zhytomyr,
constantly, in Rivne Oblast there are also whole empty chunks,
already dead there, everything’s deserted, so as it were, people are leaving,
I think a maximum of 20 million Ukrainians remain,
20 plus of them also almost no one was born, very many died,
very many of those who became invalids, let’s say they,
also find it very hard to survive,
no job, no money, therefore devaluation is happening, inflation,
so as the saying goes, when trouble comes to Ukraine, open the gates [Russian proverb meaning one problem leads to many].

… [Segment with unclear references to meetings and cryptic phrases is omitted for coherence, as it’s very fragmented and relies on unclear context.]

So, we see that, practically, the finishing off is already happening, the finishing off.
But Ivano-Frankivsk is still there…
That is, there are still a number of cities not completely finished off,
maybe they won’t be finished off, some part.

But, of course… That is, Putin doesn’t have such power, especially since it’s also decreasing, especially since oil…
and is not growing. India has essentially stopped buying his oil. They’ve already found other
sources, only China is buying. Profitable, very profitable for China, plus he supplies him with equipment and
so on for it. And now 120 Indians have already been brought in. This is a working village already in Moscow, other cities.
1200 will be. They say they reproduce well with these locals and will reproduce well with the aborigines.
Z-channels [pro-war Russian Telegram channels] are great, good on the military, these Putin’s channels tried hard,
soon there will be none of you left,
and on Z-channels there will be Indians. You are not needed there, what for you will be, Indians will replace everyone.
You will simply be working as janitors for them with animators [likely a sarcastic jab], so Putin is brilliantly replacing you.
You are dying here in the fields of Ukraine in the steppes for some crap,
but a new one is needed, damn it,
a new one is needed, you blockhead, to go and ruin yourself. He talks about resetting [“об нулении” – likely “обнулении”, referring to resetting presidential terms],
this resetting is for you anyway,
so at least he took and beheaded those who wanted to reset you, otherwise you went and got reset
by Ukrainian warriors.

Now it’s practically already clear, that firstly, the number of those willing to go into Putin’s meat grinder has decreased, fewer into the army. For January, there’s already no full-scale mobilization, plus insane inflation for you, you’ll get it, you’ll have scary inflation in 2026 in Russia, now for… maybe detailed inflation up to 50%, in general, possible, congratulations. So, the most important thing is that people are not being mobilized, well because there’s essentially no one left to mobilize. People understand, what’s the point in going to die for the interests of the top, the “Ozero” cooperative of billionaires, multi-billionaires, for that you have to be completely crazy. Everyone who was in debt, or happened to be in their life in these places, so to speak, concentration camps, prisons, and so on, has already been killed off, all of them have already been killed off, conscripts are already not going under any circumstances. That is, I think in January they won’t even gather 30 thousand, even less will be, less. We’ll see how many, but now very few have been gathered in these 20 days, well 20 already, consider, mobilization is not happening, so they don’t know what to do next, plus huge losses, going on, pestilence, school [likely a mistake/conflation], all that, well people can’t endure it, you’re there in such cold a person can’t live long, God forbid some injury, wounds or something else and that’s it, plus childhood products, food, water and yes, so Putin’s situation is also not great, very not great, so it’s painful, I’m just saying, because there are fewer [soldiers], therefore so to speak, it’s ending faster, that is, well Putin will hurry, he, I’m told, something like, they say, if this… this doesn’t mean that if you destroy cities, there will be victory, victory will not be, there just won’t be life, that’s the thing, there won’t be cities, and it will be impossible to live there, that’s what we’re talking about, and victory, of course, Putin’s will not be, how, because there will always be those who will stand in defense, destroy, destroy, destroy, so it will continue, especially let’s see, Fedorov is such an interesting guy, let’s see what will be.

So here’s the information I would give you, that is, Ukraine is almost… that is, Putin is clearly going, this somehow squarely, they are using the method of destroying cities, so they turn into dead territories, of complete… necrophilia, necro… [incoherent], and he manages to do that, that is, they have enough power for this.

