Zelenskyy on Putin’s goals, the war’s hot phase, nuclear threats, and Kyiv’s terms for talks

5 February 2025, 10:28 AM

Exclusive

Read NV on Google

In this 90-minute conversation, Zelenskyy:

• Provided figures on Russia’s and Ukraine’s current war losses;
• Stated readiness for peace talks in a four-party format (Ukraine, the U.S., the EU, and Russia, including dictator Vladimir Putin) if that is the only path to peace;
• Said Ukraine cannot “sacrifice millions of our people” to reclaim territories militarily at this moment but will never recognize occupied lands as Russian and will take them back over time;
• Guaranteed that elections will be scheduled and held once martial law ends, noting that holding them now is impossible due to the inability of Ukrainian soldiers, people in occupied territories, and temporarily displaced citizens to vote;
• Claimed Russia seeks to install a “puppet leader” in Ukraine after fully destroying the country, as it did in Chechnya and Georgia;
• Raised concerns about Ukraine’s security if NATO accession is delayed “for years or decades through no fault of our own,” questioning what would protect Ukraine in the meantime and rhetorically asking whether the West would provide nuclear weapons instead;
• Delivered a sharp response to Tucker Carlson and Russian propaganda claims that he is a “dictator” for not holding elections and allegedly suppressing religious freedom in Ukraine, saying: “People need to stop working for Putin and kissing his ass, to be honest,” referring to Carlson.

— US backing for Ukraine’s war has become one of the most divisive issues in American politics. Ukraine is clear that its future depends on support from the US and its allies. President Trump is clear he simply wants the war to end. The new President campaigned and won as an anti-war candidate whose sole interest is putting America first. And that means Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy is fighting two battles. The first clearly is in combat. Thousands of Ukrainians continue to die in the fight against Russia’s occupying forces, almost three years since its invasion. The second, now of no less importance, is in the court of public opinion. Prominent US conservatives have made President Zelenskyy the face of what they categorize as a drain on American prosperity and a harbinger of nuclear war. Well, to answer that criticism and to talk about the state of the war and his country, President Zelenskyy joins me now. President Zelenskyy, great to see you again.

— I’m very glad to see you. Many thanks, Piers, for this opportunity. Good afternoon.

— The last time I spoke to you, President Zelenskyy, was four months after the war started. You were pretty tired then. You were working around the clock, day in, day out, week in, week out. We’re now nearly three years into this war. Just before we get into the substantive points of the war, how are you personally? I mean, you must be completely exhausted. 

— No. Putin isn’t going to see me completely exhausted; and I, like every person in Ukraine, we are a little tired today, just like we were back then, 4 months after the start of the full-scale invasion, but we have enough energy to fight for our existence, for our lives. There is no alternative. Therefore, I think that we will definitely have enough strength to achieve a sustainable, just and fair peace in Ukraine for all of us and for the future. 

— Where would you say we are now with the war, President Zelenskyy? What is the current state of this war, do you think? 

— The situation is, of course, difficult, though since the first day of the invasion, it has never been simple. We are in a better position than at the beginning of the war—but our position remains complex because we are fighting not only against Putin but also for the continued support of our allies. I am glad that we have not lost that support, even as we face an overwhelming wave of Russian disinformation against Ukraine—the largest and, perhaps, most challenging since the full-scale war began. We are fighting to preserve the strong alliance of our European partners because Russia is destabilizing some states—even some of our neighbors. We are fighting for this alliance, and we are fighting very hard for the alliance of the United States and Europe. I believe that without this unity it would be impossible—or at least extremely difficult—to defeat Putin. In parallel, we are implementing what we call our Resilience Plan. We are doing everything we can to increase our country’s resilience—from strengthening our defense and cyber security to ensuring our energy and food security, as well as boosting domestic production of military equipment. That’s roughly how it goes. As for the battlefield, the situation remains very difficult and has not changed significantly in recent months. Our goal is to eliminate as many Russian occupiers as possible, as they continue their relentless offensives on us. On several fronts, we have stabilized the situation, but the East remains unsettled. And then there’s the latest challenge coming from North Korean forces. That is where we stand.

— There was a report in the Mail on Sunday newspaper here in the UK yesterday, based on an article written by Iain Duncan Smith, who was a former leader of the Conservative Party in this country. And he said he’d spoken to a high-ranking official from Ukraine, who had said to him that you could lose this war within six months if you didn’t get the support you need, particularly from the United States. Is that true? I mean, could you lose in that timescale if you don’t get what you need?

— Assistance is crucially needed. And it has not stopped. It continues as it has for the past year or year and a half, frankly, when some processes were slowed down. Unfortunately, some crucial items did not arrive on time. Nevertheless, they eventually reached us, which allowed us to sustain our army, reinforce our Armed Forces, Defense Forces, and, of course, defend ourselves against the enemy. Today’s situation is exactly as it is. What matters is that we have increased domestic production in Ukraine. About 40% of all military equipment in 2025 will be domestically produced. This does not bring peace of mind, but it does provide greater moral confidence that we will not be left empty-handed. Certainly, without support from the U.S.—or if that support were to slow dramatically—we would risk losing our territories. It wouldn’t happen all of a sudden, as some claim or some—and I am not referring to my British colleague, please do not misunderstand me—but some enemies would wish. But if U.S. assistance to Ukraine now accounts for 30%, one can only imagine what would happen without that 30%.

— Is it a fact, President Zelenskyy, that if the Americans under President Trump pull their support and stop their support for Ukraine, that you would lose the war? Is it as simple as that?

— If U.S. support were to cease, here’s what would happen. I’m convinced it wouldn’t be just American aid stopping; it would also affect European leaders. It would have a very strong impact on the leaders of Europe, including the leaders of the European Union. If U.S. aid stops, it would definitely shake this alliance I mentioned and reduce support from Europe. Then, we wouldn’t only be dependent on U.S. assistance—we’d also face the risk of losing European support. In that case, instead of 30 or 35 percent, our aid would drop by at least 60%. Consequently, the risk of losing our territory and of Putin’s victory would increase. And this is a very serious risk. Without a doubt, we cannot do without this kind of support. Look at us, and please look at Russia. They are a big country, but with the help of our partners, we are fighting, I believe, with dignity. And Russia doesn’t have a significant advantage over us. That only ever happened when the process of supporting Ukraine slowed down—something didn’t arrive, something was missing. And that affected not only the morale of our army but also the morale of the Ukrainian people, of civilians who are counting on this support.

That’s why a halt—God forbid—I want to believe that President Trump will not take such steps, that he will not cut off support for Ukraine, because that would undoubtedly lead to a pause or restrictions on aid from Europe. That is a huge risk.

