All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
Feb. 4, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
01:33:49
20250204_president-zelensky-responds-to-tucker-carlson-stop
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Fighting for Allied Support 00:10:52
Do you think they're a democracy?
Well, their leader's not elected, so by definition, they're not a democracy.
I was elected by 73% of my population.
People should be allowed to choose their own government.
That's the basic precept of democracy.
The people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to align with the Russian government, so that's illegitimate.
Why?
Before Crimea, they approached him as a neighbor.
We must live in peace with the Russians.
We must have good relations with Putin.
Ask those people now, the people whose households Putin killed.
I'm not comparing with 9/11, but we have 9-11 for three years.
Why don't you let people practice their Christian denomination?
He's a book burner!
He's mistaken.
All the population is against that Moscow Patriarchate.
Regrettably, this journalist wants to lower me to the level of Putin.
He needs to stop working for Putin.
Stop licking his ass, honestly.
U.S. 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 Zelensky 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 Zelensky 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 Zelensky joins me now.
President Zelensky, great to see you again.
Very happy to see you, Piers.
Thank you for having this opportunity.
Good afternoon.
The last time I spoke to you President Zelensky 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 will not see me fully exhausted.
I, as each and everybody in Ukraine, are just as back then, four months after the start of the invasion.
We are a bit tired, but there is enough energy to fight it for our existence and our life.
There is no other way, so I feel like there will definitely be enough of our resources for a just and lasting peace in Ukraine for everybody.
Where would you say we are now with the war, President Zelensky?
What is the current state of this war?
Do you think?
The situation is difficult.
It's understandable.
Although, since the first day of the invasion, it never has been simple.
We are in the better situation than we were at the beginning of the war, but we are in a difficult stance because we are fighting not only against Putin, but we are also fighting for the support of our allies for this support to us.
And I'm glad that we did not lose this support.
And we are in the position when we are fighting with a big wave of Russia's disinformation against Ukraine.
A big and probably the most severe since the start of the full-scale war.
We are fighting for the robust alliance of our allies in Europe because Russia is destabilizing certain countries, even some of our neighbors.
So we are fighting for this alliance and we are also very much fighting for the alliance between the United States and Europe.
And I believe that without this robustness, it will be difficult to prevail over Putin or at least very difficult.
So we are fighting for these things.
At the same time, we have a plan of resilience, we call it so.
So we do everything to preserve our resilience internally in our state.
We are fighting for increasing our cyber security, energy security, food security, and we are also increasing the production of domestic military products.
So that is pretty much it.
As regards the battlefield, the situation is very difficult.
It hasn't changed much during the last months.
We want to decrease the quantity of the Russian military contingent that is conducting assaults against us.
We have stabilized the situation on certain axes, and the East situation is not yet fully stabilized.
And we have a recent challenge with the North Korean troops.
So that is pretty much it.
There was a report in the Mail on Sunday newspaper here in the UK yesterday based on an article written by Ian 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 time scale if you don't get what you need?
The aid is very much needed.
It is not stopped as of today.
So the supplies are going as they were going during the last year or one and a half years when the processes were slightly slowed and certain things did not arrive on time, unfortunately, but they came later.
And this gave us the opportunity to support our army, to our defense forces, and undoubtedly to defend against the enemy.
As of today, the situation is as it is.
It is important that we have started to produce more in Ukraine.
So around 40% of the weaponry in 2025 is domestically made.
And this gives not the tranquility, but more of the moral belief that we will not be empty.
Of course, without the support from the United States of America or with the slow support, we can lose the bits of our territory.
It will not happen that as fast as people say or some people think.
And some enemies, and I'm here not speaking about the British colleague, please don't get me wrong.
But we will be standing as strong as we can.
But for sure, if the contribution to Ukrainian defensive capability and security of Ukraine from the United States as of today is now around 30%.
So you can imagine what can be, what will happen to us without this 30%.
Is it a fact, President Zelensky, 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 the aid from the United States stops, this is what will happen.
I'm sure that this is not only the stoppage of the US support.
It will have the influence on the European leaders.
Very soon influence on the leaders of Europe and leaders of the EU.
And if this support holds, this will definitely destabilize the alliance that I have mentioned above and it will decrease the aid from Europe.
And then we will depend not only on the US support, but also on the risk of the disruption of the supplies from European countries.
And then it will be not 30% or 35%.
It will be at least 60% of our support overall.
And therefore, this risk to lose our territory and of Putin's victory, of course, it will be growing.
And this is a very serious thing.
For sure, without such aid, we cannot get by.
Look at us and look at Russia.
They are a big country, but with the help of our partners, we are fighting, I believe, with dignity.