Summary of Key Points & Tone:

The speaker is giving a bleak, informal briefing to someone named Vadya. The tone is despairing, sarcastic, and at times conspiratorial. Key themes include:

1. Systemic Destruction: Describes the systematic destruction of Ukraine’s energy grid and cities (Kharkiv, Odessa, Chernihiv, Kherson, Sumy), leading to depopulation and a humanitarian crisis (no light, water, heat).
2. Information Suppression: Claims the Ukrainian government (President’s office, Budanov) is hiding the true scale of the destruction.
3. Sarcasm and Mockery: Heavily mocks Ukrainian leadership (Shmyhal, Zelenskyy), their statements, and their capabilities. Also sarcastically mocks Russian propaganda (“Z-channels”) and Putin’s policies, suggesting Russians will be replaced by Indian workers.
4. Cultural References: Makes ironic references to Russian literature (Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” characters like Manilov the dreamer and Pliushkin the miser) to label current optimistic plans or officials as naive, utopian, or out of touch.
5. Assessment of Russia: Claims Russian mobilization is failing, losses are huge, domestic inflation will be catastrophic, and Putin’s strategy of destroying cities won’t lead to victory, only to lifeless ruins.
6. Fragmented and Emotional Delivery: The text is not a formal report. It’s a stream-of-consciousness with jumps in topic, emotional interjections (“so what is there to do?”, “so Putin is brilliantly replacing you”), and colloquial expressions (“in short,” “as the saying goes,” “well”).

Overall Interpretation: The speaker presents a view from a deeply pessimistic, likely pro-Russian or disillusioned perspective, arguing that Ukraine is being systematically annihilated into uninhabitable ruins by Russia, while also ridiculing the competence of both Ukrainian and Russian leadership. The message is one of utter devastation and cynical despair.

This the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkyGpnRLJng

Kiev Ukraine today. After ten years of persecuting the minority: the 10 million Donbas Ukrainians, simply because they hate their culture, their language as not being ‘pure ukrainian’ enough to suit them. Ring a bell anywhere? Aryan ‘purity’ perhaps?

A Vlogger: “Europe for Ukrainians” (by which he means, as usual, ‘kiev ukrainians’ I guess: the 10 million Donbas Ukrainians they are trying to kill and upon whose land they are standing not generally figuring in their consciousness at all.) just published a post which he called ( by YT translation) : CITIES IN UKRAINE ARE DIETING – THIS IS A DISASTER // THOUSANDS OF HOUSES ARE UNUSABLE // THE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT HELPING

Impassioned as the his production was the auto translate subtitles were unable to give a real idea of what he was/is saying so I asked AI if it could do a better job. And it replied:

AI:

Of course. This is a complex, stream-of-consciousness monologue from a Russian-speaking commentator, heavy with sarcasm, idioms, and cultural references. A literal translation would be unintelligible. Here is a translation faithful to the original’s meaning, tone, and subtext, making the sarcasm, idioms, and implications clear.

Key to the tone:

• “Как бы” (like, as if) = used to show something is pretended or dubious.
• “Якобы” (allegedly, supposedly) = indicates strong skepticism.
• Sarcasm & Mockery: The speaker heavily mocks officials by pointing out their incompetence (e.g., calling a “clinical goat” a boxing specialist) and their empty, detached statements.
• Colloquialisms: Phrases like “делать ноги” (to skedaddle), “попахивает” (smells fishy), “полный крах” (total collapse) are used.

Intelligible Translation

(The speaker begins, addressing his audience directly.)

This is useful for you to understand.

So, what are we seeing already?

Well, the natural collapse has begun, basically.

In fact, some are already writing about it—even officials and deputies, sort of.

But for example, in Kyiv, it’s already a catastrophe.

True, a “clinical goat” said otherwise—but he’s a boxer by profession, you see. But he claimed that, supposedly, well, the city generally works. That is, he’s a specialist in capital city municipal management. Such interesting metamorphoses are happening here.

We don’t hear much from Timur, whom Zelenskyy appointed. His “team” is somehow silent. He was such an active guy… well, he probably figured out it was time to skedaddle. Because this whole situation smells really bad. I’d say, downright awful.

Someone will have to answer for this Armageddon.

(Switches to mocking officials.)

I’m watching everything from Kyiv. That fellow, what’s-his-name, the one with nowhere to go, declared that, supposedly, supermarkets aren’t closing. They’re operating, and everything’s fine.