At the end of the day, U.S. support isn’t just for Ukraine—it’s for all of Europe. And if Ukraine doesn’t hold out—we’ve said this many times before—they will move further. They will go into the Baltic countries, into Poland, and without a doubt, they will push into Romania. Into many other states which can quickly be occupied, and which can be destabilized very quickly.

— President Trump said several days ago that he estimates, from the intelligence that he’s been given by his own people, that Russia has lost as many as 600,000 soldiers, and Ukraine has lost 400,000 soldiers and many more civilians. Are those numbers correct?

— I believe they are roughly correct as of today. Approximately, about 300–350 thousand Russian soldiers have been killed. There is also a very large number of missing in action—I’d estimate around 50–70 thousand missing. Furthermore, they have approximately another 600–700 thousand wounded. Generally speaking, the ratio is such that for every dead Russian there are two wounded, because their field medicine is inferior to ours. And they do not bring back the wounded; if they are lost on the battlefield, they remain there. I think these figures are roughly accurate—and I am very close to the reality. When it comes to our figures, I am even closer to reality. We know precisely every life lost or wounded; for us every life is very important. Today, we have 45,100 killed and about 390,000 cases of injuries. (I clarify here: “cases of injuries” is a larger number than the actual number of wounded individuals because some people were injured more than once and returned to battle.) So, approximately 390,000 injury cases, with the actual number of wounded being slightly lower. But we have another problem, which we do not fully know. Contrary to killed and wounded, there is a problem with three numbers. These are thousands of people missing. And that is really thousands of people, and I do not know exactly how many are truly missing versus those who are in captivity. For now we do not know. We are working on this. And indeed, there are thousands of people in captivity. The precise number depends, again, on the thousands of missing - what happened to them? And then there is the third figure that is vague – children. We estimate that approximately 19,500–19,800 children have been forcibly deported—19,800 children who were taken from occupied territories to Russia. That is what we understand. Although, frankly, we still do not know exactly how many thousands of children on the occupied territories have been killed. And, of course, we do not know how many thousands of civilians from those territories—members of law enforcement or various state institutions who were captured—have been either taken prisoners or killed. All these figures very strongly affect the overall statistics.

— The Russians through the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov have today said that they can’t discuss a potential four-way peace talk between yourself, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and a European representative because they believe you are now an illegitimate president, because you were due to have an election in May of last year and because you’re operating as a country under martial law, you were not able to have that election. They’re now trying to say that this makes you an illegitimate president who no longer has the democratic will of his people. What do you say to that?

— I’d like to go back a bit to the time before the full-scale invasion. I really wanted to get in touch, even by phone, with Putin. This was after our Normandy meeting several times. After we agreed on a ceasefire and they kept violating it, we had a few calls with Putin, and then he disappeared for over a year. He vanished for a year, and after that, the full-scale invasion began. All that time, I tried—your colleagues and others can trace this—both publicly and privately. Ask any leader, European or American, I reached out to all of them. I really wanted to talk to him, to have a chance to meet under any conditions, to talk with no preconditions—just to meet and start a dialogue about ending the war, restoring the ceasefire. And most importantly, before the full-scale invasion, I wanted to arrange an exchange of all prisoners, to bring our citizens home. And what did his press secretary say back then? What did Putin himself say? “What is there to talk about? There’s nothing to discuss. Ukraine is breaking the ceasefire.” Even though they were the ones constantly shelling us. But I just wanted to hold on to the agreements we had. It doesn’t work with them. Ending the war was not an option for them back then. They were confident in their strength and had always wanted to destroy Ukraine. Today, they’re looking for different excuses—because they are not ready to end this war. They don’t want to end this war. Tomorrow, they’ll say they’re ready for direct talks with Trump, that Ukraine doesn’t matter to them because this isn’t a war between Russia and Ukraine—it’s just some “operation,” a global war between Russia and NATO. And NATO, to them, means the United States. “We’re ready to talk only with the U.S.” But that’s all nonsense. They’re just looking for ways not to end this war. Because Putin’s only goal is for us not to exist. It’s obvious that I don’t fit their plan because they need a puppet leader here. They need their man—someone who will run Ukraine on their behalf. And to be honest, that’s how it was before the war. That’s how it used to be when they had the second-largest party in our parliament. They controlled that party entirely, influenced Ukraine’s parliament, and did everything to prevent Ukraine from choosing the European path. They wanted us to remain under Russia’s thumb. Their goal is to install their own person in power. If we’re being honest, they want to do to us exactly what they did in Chechnya—completely destroy it and then make it part of their sphere of influence. That’s what they did in Georgia—first, they created a frozen conflict, then they installed their own people to govern. That’s always been their approach. They essentially did the same in Belarus.  Belarus simply has Lukashenko but has no independence. In fact, Belarus has already signed agreements that hand over its sovereignty to Russia. That’s what’s happening. He doesn’t care who the president here is, as long as it’s someone who opposes Western values, who is against the West, against the European Union—someone who sees NATO as an enemy, just like Russia does. At least, that’s the narrative the Kremlin is pushing to make their people believe NATO is an aggressor. Even though NATO is, without a doubt, a defensive alliance—a security alliance that doesn’t attack anyone. That’s what is happening. As for my legitimacy, Piers, I was elected by 73% of my people. The people of Ukraine—73%. And you know, I’ve always said I’m completely open to any elections. But during wartime, elections cannot take place without changing the relevant legislation, the constitution etc. There are serious challenges, but also fundamental human things. How will our warriors vote? This isn’t a question from me or from an ordinary Ukrainian—it’s a question from all our servicemen, from all Ukrainians. How can they vote from the trenches? How will the people in occupied territories vote? Millions of people? How? Don’t we care anymore about what they think and who they want to elect? How will the 8 million Ukrainians who were forced to flee abroad because of this war cast their votes? Of course, the war will end—the active phase will end. And when martial law is lifted, elections will absolutely take place. That’s necessary—we are defending democracy, and that is a fundamental part of it. But understand this: Everyone knows that if we lift martial law now, that’s exactly what Putin wants. It would mean that most of our army would return home—and rightfully so. If there’s no martial law, they’ll go back to their families. And they will. Then who will defend us? What security guarantees will Ukraine have? Why won`t Russia come with occupation again? It will. Without security guarantees, it’s impossible. It will. That’s why these questions need answers.

— President Zelenskyy, when I interviewed you four months after the war started you made it clear that you would not be prepared to cede one inch of land, of Ukrainian land, to Russia and you were determined to win the war and you believed you would win the war. You have certainly been giving signals in recent months that your position may have changed through necessity and that you might be prepared to consider a peace deal that would involve surrendering some territory to Russia albeit very reluctantly. Is that now your position? Do you accept you will not get back all of the Ukrainian territory that Russia has taken? 