And the Russians do not have a great advantage over us.
Only because of the slow aid to Ukraine.
It happens so.
Something did not arrive, something we were lacking, and that influenced the situation.
And the morality and not only the morality of our army and of the people of Ukraine, of civilians who very much count on the support.
Therefore, the stoppage of the support, heavens forbid, and I believe that President Trump will not make such steps.
He will not stop the support to Ukraine because that will definitely influence the decrease in support from Europe.
And that is a high risk.
In the end of the day, the support from the United States is not only support to Ukraine, it is the support to all of Europe.
And if Ukraine does not withstand, and we have discussed that multiple times, they will go further.
They will be in the Baltic states in Poland.
They will go further for sure to Romania, many other states that can be occupied fastly and can be destabilized fastly.
President Trump said several days ago that he estimates from the intelligence 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.
Wounded Soldiers Count 00:05:42
Are those numbers correct?
President Trump made fixing the economy an election-winning priority.
But let's be clear, there's a lot of fixing to be done.
U.S. national debt is at crisis levels.
Inflation has made life more expensive for everybody.
The stock market is precarious.
Enough to make anyone's financial future feel grim.
So what's the solution?
Well, a simple one is to get out of the chaos and invest in something solid and reliable, like physical gold and silver.
And when it comes to making that move, only one name we need to remember, American Hartford Gold.
This company has earned the trust of thousands of customers, including me, with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and glowing reviews that you can see for yourself.
They offer a huge range of gold and silver bars and coins.
These can be delivered directly to your door or they'll help you set them up in a tax advantage gold IRA.
They're first-class customer service to make this process simple, secure and straightforward.
This is a company that's committed to getting the truth out there and giving you peace of mind in uncertain times.
And if that wasn't enough, you're going to get up to $15,000 worth of free silver when you make your first purchase and mention my name, Piers.
So take a look for yourself.
Call 866-692-2474 or text Piers, that's P-I-E-R-S, 2-655-32.
That's 866-692-2474.
Or text Piers, P-I-E-R-S, to 65532.
I've got no hesitation in telling you, this is a smart move.
You'll find details in the show description.
Now back to the show.
I think the following way.
Approximately.
Around 300, 350,000, 350,000 Russians have been killed.
There are a lot of them missing in action.
I do not fully know, but around 50 to 70,000 missed in action Russians.
Further, they have around 600,000, 700,000 wounded, approximately.
The ratio is one to two that wounded because their field medicine is weaker than ours and they do not bring people who are wounded back.
If the person is wounded on the battlefield, it stays there.
So the estimates are approximately like that, but they are very clear to reality.
As regards our people, the exact numbers are very important for us.
45,100 people are dead, and we have around 390,000 cases of people being wounded.
Here, let me be precise, the number of people wounded is bigger than the number of wounded people, actually, because there are people who've been wounded and then they came back to the battlefield and have been wounded again.
So the numbers of wounded is 390,000.
That is the situation.
But the number of people is less.
We have troubles with three types of numbers.
The first one is thousands of people who are missing.
And these are really thousands.
And how many of those are really missing and how many are prisoners?
I do not, as of today, know the precise number, but we are working on it.
And thousands, thousands really of the men are prisoners of war.
The precise number depends again on the thousands of missing in action.
What happened to them?
So that is the estimation as of today.
And the third number that we do not understand fully is children.
We believe that 19,500, 19,800,000 people, kids were forcefully brought to Russia from the temporarily occupied territories.
That is what we understand.
Although, let me be frank, we do not know how many kids were killed on the occupied territories.
And it is understandable that We do not know how many thousands of civilians from the law enforcement agencies, from the state institutions that have been captured.
So how many of those people are in captivity or have been killed?
So these numbers, they indeed very much influence 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,
NATO Accession and Diplomacy 00:15:42
you were not able to have that election.
They're now trying to say that this makes you an illegitimate president and who no longer has the democratic will of his people.
What do you say to that?
I would like to come back one step before the full-scale invasion in the first place.
I truly wanted to have a telephone call even with Putin after our meeting in Normandy format a couple times.
After we have made an agreement on the ceasefire that they have violated, we had a couple of phone conversations with Putin and then he disappeared for more than one year.
And after this disappearance, the full-scale invasion began.
For all this time, I have tried, and your colleagues can trace it, and others can trace it in public domain, not publicly.
You asked leaders in the US, in Europe.
I have appealed to everybody and I very much wanted to speak to him, to have the opportunity to meet with him and to speak on any condition without any conditions to just meet and have the dialogue regarding the end of the war, ceasefire again.
And before the full-scale invasion, the exchange of all the prisoners, I wanted to bring our citizens back.