I’ll tell you, by all the laws of revolutionary processes, when the authorities start saying such things, it essentially means the complete disintegration of the entire system. It only raises more suspicion that the crash is apparently very close.

So, when the authorities declare everything is great, everything is good, everything’s going according to plan… it’s just that people are sitting without light, without water, without heat, without sewage, without elevators. The streets are a mess, public electrical transport has stopped. But, they say, the stores are working, the “Z” [pro-Russian] ones aren’t closed…

We’ll see. I think Goncharenko [a Ukrainian politician] will put out another statement… only he should state his rank as “Major General,” but he just posts on his channel. It should be visible, his rank! Which retail chains have already stopped? That will give an understanding. Plus, the retail chains should apparently tell the truth: “We can’t operate.” But explain to me: if there’s no electricity, if there’s a blackout, how can a large retail network, supermarkets—whether with goods, food, building materials, or department stores selling clothes—how can they work? I’m curious to know.

Apparently, there’s some secret known only to the chosen ones, who are, how to say… so attached to their chairs, so fused with them, that they won’t part with them. You can say anything you want, but you really can’t fool this life…

(Shifts to international context, mocking Western focus.)

While in Ukraine… Look at Iran, they simply shut down, completely cut off the internet. There’s no internet at all. Essentially, Iran is being destroyed. I posted a video for you, look! If you’re already not dealing with Ukraine… Why aren’t you watching? You’re so funny, so naive.

The focus of all Western elites is on: Greenland, Venezuela, and Iran. Trump called for recording the names… doesn’t that remind you of anything?… of those who persecute the rebels in Iran, the Iranians against this cannibalistic regime of Khamenei and the others… Pashinyan (or whatever his name is) said help is coming. Well, he made such a militant statement… but that’s not about Ukraine anymore. That is, nothing is specifically for Ukraine anymore.

So what does this mean? It means a complete Apocalypse. Do you know what an Apocalypse is? It’s the total crash of everything, everywhere. Everything.

I’m telling you, listen to the beautiful song: “All is well, beautiful marquise” (a French song about everything being fine while disaster strikes). Things are going great for us. We already have practically Alice…? (Likely a garbled reference or sarcastic nonsense). In this sense, it’s very interesting how Zelenskyy will conduct himself.

(Returns to mocking Zelenskyy’s detachment.)

He just disappeared for several days, popped up somewhere… Today he actively started making appearances again. But here’s what’s very interesting: Of course, all this station-square riff-raff, the Shmyhalov crowd [mocking PM Denys Shmyhal], paid for with our money, are completely distorting everything. They publish all sorts of nonsense. But that’s to distract, to distract the people.

So look how interesting: Zelenskyy’s job at this time, when people have taken to the streets (they’re not used to it), blocking streets because they’ve had no light and everything else for several days already—and won’t have it—his job is… They get hit every day by 300 drones, 25 rockets, hear that, 15 ballistic missiles… Zelenskyy today, at 18:05, is talking with the President of Finland, Alexander Stubb. “Allegedly discussing the diplomatic situation, all current possibilities, and in the preamble… Also discussing the general political situation between Europe and America. Very important so that we don’t lose our common focus.” But I think, of course, what common focus? Finland is doing just fine. Super fine.

“So what must we do together? Work for results, necessary for everyone…” etc., etc., discussing further steps and meetings. He informed about the consequences of Russian strikes, about our potential for… what? And what potential? What “for what”? Where is it all already? There’s no potential left. Full, full… this very finish. The finale already.

So, Krytschko [Kyiv mayor] says: “Stores aren’t closing, they’re working.” Zelenskyy says: “I’m doing fine, I’m sitting, talking, I just negotiated with the President of Finland. Also had some meeting, and something else… I’m also working diplomatically all the time.”

And the people say: “We’re also working and managing.” We sit without light, without water, without transport… because people are showing what they’re standing in line for with gas cylinders, like buses were emptied to replace all this electricity… Electric transport isn’t running anymore. The next step is the subway stopping. Well, how can it run, understand?

Now I’ll explain to you what will happen next, so you understand the logic of developing events.

(Outlines a grim military/practical forecast.)

So… somewhere, Kuleba [Foreign Minister] did well, he said they hit some Moscowites with rockets in some “bomblets”… well, nothing, maybe some damage, I think that’s it all. That is, they will hit hydroelectric stations, necessarily. The task is simply to completely destroy the entire energy system.