— Today, we cannot reclaim all our territories. We are reasonable people. We cannot sacrifice millions of our people for an outcome that is uncertain. That is not for today. At the same time, we cannot break the oath we made to those who gave their lives for us in this war. We cannot violate the Constitution of Ukraine. And we cannot recognize the occupied territories as Russian, as “Russian territories.” Yes, we understand that they are temporarily occupied—temporarily, and that is exactly why they are called so. Legally, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of what Putin or anyone else abroad might want, we will never recognize these territories as Russian. Never. This is not a question of compromises or no compromises. There can be no compromises when it comes to the sovereignty of a state. But when it comes to time, unfortunately, the support we are receiving from our partners today is not enough to push Putin out of all our territories. But we will return them. It may happen through a combination of military action, diplomatic efforts, and time. But we will reclaim our land because we are in the right—we have never violated anything, not in international law, not morally, in any way. We are absolutely right in this situation, and justice will prevail. Of course, if our partners helped us apply more pressure on Putin—if Trump, and I truly believe he will take significant steps forward, if Prime Minister Starmer, if the European Union, if representatives of the Global South, if the Arab states, China, Latin America—if they all exerted real pressure, Putin would return everything now. But, for now, time is a factor. If global leaders are not ready to stand together in putting pressure on Putin, then we will rely on our own strength, on the help of strategic partners, and on time. And I am certain that justice will be served. It will happen. That is why, legally, there will be no compromises on our territories. As for everything else, let me be direct: when people ask, “What is Ukraine willing to do?” Ukraine is first and foremost willing to end the active phase of this war. We want peace more than anyone in the world—because the war is on our land. And let’s be honest: Putin is a murderer and a terrorist. That is a fact. And let’s be honest—if our allies believe we need to move to a diplomatic track, I say we are ready for that. The negotiation table should include the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia. But haven’t we already made enough compromises? Talking to Putin at all—one conversation with this murderer—is already a compromise. Isn’t that true? I am convinced that engaging with him is already a compromise for the entire civilized world. Beyond that, everyone must stay strong—support Ukraine, strengthen Ukraine, and not betray Ukraine. We are not going to surrender our interests. But if our partners stand with us—because no one truly knows how this conversation will begin or how it will end. No one knows for sure. But we believe that President Trump wants success in this situation. And success means the victory of common sense. It means the end of the active phase of the war. It means strong security guarantees for Ukraine—at the very least, ensuring that Putin does not return with another war. A month, two months, three, half a year, a year—what difference does it make? Should we not think about our grandchildren? If the Russians decide to come back in 10 or 20 years, is that not a risk? Is that not a challenge? Of course, it is. Because any return would still mean losses. That is why we must stabilize the situation as fairly and as strongly as possible, eliminating risks not just for Ukraine, but for Europe and the world.

— President Trump, I’ve actually spoken to him personally about the situation, and he accepts it’s very complicated, and it’s difficult to resolve, but he definitely wants peace. If we move forward to potentially this peace summit with the four groups, as you say, how are you going to feel sitting opposite Vladimir Putin at the negotiating table? Do you think you can do that given how you feel about him?

— If this is the only configuration in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose more lives, then, of course, we will proceed with a meeting involving these four parties. But, frankly, what difference does it make how I personally feel about him? I still won’t regard him in a positive light. To be honest, I consider him an enemy. And, truthfully, I believe he sees me as an enemy as well. That’s all.

— Most people who have looked at the situation now from a military and political point of view, they believe the only way that Russia will accept any form of peace deal and sustain ceasefire is if they retain the territory they have so far taken. Is that, in your estimation, is that the most likely scenario where Russia retains the territory it has taken so far but that you get guarantees of protection, if not full membership of NATO, which is unlikely to be given, I would suggest, then enough guarantees of NATO support and security that you feel confident that he can’t then come back and attack you again? Do you think that is the most likely way the hot phase of the war is brought to an end?

— I truly believe that the fastest way to move to diplomacy is to guarantee Ukraine’s NATO membership today and to maintain a strong army. NATO alone is not enough. NATO is crucial—it reassures our people and ensures that we are not alone tomorrow. Even if something happens, we will not stand alone. However, I also believe that we must guarantee our own physical presence, not reduce our army. And if we do reduce it, it must be done without any risks—Ukraine must have the largest professional army in Europe. Third, we have a serious leverage today. I believe that a strong sanctions package is a key deterrent. If sanctions against the Russian Federation are lifted or weakened, I am certain that the risk of a renewed invasion will grow. That is why we must find a way to handle this situation properly. As for discussing the territories that Russia holds by force—how long it will last, for what purpose—it’s senseless. Our cities have been torn apart by the front line. Why would Russia, the largest country in the world, need these devastated cities? And they are devastated. If a city is split by military forces, there will be no civilization, no economy, no investments—only countless challenges. Believe me, I remember everything from when I became President. There was Minsk, there was a contact line, and along that contact line, people died every single day. There were no large-scale massacres, no massive artillery strikes like today, but still—people died every day. Families lost their loved ones—soldiers and civilians. Artillery hit schools and homes. It was all terribly wrong. At that time, there were also troop withdrawals. Today, I hear some voices saying we need a ceasefire first, then a withdrawal. But believe me, that would be Minsk-3. And we will not agree to Minsk-3. That will not guarantee security for Ukraine. We need guarantees, because they matter for everyone. I mentioned NATO because, as I’ve said before, NATO provides guarantees. It makes another Russian invasion highly unlikely. NATO is also a guarantee for NATO members themselves—Ukraine will strengthen the alliance with hundreds of thousands of highly trained troops, making NATO even stronger. That matters for everyone. And NATO is even a guarantee for Russians: it ensures that Ukraine, over time, will not wage war against them but will resolve all issues diplomatically. That is why I say NATO is a guarantee for everyone—stable and far less expensive.

— As you know, President Zelenskyy, Putin’s position to his own people has been that the reason for what he calls his special operation but was clearly an illegal invasion of your country, that the reason for that was NATO encroachment, and that he could not accept the movement, as he saw it, of Ukraine to become a full member of NATO, and given that that is his reason for doing this, albeit it’s a very disingenuous reason, but given that’s what he tells his people, it is highly unlikely, isn’t it, that he is going to accept you now becoming a full member of NATO, even for the territory that he doesn’t occupy, so is there a level of guarantee below full membership of NATO that gives you enough security, do you think, to do a deal?

— First, he started the occupation of Crimea and Donbas, and later, eight years after their occupation, began the full-scale war. He began when Ukraine was neither a NATO member nor a EU member nor a candidate, and had no NATO invitation. So, undeniably, the reasons are different... We were not part of any alliance. Yes, we wanted this because it means security for Ukraine, that’s all. And not only him, but several countries in the world did not support our membership in NATO. And therefore, he clearly understood that Ukraine wouldn’t be joining NATO in the near future. He understood that. This suggests that the reasons for the invasion are different. Secondly, during the full-scale war, and because of the full-scale war in Ukraine, Finland changed its approach to NATO. Sweden also changed its approach to NATO. And they not only received invitations, but also guarantees, and became full members of NATO. Again, this shows that because of his occupation of Ukraine, other countries became NATO members. And once again, thank God, there is no war in Finland or Sweden, and this confirms that NATO was not the reason for his occupation of Ukraine. On the contrary, some countries became NATO members because of his attempts to occupy us. People are afraid, they believe in the security guarantees of NATO. Finland is afraid. They also have a long border with Russia. They were afraid that after us, after Ukraine, he would go to Finland. And he wants to. Of course, and he did. That’s why they very quickly wanted to join NATO. There’s the answer. The third story: Putin will realize that the war must end when it is clearly explained to him. When the United States, President Trump tells him, “If you don’t stop the war, this will happen to you, and Ukraine will get this.” When China tells Putin, “Enough, or we will not support you economically, or we will not do business with your companies, banks, etc.” When there are very clear conditions, and look, I’m not talking about the threat of a war between major countries and Russia. No, it’s enough to demonstrate political will and economic steps. After that, Putin will end the war. He is very afraid of that. He is afraid that his economy will collapse entirely. He fears the rapid division of his society. And if that happens, he won’t survive, he won’t hold power in the Kremlin. That’s what he fears. These must be very clear signals.

Now, if it’s not NATO, Piers, I’ll speak frankly, we can look at how Ukraine has been supported over the past three years of war. The huge amounts of money involved. How we’ve directed our entire budget exclusively towards the war, how our partners from the United States, Europe, and others have helped with military and humanitarian aid. It’s a lot of money. If it’s not NATO, we will need to maintain a million-strong army. Even 800,000, which we currently have, won’t be enough. Why? Because now we see that they are advancing, and we don’t have enough forces to push them completely off our territory. This means we’ll need to finance a million-strong army. At a minimum, a million-strong army requires huge sums of money. We’ll need to develop production, spend most of our budget on strengthening our defense, on air defense, drones, and so on. In any case, this would militarize Ukraine. Do you think we want this? We want security guarantees, we want to invest in social matters, humanitarian aspects. We need to rebuild Ukraine, our historical heritage that was destroyed by missiles. We want to develop our state. And it’s not only about military technologies. Yes, it’s a lot of other things—humanitarian work, healthcare, culture, sports, etc. All of this needs funding. Where will we get it? It’s very, very difficult. That’s why I think NATO is the cheapest option. If it’s not NATO, then we need to talk about maintaining a large army, it’s a lot of money, and counting on the contingent of our various partners. And, of course, a significant missile defense package, to deter Russians, so that if they begin their offensive, we can use long-range weapons to defend ourselves.

— It’s a very interesting response, I mean, what I took away from that is that full NATO membership is not a deal-breaker for you, in other words, if there can be a package of support in terms of reinforcing your military, paying for that, to give you the kind of military protection that you believe you need to deter Putin from attacking again, that you would not necessarily consider full membership of NATO as a deal-breaker in any settlement.

— This will simply be a big risk that the war will start. We will just spend our whole lives not focusing on the economy, but simply preparing for another war against Russia. So, with such support and such weapons, it won’t be as scary for us on one hand, but it will be scary for everyone else. For the economy, for business. Who will invest in Ukraine if everyone knows we’re not a NATO member and the risk of an attack from Russia, with a large army, is increasing? Undoubtedly, with NATO, that risk would be minimized as much as possible, but without it, it will only grow. And the contingent that might be present here, yes, it could be a deterrent for Russia. But all of this is great, honestly, it’s great on the way to NATO. And even if we don’t join NATO tomorrow, we need to understand when we will. That also adds support. And with all of this, I have a question. May I ask you something? You say Putin went to war with us, well, there’s this opinion, because we were planning to become a NATO member. So then the question is, if we are not NATO members now, and some people aren’t planning to take us into NATO, why doesn’t he completely leave our territory? Well, agree, there is logic to it, agree, I’m right. If we’re not in NATO, if we’re not in NATO, why is he on our land?

— Well, what I would say is, don’t mistake what people are saying about this for my own opinion. I mean, let me be clear. Mr. President, let me be clear. I do not personally believe that is the reason he invaded Ukraine. I think he just wanted to get his hands on Ukraine, and he didn’t care how many people he killed to do it. But there is, as you know, there are... What he tells his people is that he’s doing this for the protection of the national security of Russia, that he couldn’t have Ukraine joining NATO, because that would present an exponential threat to his... an existential threat to the security of the Russian people. I don’t agree with that, and that’s what he tells his people. And so, I’m just... I’m moving forward to when you’re all sitting around a table, and you’re trying to negotiate your way to an end of the hot stage of the war. I just don’t see any way he allows you, as part of that settlement, to become a full member of NATO. And that’s why it’s interesting to me that you’re now outlining a potential plan B, if you like, which involves enough guarantees of security, particularly with the military, that you’re able to deter him from attacking again. And I think that’s... Is that a correct understanding of your position?

— If NATO is not happening today, but at some point in the future, then the entire path we’re taking to NATO, or all this time we’re waiting for it, no matter how long it is, unfortunately, it doesn’t depend on us. If it depends, and this process drags on for years or decades, not because of us, but because of our partners, then we have a completely fair question: What will protect us from this evil? All this time, or along this entire path, what support package will it be? What missiles? Will we get our nuclear weapons back? Let us get our nuclear weapons back. Or will they give us a package of long-range missiles in such quantity that we could stop Russia? I’m not sure about that, although it would definitely help. But on the other hand, what missiles could stop Russia’s nuclear missiles? That’s a rhetorical question. So then let’s put it this way: give us nuclear weapons back, give us strong missile systems, partners, help us fund a million-man army, and deploy your contingent to those parts of our country where we want the maximum stability and peace for people. If we’re talking about that, okay. And here comes the question I told you about earlier. So, if we’re not in NATO, why is he on our land? If we’re not in NATO and America says we’re not ready to bring Ukraine into NATO, then Putin should leave our territory completely. That makes sense. And then we’ll talk about everything else — financial compensation and so on for all the losses we’ve sustained. Because there should be some logic. He invaded us because he was afraid we would join NATO. Okay, we’re not in NATO, so get out of our land. Then it should be seen that way. Or how else? 