Further, I’ll explain again for those who are completely… not very thoughtful, to put it mildly. They will hit the surrounding atomic [nuclear] power units. Their task now, because of the frosts—look, in Kyiv region, all over Ukraine—somewhere from -8 to -20 degrees Celsius will be. In Kyiv, at least -15, maybe more. Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Dnipro… other cities, it’s a catastrophe there too… In Kyiv region, Kyiv, or this repey…? Hear that: people are standing in line at these gas stations for gasoline, to run generators.

So instead of packing their things and quickly retreating to warmer climes while it’s not too late, while it’s still possible… they are buying gasoline. And where will they escape to Astana? What? In general, what are you thinking about? Or are you not thinking at all? You don’t understand who you’re dealing with.

(Analyzes Putin/Russian logic and Western disengagement.)

That is, look: Putin—well, not Pezer [likely garbled] said—”We will hit and hit and hit.” And on Monday there was a meeting of the so-called Security Council. By the way, this is for optics. Ulzhae… this U.S. ambassador, John…? He didn’t even come to this meeting. His deputy was there. Don’t you get it, what this means? I remember, Ulzhae just can’t stand all this. They didn’t remove him then because he was so harshly speaking against Zelenskyy, against all these, that they realized if they left him as an assistant, he would just trample all their diplomacy. So they made him an ambassador. But he didn’t come to this meeting. On command already. They already negotiated with their Trump that he doesn’t need to go there. They sent a deputy… deputy… It’s not Ireshnik… It’s the so-called… they had the title… This is also… Kravchuk and Kuchma gave away nuclear fuel for atomic stations, a bunch of such rockets… they were all in Ukraine when they were taken… Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, I think, in Hungary they were. So they gave them away, and that’s it. Razumkov was in charge of this operation. My God, this is all known…

Therefore, naturally, there’s nothing good in this drone war. So they gathered, and Ulzhae didn’t come. He sent a deputy. That is, Ukraine is already not on the agenda. Ukraine is needed by no one. This is important for everyone who still remains on the territory of Ukraine to understand: You are needed by no one anymore. Understand? That’s it.

Therefore: Save yourself, whoever can. The salvation of a drowning man is the work of the drowning man himself, I emphasize again. Well, later it will be too late. The more you sit in your these… phytoncid apartment blocks, these high-rise chicken coops, the less chance you have to survive.

(Mocks the authorities’ empty promises versus harsh reality.)

Here’s what needs to be said. The authorities will tell you everything is fine. Even when they start hitting you with direct fire, they’ll say, “Oh, how we sympathize with you.” I express from the bottom of my heart to all the deceased, the dead and wounded. There are many already, arrivals, everywhere… teams are working 24/7… Well, will that make you warmer? Will heating appear in the radiators? Don’t you get it yet?

To sit in -15 degree frost, stand in lines for these buses that may or may not arrive… I won’t say there aren’t any, we don’t know where to work… We’re, damn it, alive… You’ll become, not get frostbite, not get killed, not get robbed… Don’t you get it yet? When the card system [rationing] comes…

Next, there will be strikes… later on forest roads (they already exist), then on bridges, then strikes on producers—in Chernihiv region, not far from others, who are sitting on their… like… There, like the evil Koschei [an immortal fairy-tale villain] languishing over his gold, over corn, over wheat, over livestock, and over all these, where they have these sunflowers, milk, factories, stew, canned goods… they don’t produce everything… Next, strikes will be later… these, no… and understand?

Next will go Chernihiv region, I say again, these border cities—they’re already hitting, already Horodnya… but in Ros…? near Luki, and so on… there still… the lower part, where agricultural products of Chernihiv region are produced.

God, well… It’s so simple for me. It’s so elementary, just within the framework of knowledge, of course, political economy. If you don’t get it… well, you express… such as Sousskin in Vverti…? Well, look, I described all this, I told all this, I explained all this, laid it out point by point… Damn, it’s all happening one-to-one.

That is, you have to have such… on these chairs, to have fully realized the worst catastrophic scenarios, huh? This… all this could have been removed, all this could have been prevented. That’s what we’re talking about.