— Do you think, Mr President, that Ukraine would have been invaded in 2022 if you hadn’t surrendered your nuclear defense back in the 1990s? In other words, if you still had nuclear weapons, do you think it would have deterred him from invading?

— Yes, he would never have invaded. He wouldn’t have invaded in 2022, because I’m sure he would have been given the relevant signal. And it’s wrong to escalate to nuclear war; it’s the destruction of this world. He wouldn’t have been able to go through with it; he would have feared his own society. So, they understood all the risks. Our nuclear weapons were exchanged for nothing. It was the influence of Russia, an agreement between Russia and the United States that Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. Maybe there were other players involved, with whom deals were made. There were other players who signed the Budapest Memorandum. But the most significant influence came from Russia and the United States. We lost our protection; we lost our security guarantees. Those were our security guarantees. Undoubtedly, it was because of them that he invaded. They should have been exchanged, and if we were to give up nuclear weapons, that could have been discussed. There was certainly such a policy in the world. But for what? It should have been exchanged for NATO, it should have been exchanged for NATO weapons. We didn’t even start receiving NATO weapons, honestly, until after the full-scale invasion. Real weapons. Real weapons. I’m not talking about the small amount we got after Crimea during the frozen conflict after Minsk. We got something, but it was nothing. Today… We spend more in a day than we could have gotten over 8 years. We spend more in a day. So, real NATO weapons, NATO defense, and air defense, absolutely, first and foremost, we began receiving after 2022. And honestly, after we were able to stop them. Just stop them. So that’s it. We had no security guarantees, except for nuclear weapons back then. None.

— You gave an interview to Associated Press yesterday in which you indicated that a very large amount of money that was supposed to have come to Ukraine from the United States simply didn’t arrive or… it was slightly confusing to work out exactly what you were saying and some people have interpreted it in different ways. I wonder if you could just clarify exactly what you meant by that and explain to those in America who believe that they’re just sending endless amounts of money to you how this process actually works.

— I’m prepared to explain it in figures—and I think that is most important. I responded, and I would never have raised this topic. But I’m responding with figures to the accusations that Ukraine received “hundreds of billions” from the United States and that much of that money disappeared or ended up somewhere, no one knows where. Ukraine never received hundreds of billions. First, Ukraine received support from all U.S. institutions—the Congress, the White House—in the form of a military aid package for three years of war valued at $77 billion. $77 billion in weapons, not money, came to Ukraine, was supposed to come to Ukraine. In fact, to date, $46 billion of that package has arrived. Legally, $77 billion in weaponry was supposed to come to Ukraine; of that $15 billion should be arriving this year. We are still waiting for that due to process delays and so on. And it will probably come, but we don’t know when, though it’s in the process. So, $77 in weapons should have arrived, but only $46 has come. Now, as for other funds. Ukraine received $31.5 billion in budget support. And if you look at it in practice, not on paper, but in practice, we’ve received $31.5 billion in support in our budget, for important things like energy, etc., a lot of things. We’re very grateful for that. And if we add $46 we’ll get those $77 in total. 46 plus 31—this is what I said. I never lied about this. That’s the reality of what we have. And as I said, in addition to the $46 billion, more funds in weaponry may still come. Let me give you two interesting examples: some in the U.S. have said that this is support for Ukraine. One example: Of course, there are organizations that provided some support – the U.S. provided support to other organizations in Europe. For example, they gave money to support Ukrainian refugees. I’ll give you an example. Ukrainian refugees received, during this time, I don’t remember, $5 or $6 billion. These are Ukrainians living in Europe, in the United States, etc., wherever they went. And Europe supported refugees a lot. We thank them for supporting Ukrainians abroad in different countries. Different European countries gave this humanitarian support. The European Union provided $18–20 billion. These decisions were made in the first most difficult year of the war, etc. All this money never came to Ukraine. It never came to Ukraine. I’ve always said, let’s take the refugee support funds and put them into the Ukrainian budget, and we’ll distribute the funds to refugees abroad from the Ukrainian budget, so we don’t lose contact with Ukrainians. That was very important for us. But no one wanted this. They wanted to give directly to Ukrainians. Why? So that the money stays abroad. I can understand this, and I’m grateful to the United States for the portion of this money they allocated, those $5–6 billion. But in the first year of the war, Ukrainian citizens took out of Ukraine, just officially, just in the first year, $35 billion. $35 billion! And no one could stop them. It’s their money, it’s their right, they’re free. But they not only transferred their accounts abroad – to Europe, the U.S., and other countries. Yes, our economy collapsed. And one of the reasons was precisely this – the outflow of large capital from Ukraine. I’m just comparing it to this: over the three years of the war, the U.S. sent $5–6 billion abroad to our refugees, but in the first year alone, Ukrainians took out $35 billion. So I don’t consider this support for the Ukrainian budget, but it is support for people. And we are grateful for that. But you can’t say that we sent hundreds of billions to Ukraine. That’s not true. Let me give you a second example. It’s very interesting. Some of the money that the United States is talking about financed production in the United States. Yes, the companies that produced weapons, of course, said that all this weaponry was for Ukraine, and we’re definitely grateful for that, for this weaponry, once again. But we’ve already counted this weapon once when the $46 billion package was delivered. They increased production in the U.S. Yes, that helped us, we’re grateful, but all that money stayed in the U.S., in specific companies, on specific factories, in the profits of specific people, and in the wages of U.S. citizens working in those companies. It’s a good decision, but that money didn’t go to Ukraine. And I’m just saying that figures are figures. You can’t say, “We gave Ukraine hundreds of billions, where is this money?” Because when you say, “We gave Ukraine hundreds of billions,” you might end up asking yourself that question. You can find most of that money in your own country. And that’s the reality. Although, of course, without the help of the United States and Europe, we wouldn’t have been able to withstand. And that’s a fact, we are grateful for that. I’m just saying that when we talk about numbers, let’s talk about precise numbers.

— One implication from the Associated Press interview you gave was that a lot of money had just disappeared and gone missing. Is that what you meant to say or do you want to clarify that? 

— They never arrived in Ukraine. In Ukraine, we clearly received $46 billion in weaponry (out of a $77 billion package) and $31.5 billion in budgetary support. Of course, for example, the training of American or NATO troops, the training of Ukrainian troops—which took place outside Ukraine, as far as I know—was included in that $46 billion. So the cost of that training was also part of this package. Therefore, when it comes to how the money was spent, what came, what didn’t come, and what didn’t leave, it seems to me that we should be transparent about what Ukraine, our state, our army, and our budget received. And we are ready to take responsibility for this; we have clear numbers.

— And to those, President Zelenskyy, in America, who believe it’s a waste of money. You know, they believe, America first, that this is happening thousands of miles away, there’s no direct connection to America’s national interest, and many on the conservative right in America do now believe this. What’s your message to them?

— Incidentally, part of this message comes from your very question, Piers, to which I just responded. When some of the funds were allocated by the government to boost U.S. production of weaponry—increasing production—we received arms from your storages. And you know that not all of that equipment was new. We were grateful for it. But much of it we refurbished or repaired. So you, the United States essentially modernized its own army. The U.S. modernized its weaponry because packages were allocated to us, and for that money, new, state-of-the-art weapons were produced. We are very grateful for the Patriot systems—and we will always be grateful. But you should know that they are from the 70s and 80s in terms of production date. That, too, is very important. I believe that Americans should be aware of that. So, you—I mean the United States—got an upgraded army out of this, which is a very good thing. Secondly, additional jobs were created in all these defense factories, and more taxes were paid. Thirdly, your American companies now have orders for this weaponry, and the prices for these weapons are the highest they have been in 50 years—because of the huge demand generated by this war and the Russian offensive. People are scared, and all European countries share this demand. It is a lot of money. American companies have earned billions—even from licensing, because there are European branches of American companies. And America issues licenses, earning money in the process. These are multi-billion-dollar revenues. And I believe that this war has brought them. Of course, apart from all the terrible things it has brought, especially to us. Also, the United States of America has gained experience from Ukraine. The experience of modern, large, ground warfare. The Americans, just as the Europeans, but first of all the Americans, received all the information from us—not only from intelligence but directly from our soldiers—about what American weapons work, what doesn’t work, what is the reality on the battlefield, and what Russia could not find countermeasures for.

Moreover, we built an electronic warfare system capable of countering the latest Russian drones. We developed our own modern drone systems—against Russian equipment, against their energy sector, and against their military targets. Systems like these did not and do not exist in the modern American army. And all these technologies have been shared with the United States. That is, renewal of the army, renewal of weapons, but also modernization. And this is a fact.

Furthermore, we have destroyed Russia’s real military potential. Russia is no longer the dangerous enemy for America. We have destroyed their most experienced military personnel—and, let’s be honest, we did so at the cost of our own lives. That is something very important. Furthermore, the Americans, thanks to Wiesbaden and many other things, know exactly how the modern Russian army operates, how it fights, who is fighting, who is pretending to fight, and who is really professional on the battlefield. The American army knows everything about them: who they are, how they live, where they live, what they can do, what they achieve, what they cannot do and will never achieve. America knows all this today. I think this is an invaluable experience, absolutely. This is my opinion.

And, beyond all that, America did not send its children to die. Ukraine stopped Russia—on our own soil. We stopped them. And Russia has not invaded any NATO country, which would definitely lead to the participation of the American military in the war. American, British, French, European troops. We saved the lives of all the soldiers of these countries. We saved all children from losing their parents. That is what Ukraine did. So, after everything we have done, doesn’t Ukraine deserve peace—a decent peace and security guarantees from those nations whose people we, quite frankly, saved?

— One of the big problems you’re facing is that Donald Trump has a lot of supporters who don’t agree with continuing to give support. It was interesting that Donald Trump Jr. reposted, for example, a post on Instagram by Sarah Palin, a former presidential candidate, which read: ‘Point of view—this was aimed at you—you’re 38 days from losing your allowance,’ implying that the moment Donald Trump was inaugurated, that would be the end of support from the United States. This has provoked a flurry of speculation that you were not invited despite wanting to be at the inauguration. Can you clear that up?

— Some of the people who support these kinds of messages or repost them—I’m not talking about everyone, just that certain people close to President Trump—are acting completely irresponsibly. Ceasing support for Ukraine will lead, or at least very likely lead, to Putin’s victory—and that would pull the United States and the whole of Europe into a Third World War. That is why this is absolutely irresponsible.

I do not want to comment on posts, reposts, messages about support or disputes over aid to Ukraine. It does not concern me. Donald Trump is the President of the United States—and the responsibility will be on him. And I am the President of Ukraine. So, the responsibility is mine as well. It does not matter who tells us something on the side. The main point is to look ahead and think about what all this will mean for my country, my people, my family, for all of us. And I firmly believe that President Trump, when confronted with these questions, finds the answer: Ukraine must be supported.

— One very vocal supporter of Donald Trump who was at the inauguration and has been seen with him a lot. I interviewed him and he interviewed me in Saudi Arabia, last week. We happened to be there together by chance and that was Tucker Carlson, who has been a very scathing critic of yours as you probably know. I want to play what he said about you at the start of our interview for his show. “But can I ask you, when you talk to… Why don’t you have an election? Why don’t you stop murdering your political opponents? Why don’t you let people practice their Christian denomination? Why don’t you let Russian speakers speak Russian and read Russian books? That’s what non-dictators do.” He made it clear that in his eyes you are as much a dictator as Vladimir Putin for the reasons that he outlined. What’s your response to Tucker Carlson? 

— Thank you. First of all, I would like to say that President Trump invited me to his inauguration. The thing is… he invited me, you know, in a very general way, just like other leaders, I assume. I don’t know exactly who he invited personally or in what manner. I just believe that, honestly, we need time to sit down and talk about how to end the war. And that takes time. And I think that at that moment, the moment of the inauguration, he had his own matters to focus on. It was probably the most important day of his life, or at least one of the most important days, for him and for the American people. And I think it simply wouldn’t have been appropriate for me to attend. That’s my answer. Because he wouldn’t have had time for serious personal meetings with me.

Now, regarding that person [Tucker Carlson]: First of all, let me tell you that in Ukraine there is a Council of Churches. It is the largest such body in Europe. I was told by our American colleagues that there is no equivalent body in terms of the number of institutions in your country. In Ukraine, we have a very significant religious community. It includes everyone—all religions and confessions, regardless of who you are. Whether you are Orthodox, Catholic, or Muslim, or Jewish—we have many Baptists and many different churches, denominations, and religions. They all participate in the Council of Churches. For many years, the Moscow Patriarchate was also a member of this Council. Where is this blogger mistaken? What this blogger is mistaken about is this—it’s not me or someone else who is against the Moscow Patriarchate. The fact is that all our population is simply opposed to the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine. They are simply against the Moscow Patriarchate. It’s even about the way it sounds. The matter is that no one shut anything down. First and foremost, the Council of Churches requested, and internally they decided, to exclude the Moscow Patriarchate from the Council of Churches. Only the denominations themselves make such decisions, independently, without any influence. The religious institutions made this decision. That’s one thing. Second, on a legislative level, Parliament passed a decision that the Moscow Patriarchate could not operate in Ukraine. Meaning, this church had to legally re-register. It could no longer have any legal ties to Moscow. That’s the issue. Shutting down the Moscow Patriarchate means there can be no legal ties. They must be a Ukrainian church under Ukrainian jurisdiction. Language has nothing to do with it. And all the rest is lies. It’s Putin’s narrative. 