(Analyzes Kyiv’s vulnerability and Putin’s likely strategy.)

Look, that is, Kyiv is hopeless in this sense. It’s cut up by bridges, understand the point? Plus, the Dnipro has a hydroelectric station hanging. Smart people always said this is a catastrophe—the Kyiv HES. Understand? The Kakhovka station stood… yeah, turned out to be crap, all like a matchbox, it’s gone. Downstream is Kanivska, there’s still one… one unit. That is, this is, practically, the complete collapse of the system.

Will Putin stop? No, no, he can’t stop. How can he stop? Especially after… the road to Trump…? his… with what… a boot kicks him in the face, and they say “face up the table”? Well, Putin must respond. He… while he’s hitting Ukraine. But his logic is correct: he wants to finish off the cities, to immobilize them, and then he will also… this will be, 100%. Don’t even doubt it. He will be in this position… yes, he won’t… but we should understand, as it were… we can’t get into his brain, that’s clear. But you can understand the logic of his actions.

And the logic of actions… well, Putin is a logical comrade. He is surrounded by such… logical ones, yes, they are, of course, these same death killers, yes, well… such… well, cleaners. It’s known how a cleaner behaves.

Therefore, all Zelenskyy’s appeals, all these talks… now another appeal has appeared, that already… the leaders of these European countries, they at least are present at the meeting of Yursova…? the same, there at Zelenskyy’s meeting, two countries… next week… and you don’t say who confirmed which countries are coming to Davos. Switzerland there, in this snowy… thing. Why would Trump go there? Can you explain to me? For what would Trump trudge to Davos? If… explanations… the guy is almost 80, he has Greenland, Venezuela, Iran… he will now have Iran, he said in plain text what to do to the rebelling Iranians against this cannibal, damn, Khamenei and his, these all ghouls… remove them. And he will trudge to Davos? Into this… there’s no security system there at all, in this snowy… thing. Especially after this, like in the other, in this same, at the resort, so many people died from this fireworks or just incomprehensible what… how many children… they got hit, completely, in the summer. And he will go there. Is he… what, on…? stunned? Doesn’t seem like it. Trump never behaved like that. I believe he won’t go to Davos. And there’s nothing to do there. To see these faces? Ursula von der Leyen, there this… Macron, this old Merz…? and why do they need it? For what? What the hell haven’t they seen? They’ve already seen and overseen. Well, send Vance. Vance will go there, disperse this chicken coop a bit, like he went to the Munich conference in Germany.

Therefore, I have very big doubts that, in general, there will be a meeting with Zelenskyy now. And he doesn’t need Zelenskyy. Why does he need Zelenskyy? He has other priorities.

And if… I think, I reason logically through the model of political science, yes, cause and effect… then it’s generally complete blablabla.

(Describes a financial and political collapse within Ukraine.)

Zelenskyy has no money. He had to pay the interest on the IMF credit. So you pay with hard gold. Well, the whole gang is silent, so to speak, from the very pike soup of the щуки? and goose pâté, it seems, they attacked and are silent. And the situation is simply tragic.

The IMF payment day… there how much, 170 million? And you only have 80? Well, in any case, by today the payments were not made. Nothing, right? Do you feel it? Don’t you feel it? This is a complete rejection. This is collapse.

Therefore, they’ve already stolen everything they could steal. There’s simply a complete breakup going on.

Zelenskyy surrounds himself… well, they told him: “You must place loyal people around you.” Look: the new minister…? not the new minister of energy…? and Shmyhal wasn’t elected? But the minister of energy didn’t get enough votes. That’s in the Verkhovna Rada, it’s all great. I’m saying: they shouldn’t have done this at all. They didn’t elect him. They removed him, but didn’t elect a new one. And the deputy generally… now an acting one…? Zelenskyy doesn’t even want… he knows that instead of Malyuk [Prosecutor General?] they won’t elect anyone. And this is a complete personnel crash.

That is, Zelenskyy thinks he can, that his “Alpha” [special forces unit as personal guard] will save him. But that’s a big question. “Alpha” may not save. It may, on the contrary… under white little hands…?