Putin’s narrative about the Moscow Patriarchate, about the Russian Church. Putin’s narrative about elections, about my alleged illegitimacy, about dictatorship. This is coming from a man who has been in power for 30 years. A bloodthirsty dictator, a murderer who has violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity and not only that—he has destroyed entire nations. And yet he talks about illegitimacy? And what’s very interesting is that, just like with elections, with religious denominations—it’s all Putin’s narrative. And unfortunately, this blogger or journalist, whatever he wants to call himself, is simply repeating Putin’s words. And what does he want? He is working for Putin in this way. Because he wants to drag me down to Putin’s level. That’s what he wants. He wants us to be on the same level. And then what? Then people will start thinking, “Well, we need to find a balance, we need to find a compromise.” And suddenly, Putin doesn’t seem so bad anymore. Suddenly, people start saying, “Oh, you see, he invaded another country for a reason. He was just against NATO. He was just protecting Russian speakers.” Piers, Putin has killed tens of thousands of civilians. And the majority of them were Russian-speaking. Because he was killing people, and the majority, 90% of them were from eastern Ukraine. The areas he occupied—those are the east of our country. And in those regions, the majority of people spoke Russian. Why did he start his invasion there? Because he was desperate for support. Someone kept telling him that Russian speakers there would support him and that the occupation would be quick. But that wasn’t true. There were many Ukrainian speakers, and people of all backgrounds. But if we’re talking about Russian speakers and the Russian language, it’s mainly concentrated in the east of Ukraine. That’s always been the case, and it’s written in every book. You can just come here and see for yourself. You can talk to people who had to flee because they lost their homes, whose towns were occupied, whose apartments and houses were taken from them. If you meet them, you’ll see—many of them are Russian-speaking. But he killed them himself. And ask them now how they feel about Putin. They hate him. They hate him. And before Crimea? Before Crimea, they viewed him as a neighbor—they thought we needed to live in peace with Russians, have good relations with Putin. That was their perspective. Ask them now, after he killed their children and destroyed their homes. They’ll tell you. They can tell him in Russian, if he doesn’t understand Ukrainian.

— Mr. President, in relation to what Tucker Carlson said about…

— Killing political opponents?

— Yes.

— Whom have we killed? There was one man—his surname is Medvedchuk. Today, he is in Moscow. Medvedchuk was the leader of the second-largest party in Parliament after ours. And that party was controlled by Putin—through Medvedchuk. Medvedchuk’s child has Putin as a godfather. So they are family. Medvedchuk was always against Ukraine, against our independence, against the European Union, against Europe in general, against NATO—against everything. Every Russian narrative that came from Putin was spread through Medvedchuk. For years, they worked to keep us dependent on Russian gas and oil. They made money off Russian gas and oil. And that party was a pro-Russian party in the Ukrainian Parliament. When the war started, Putin issued his ultimatums through that party—to all of us, including me. And when the war began, Medvedchuk and his colleagues demanded that we surrender Ukraine to Putin. Their plan was to install Medvedchuk as the leader of Ukraine. Just like in Belarus, just like in Chechnya, just like everywhere else they come. They wanted us to run, for me to flee abroad, to another country. They really wanted that. But it didn’t happen. Ukraine defended its independence. That’s what happened. And then Medvedchuk—nobody killed him. He was arrested by Ukraine’s Security Service. And later, we exchanged him for 200 Ukrainian soldiers. That’s what happened. So I have no idea what this journalist is talking about, what “opponents” he means. All of my opponents are in the opposition. The entire opposition that existed when I became President is still in the Ukrainian Parliament today. Even the party that belonged to Medvedchuk—the one we exchanged—its deputies are still in Parliament. And frankly, I think this journalist—what’s his name again? Sorry, I don’t remember. Tucker? I think he needs to understand Ukraine more deeply. He needs to stop working for Putin and, to be honest, stop kissing his ass. Because I think it’s very important for a person—regardless of what country they live in—to simply be human. He needs to understand: when he just throws words around so easily, just sits there talking—has he ever in his life lost someone close to him? A loved one? I don’t know what kind of family he has, but I sincerely wish them peace and tranquility, and that they never experience such loss. But he needs to have his own perspective, his own understanding, and realize that he likely has influence over a large number of people—and he is simply disinforming them.

— As we’ve been talking, President Zelenskyy, there’s been an assassination in Moscow, an explosion believed to be assassination. This is of the man accused by Ukraine’s secret services of orchestrating assassinations in Kyiv. And according to Russian state news agencies today, Armen Sarkisyan was initially injured in the blast, but later died. He was the head of the Arbat battalion, a pro-Russian paramilitary group active in eastern Ukraine, and the Russians are telling people they believe it was an assassination by Ukraine. Can you confirm that? 

— I can’t speak about any assassinations. What I do know is that the Security Service of Ukraine eliminated a person responsible for the killings of Ukrainians in eastern Ukraine—someone involved in the murders of Ukrainians on the Maidan during the Revolution of Dignity. And I know that the Security Service of Ukraine has already made an official statement about this, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t know this individual, his name, or any details. So it’s hard for me to say whether this is the same case or not. I’m simply not sure if something happened during the time of our conversation. If this is about something that happened earlier, then I know they had a legitimate and justifiable target—someone who was a hitman, a murderer, and an assassin. I do know that the Security Service of Ukraine carried out the elimination of such a person, yes. But I’m not sure if it’s the same individual. You mentioned a name—I don’t recognize it.

— I believe it is the same person we’re talking about. More information has come out as we’ve been talking so you appear to have confirmed. 

— Ukrainians do not engage in assassinations—first and foremost. The Security Service of Ukraine can only eliminate those murderers who tortured Ukrainian citizens. If there is a criminal case against them, if there is solid evidence, and if they are a legitimate and lawful target—then it is specifically the Security Service of Ukraine that takes action. I think the official statement should be reviewed to find the answer.

— I know we’re running out of time, Mr. President. I’m very grateful for the amount of time you’ve given me, so I will wrap up very soon. Just a couple of things I wanted to end with… We talked earlier about nuclear weapons and why you believe if you had one, it would have stopped Putin invading, and you would like one now if that’s going to be a part of the security guarantees and many people will agree with you. I think that that’s probably what you do need. One who didn’t agree with you and certainly won’t agree with that is Joe Rogan, who is one of the biggest podcast stars, as you know, in the world. And when you fired ballistic missiles into Russia, he reacted very angrily. Let me play the clip to you:

— …Don’t feel safe, because right now they’re launching missiles into Russia. How do you allow to do that when you’re on the way out? Like the people don’t want you to be there anymore. There should be some sort of pause for significant actions that could potentially start World War III. Maybe that would be a good thing that we would like to avoid from a dying form of president? This is… the whole thing is nuts.