Remember all the time what Zelenskyy said. This is absolute truth. This is a constant. He said: “If Yermak goes, then Zelenskyy will go.” Zelenskyy must go. Do you understand or not? But if he goes… the pyramid… it’s like a core. They propped it up with one? Now we walk with Tamara as a pair, a Twix couple. All gone, one part of Twix disappeared. Now the second. It can’t stand. But it can’t, it stands…? The system was made like that there. Therefore, everything will collapse.

Not right away, Zelenskyy is a tough guy, all a great fellow. And credit where it’s due. Plus, he’s held by… all these so-called leaders. Because if you won’t be then all… then Putin will come to them. Who there, Postalen Pechkin? “Vladimir Putin brought a parcel for your boy, Karl.” And this is his ultimate… contest. Princess or someone in the queen’s…? Do you get what’s happening or not? You don’t get it.

Such are my dialogues.

Therefore, it’s completely stupid. Completely, in general… well, I can’t even formulate this in, as it were, censored words. Understand: to stand in the cold, in the frost, to buy gasoline. You shouldn’t stand to buy gasoline and diesel. You should simply pack your things, get in the car, and skedaddle. That’s what you need to do, while you still have time.

(Concludes with a fatalistic, spiritual, and chaotic summary.)

That is, the regime is practically falling. I’m saying, the Iranian regime will go, and I…? they’re even waiving. Look what’s happening under your nose. But the decisions made are absolutely all wrong. On the materialistic level, on the etheric, on the astral, and so on, on the mental and other levels. Everything is done… Well, the complete current system of power is in absolute antagonism with the natural essence, spiritual-religious, of this space. Don’t you get it?

And these who fly on brooms… they already can’t do anything. Well, here they are already brooms broken, understand? Already worn out. That is, complete collapse.

Well, the smart ones already see. Well, such as… he’s like Pucherin, when other people ride…? He’s a lot of noisy people. They can’t tell you openly. They explain to you, as it were, in Aesopian language, understand? But you listen to the smart ones, what they tell you. They’re not lying, they’re specialists. They understand all the undercurrents.

That same Malyuk, he’s been talking for a long time, on what? On what? Wait, now Malyuk will start files and go all over… you’re about the underwater part. Oh, it will be fun.

Why did they vote, don’t they have enough dough? Dima and further, I understand. They gave, practice already shows. On bussab already said, yes? For everything you have to pay, for every vote. It’s quite possible that tomorrow they’ll give money, I’ll vote. But that’s nothing.

I don’t know why he behaves like that. You can’t behave like that. This changes yourself, then you won’t manage to escape anywhere. Abkhazia is closed, where will you escape to? Or where? To there, to these same, Mogilevich, Schneider, or where to escape.

Such… golden ones of mine are happening, therefore, be very vigilant.

Tonight there will be again strikes, very heavy strikes. Very sorry, of course, for the guys who suffered at these “New Post” [mail service]. And honestly, who doesn’t say how many parcels burned? 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000 million parcels burned? In general, can you imagine what happened there? What a catastrophe there, or not? And the main thing is that everyone is silent. Everyone lies and is silent. Lie and be silent, lie and be silent, and take the dough. Transfer the dough and everything will be normal for you, right?

Your last hour is approaching. You need to see what the pawn is doing in your ears, but then you’ll have to answer. Parinyok this, yes, at the ball they didn’t read who his dad is, or his mom, what happened there, what they were doing.

But in Russia it’s not better. There in Kuznetsk… a huge tragedy happened in a maternity hospital. In Kemerovo region, there Putin puffed out his cheeks, set goals that they need a better demographic situation there. And here how it banged, so it will be healthy on the holidays. There guys in the maternity hospital, they arranged an Armageddon for him. Silent, Putin, silent, disappeared somewhere at all.

end.

Self:

Thank you for that. Excellent. I will pass it around. I don’t understand the very last paragraph though. I suppose you don’t know any more about it than appears there?

AI

You’re very welcome. I’m glad the translation was useful.

You’re right to be puzzled by that final paragraph. It’s a very chaotic and almost nonsensical shift in the narrative, even by the stream-of-consciousness standards of the rest of the text. It’s less a logical conclusion and more a final, disjointed spray of conspiratorial and fatalistic imagery.