— Look, I don’t know sh** about politics. 

— Zelenskyy says Putin is terrified.

— You know who he is talking to?

— F** you, man! F** you, people! You f**ing people are about to start World War III!

— What I found strange about that, President Zelenskyy, was that… Joe Rogan, who I admire greatly, I think he’s a brilliant interviewer, but he seemed completely enraged that you would fire missiles into Russia because it might precipitate World War III, but he didn’t seem to factor in that Russia’s been firing missiles into Ukraine for nearly three years. I’m struggling to see the difference.

— I think—with all due respect to Joe Rogan and his guest—what I feel is that when a war is far away from you, you can philosophize about it and discuss it, but you don’t truly understand the pain. But when it becomes personal, when it affects your own life, you start to find the right answers and conclusions. On September 11, there was a terrorist attack in the United States. Thousands of people were killed. What were Americans supposed to do? Just let it go unpunished? Or strike back at the terrorists? They struck back—and they were right to do so. Because they put them in their place. They eliminated the terrorists, eliminated those who ordered the attacks, and kept hunting them down for decades, eliminating them. Was that just American rage? Rage? No, it was a just and rightful goal—to stop terrorists. Because if you don’t stop them, they will come back for you. That’s your answer. Ukraine struck targets in the Kursk region, where Russia had brought in North Korean killers—12,000 North Koreans. Russia was training them to kill us. And they came here to kill us. We eliminated 4,000 of them. We asked for long-range weapons to prevent these thousands from reaching us. And they didn’t reach us. Now, I’m not comparing this to 9/11, but understand—our 9/11 has been going on for three years straight. And we keep asking Americans, our partners: “Give us long-range weapons to eliminate military targets—the terrorists from another country who come onto our land and destroy us.” They are killing us from afar and on our own territory. They bomb us from planes, fire missiles at schools, hospitals, business centers—everywhere. They hit us everywhere. That’s what a missile strike is. North Koreans, who signed an agreement with the Russians. Iranians, who signed an agreement with Putin. Tell me this: if tomorrow, at the U.S. border, there were Iranian or North Korean military forces, and the United States knew that tomorrow they were going to attack, would you destroy them or just stand by and wait? Would you say, “Okay, go ahead. We won’t do anything,” because of the risk of World War III? World War III exists today in the minds of Putin, North Korea, Iran, and their followers. That’s who is thinking about it. And that’s why they need to be stopped. And I think Rogan will understand me.

— Just wrapping up now, Mr. President—the Sun newspaper in England reported this morning that a British teenager called James Wilton, who was 18, had flown from Manchester last year, aged just 17 then, to join the resistance against the Russian invasion. Despite having no military experience, his family said he just felt compelled to come and help you and your people. And very sadly, he was killed in an explosion minutes into his first mission. It was a drone explosion, and his friend, who was with him, survived. I just wondered whether you might have a message for this poor boy’s family, given that he pretty courageously went and tried to help you.

— You know… First and foremost, my deepest condolences. My sincere sympathies to his family and loved ones. Your son gave his life—the most precious thing he had. I am truly sorry. But I want you to know that we deeply appreciate his sacrifice. We are proud of warriors like him. Sadly, he gave his life. But he now stands among heroes—Ukrainians and others. To us, he is one of our own. And of course, we will never forget him. I’m grateful that this question was asked today. Because if people ask such questions, it is a reminder of the heroism of such people. No matter where he was from, he is forever in our hearts—in the hearts of Ukrainians, Britons, and people around the world. He is a heroic figure. It’s important to speak about him. That way, his memory will live on, of course, for his family and friends, first of all. But most importantly, for those who did not even know this guy. And now we all know him. We all speak of him with great honor. But also with pain. Thank you for raising such a hero. 

— Thank you for your very kind words. It will mean a lot to his family, I am sure. Finally, Mr. President, like I said, I interviewed you four months into the war. I came to Kyiv, I sat with you and your wife, and we had a very profound interview, which has stayed with me to this day. And I said, when I got back to England, that you were a hero to me because of the way that you stayed on those first few days, when many leaders would have run for the hills and disappeared. But you just put a video out saying, ‘I am staying with my people.’ And Tucker Carlson tried to ridicule me for that and tried to mock me for feeling that way about you, but I have never changed my view. I do think you are a heroic figure in this war. I think you have led your people magnificently. I hope you get the peace in the way that you wanted and that this bloodshed ends. And we both know President Trump well. I just wonder whether you would like to end with a final message, because I am sure he will watch this. Whether you have a final message for Donald Trump, who ultimately… it will be down to him, I suspect, how this all gets resolved.

— It will certainly rest on the shoulders of Ukrainians. And it will certainly rest on the shoulders of President Trump. I know he has many internal challenges to focus on, but history has placed this responsibility on him—this war needs to end during his time. And it is crucial. You know, there are days when there’s an opportunity to save as many people as possible. But there are also days when dozens of people die. And for most of this war—every single day has been like that. Most of them. Some days, there’s success and fewer losses, but still—dozens of people die every day. I think it’s incredibly important that we don’t waste time. Because every day, the losses don’t decrease—they increase. I believe we must not delay. We must do everything to prepare a shared vision, a clear plan, a simple plan, though, of course, ending a war is never simple. But we should focus as much as possible on ensuring that the war ends without the possibility of its return. After everything people have endured, I believe it would be incredibly difficult for us to withstand another war if it were to return. I think it would be extremely difficult. That’s why I always emphasize the importance of security guarantees—guarantees strong enough to ensure that this man (Putin) never comes back. I simply don’t want the Ukrainian people to have to face another challenge like this. There’s no need to test their strength, our strength any further. I think that’s enough. And that is why we deserve a just peace. And today, the timeline for these agreements, the strength of these agreements depend on President Trump. And they depend on us, on our dialogue, and on the pressure placed on Putin. I believe the sooner we do this, the happier people will be—everywhere.

— President Zelenskyy, it’s been so good to talk to you again and to see you again. Keep fighting for you, your people, your country. My very best to your wife, the First Lady. I interviewed her actually last year; it was great to see her again. It’s been, I’m sure, a period of unimaginable stress and horror for all of you, as it has for all Ukrainians, but I wish you all the very best, and I thank you very much for coming on Uncensored. Thank you.

— Thank you very much. Come visit us. You are always a welcome guest. You are very welcome.

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google News