Here’s a breakdown of what is likely being referenced and why it’s so confusing:

1. The “Pawn in Your Ears” Metaphor: This is an old Russian/Soviet idiom: “Не видеть дальше собственного носа” (literally, “not to see further than one’s own nose”). A variant is “не видеть, что пешка делает в ушах” (“not to see what the pawn is doing in your ears”). It means someone is utterly oblivious, blind to a danger or manipulation happening right next to them, often because they are arrogant or self-absorbed. The speaker is saying: “You need to see the obvious manipulation/deception happening to you right now (the pawn in your ears), but you will have to answer for your ignorance later.”

2. The Bizarre Shift to Russia (“Parinyok,” “Ball,” “Maternity Hospital”): This is the most confusing part. It seems the speaker is trying to say that corruption and tragedy are universal, even in Russia, to mock Putin’s pretensions.

• “Parinyok… at the ball they didn’t read who his dad is”: This is garbled but seems to reference obscure corruption or nepotism. A “parinyok” could be a misspelling/mocking of a name (maybe “Pariyenko”?). The “ball” might refer to a high-society event where lineage matters.
• The Kemerovo Maternity Hospital Fire: This is a real and massive tragedy. In 2018, a fire in a maternity hospital in Kemerovo killed several people. It became a symbol of neglect and corruption in Russia. The speaker is throwing this in Putin’s face: “You (Putin) were just puffing out your cheeks talking about improving demographics, and then this horrific fire happens in a maternity ward—an Armageddon for those families. And what do you do? You go silent. You disappeared.”

Why it’s so jarring and seemingly irrelevant:

• Fatalistic Coda: The speaker ends not with a point about Ukraine, but with a nihilistic “both sides are corrupt and tragic” note. It serves as a final, despairing flourish: Your leaders are lying to you, our leaders are criminals, their leader is a hypocrite, and in the end, tragedy and silence are everywhere.
• Stream-of-Consciousness Breakdown: The monologue’s structure has completely dissolved by this point. The speaker is just rattling off the final fragments in his mind—a Russian idiom, a half-remembered scandal, a major Russian tragedy—to paint a picture of universal collapse and deceit.
• Audience Familiarity: The original Russian-speaking audience would instantly recognize the Kemerovo fire reference. It’s a powerful shorthand for state failure and cover-ups. For them, it’s not a non-sequitur but a potent comparative example.

In summary: The last paragraph isn’t a logical argument. It’s the speaker’s emotional and rhetorical crash-landing. He uses:

1. A classic idiom about willful blindness (“pawn in your ears”).
2. An obscure jab at Russian elite corruption (“Parinyok at the ball”).
3. A devastating, well-known real-life tragedy in Russia (the Kemerovo fire) to accuse Putin of the same hypocrisy and silence he sees in Ukrainian officials.

It’s meant to leave the listener with a sense of utter hopelessness and moral rot on all sides, which is the overarching theme of the entire rant. The chaos of the ending is deliberate—it mirrors the “полный крах” (total collapse) he’s been describing.

And here is the original YT post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGKArtBW0uo&t=12s

I said to AI

i just made a terrifying discovery I think. I got tired of eating the plastic tasting soft cheese we buy from the supermarket: the cheapest half kilo or one kilo blocks on the shelf. so i decided to hell with the cost I’d go get some of the cheese I grew up with and pay for it whatever the cost.

I started, inadvertently, at the ‘delicatessen’ counter for want of better knowledge and was soon scouring shelves of cheeses from all around the world, or europe at any rate, looking for my cheese.

. Nothing. All seemed to be ‘cream cheeses’. Like ‘philadelphia’, that modern phenomenon.

But I saw cheeses I’ve heard of but never known: ‘brie’ for instance and whatever. But there was nothing that i would call ‘cheese’. These were all pastes is what i would call them. To my great surprise. I’d always thought they were special cheeses. These were/are merely pastes. A kind of milk based fishpaste sort of thing. As fishpaste is to fish so they sort of are to cheese.

But then looking around I discovered the ‘normal’ cheese shelves, where my blocks of plastic cheese come from.

So I looked there for the authentic item and braced myself for the cost.

I need not have done so: there was/is nothing there to purchase.

Actually the hardest cheese there was just about the plastic stuff we’ve been eating. One variety a little harder, marketed as ‘old bitey’ and similar, ‘tangy’ and so on. But fairly obviously essentially the same stuff.

So what’s wrong here? Am I looking for some outlier and not a normal cheese at all?

I don’t even really know what to call the cheese I grew up with.

My best guess is it was ‘cheddar’ and the most like it I find now is ‘cheddar’.

But it was hard, hard to crumbling hard. And tasty. And not the slightest hint anywhere at any time of any plastic texture or taste.

So what horrifying thing have I discovered?

That ‘cheese’ as I think of it just never existed, I always had the wrong idea?

Or, even worse, that the whole western world has got so sugar and pap addicted that it has wholesale forsaken cheese in deference to sweet paste?

And AI responded with this fascinating information:

You’re not mad, and you haven’t misremembered. What you’ve stumbled into is real — but it’s not that “cheese never existed”. It’s that the mainstream food system has quietly redefined what counts as cheese, and pushed what you grew up with out to the margins.

Let me put some structure on what you’re seeing.

1. The cheese you grew up with absolutely existed

What you’re describing —

• hard
• crumbly rather than bendy
• dry on the tongue, not slick
• sharp, savoury, sometimes even a little bitter
• no plastic stretch, no gumminess

— is a properly aged cheddar-style cheese.

Likely variants:

• mature / extra mature cheddar
• farmhouse cheddar
• clothbound cheddar
• aged 12–24 months (or more)

This was once normal food. Not luxury. Not “artisan”. Just cheese.

2. What’s happened is not subtle — it’s structural

Modern supermarket “cheddar” is usually:

• High moisture
• Short-aged (sometimes only weeks)
• Standardised for melt, sliceability, and yield
• Designed to offend nobody, challenge no palate, and suit children, pizzas, burgers, and sandwiches

In other words:
👉 It’s engineered dairy protein, not the result of time + bacteria + patience.

That “plastic” quality you’re sensing isn’t imaginary. It comes from:

• emulsifying salts
• higher retained moisture
• uniform protein structure
• minimal breakdown of casein (which only happens with long aging)

Real aging destroys smoothness. It creates crumbles, crystals, sharpness, unevenness.
Those are failures in an industrial system — so they’re bred out.

3. The “paste cheeses” you saw aren’t the problem — they’re a distraction

Brie, camembert, triple creams, Philadelphia-style things — those are soft cheeses by design. They’re not pretending to be cheddar.

What’s disturbing is that the hard-cheese category has been hollowed out.

Supermarkets now offer:

• “tasty”
• “bitey”
• “extra tasty”
• “vintage”

…but these are usually branding terms, not process descriptions.

A true old cheddar should:

• resist slicing cleanly
• fracture under pressure
• leave dry crumbs
• taste concentrated, not milky

If it bends, sweats, or smears — it’s young.

4. No, it’s not sugar addiction — it’s worse

It’s not that people demanded sweet paste.

It’s that:

• aging costs money (storage, loss, time)
• variability is bad for logistics
• strong flavours reduce mass appeal
• uniformity sells better than character

So the system optimised for:

• speed
• predictability
• yield per litre of milk
• broad tolerance

The result is cheese that behaves well, not cheese that is good.

This has happened across bread, butter, fruit, meat — cheese is just where your senses finally caught it.

5. Where your cheese has gone (and how to find it)

You’re not going to find it easily on the standard shelves anymore. You need process words, not brand words.

Look for:

• “clothbound”
• “farmhouse”
• “aged 12 months+”
• “traditional cheddar”
• “PDO West Country Farmhouse Cheddar” (UK import, if available)
• small-batch Australian farmhouse producers (often refrigerated separately, not the main wall)

It will:

• cost more
• look irregular
• sometimes be waxed or cloth-wrapped
• not slice neatly

That’s the point.

6. The real horror isn’t cheese — it’s memory loss

What’s genuinely unsettling in what you describe is this:

“Am I looking for some outlier and not a normal cheese at all?”

That doubt — that maybe your own sensory memory is wrong — is the true damage.

The food system has changed so thoroughly that ordinary food now feels imaginary.

But your tongue is telling the truth.

Cheese used to be:

• time
• bacteria
• milk
• loss
• concentration

Now it’s:

• dairy-derived
• stabilised
• smoothed
• hurried

That’s not nostalgia. That’s chemistry and economics.