Wadden said his press secretary, his spokesperson, what can we speak about?
There is nothing to speak about.
We don't understand the reasons for the meeting.
Ukraine is disrupting the truce, although they were shelling constantly.
And I very much wanted that we simply preserve the agreements.
This does not work with them.
So with them, the opportunity to end the war does not work out.
This did not work out.
Then they were sure of their strength.
They understood that they always wanted to destroy Ukraine.
Now they are looking for other reasons because they're not willing to end the war.
They do not want to end this war.
Tomorrow they will say that they are ready to meet directly with Trump, that Ukraine, they don't need it because this is not the war of Russia against Ukraine.
They have just some operation there and this is a global war of Russia against NATO and NATO is the United States, so we are ready to speak only with the United States.
But they, that is all, that is all preposterous.
They do not want to end the war.
Putin has only one desire, that Ukraine does not exist.
So I definitely don't suit them because they need their puppet person here.
They want their men that will be ruling Ukraine.
And sincerely, that was what happened what was before the war.
And previously, when they had this second party by size in the Ukrainian parliament, they were influencing Ukraine to never choose the European path so that Ukraine always stays under the foot of Russian Federation.
Their desire is to place their men.
And honestly, they want to do basically what they have done in Chechnya when they have destroyed it to the ground and that is the part of their territory.
Now they have done it in Georgia, at first the frozen conflict, and then they have installed their people to rule the state.
That is what they always do.
They've done that basically in Belarus.
So there is Lukashenko there and there is no independence there.
Basically, they have signed the treaty between Russia and Belarus that Belarus gave up its independence to Russian Federation.
This is what's going on.
He doesn't care who is the present here.
Matters only that this is the person that is against Western values, against the West, against the EU, that will perceive NATO as the enemy, just as Russia perceives it.
At least the Kremlin does everything that their society considers NATO to be an enemy and aggressive entity, despite the fact that NATO is a defensive alliance that does not assault anybody.
That is what's going on.
As regards my legitimacy, I was elected by 73% of my population.
73%.
And, you know, I always said that I am open to any elections.
Yes, during the war there can be no elections.
The legislation has to be changed, the constitution, etc.
There are big challenges.
But there are not legal, but very human things.
How our military will vote.
That is not the question from me, from average Ukrainians.
That is the question from all Ukrainians, from the military.
How can they vote in the redoubts?
How can people on the occupied territories vote?
Millions of people.
How?
How they will express whom they want to elect.
How will 8 million Ukrainians vote that are abroad because of the war?
Undoubtedly, the war will end.
The hot stage of the war will end.
And then, when the martial law ends, then definitely elections will be called.
That is needed.
We are defending democracies, so that is needed.
But please understand one thing.
Today, everybody understands that if we stop, if we end martial law now, that is what Putin wants.
That will mean that our army in the majority, in its majority, it will come back home.
And it is just.
If there is no martial law, they will come back to their families and they will come back home.
Who will be protecting us?
What security guarantees does Ukraine have?
Why Russia will not come again with occupation against us?
They will.
Without security guarantees, that is not possible.
So we need answers to these questions.
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've 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?
Now we cannot return all our territories.
We are adequate people.
We cannot lose millions of people for the result that, and it is not yet clear that it will happen.
As of today, therefore, as of today, we cannot violate the oath that we gave to the people who have lost their lives for the sake of us in this war.
We cannot violate the constitution and we cannot recognize the occupied territories as Russian.
Yes, we know that is temporarily occupied territories.
Therefore, they are temporarily.
And therefore, legally, despite the martial law and despite whatever Putin wants and others, we will never recognize these territories as Russian.
This is not the question of a compromise or a non-compromise.
There can be no compromise in the sovereignty of the state.
In time, yes.
Regrettably, the support that is provided by our partners is insufficient for us to push Putin fully out of our territories.
We will bring back.
Yes, it may be a combined approach here militarily on the battlefield as our military do somewhere diplomatically, but nonetheless, we will come back.
We will bring back our land because we are right and we did not violate any aspect in international law.
And morally, anyway, we are absolutely right in this situation.
So everything will come back.
For sure, if our partners help to put pressure on Putin, if Trump, and I very much believe that he will make many steps forward, if President Trump, if Prime Minister Stalma, if members of the European Union, if representatives of the global south want the Arab states, China, Latin America, if they want to put pressure on Putin, he will give everything back.
But this means everything will go with time.
If all leaders are not ready to put pressure on Putin in the alliance, then we will count on our efforts, on the aid from strategic partners, and we will count on time.
And I am sure that the justice will definitely come and it will happen.
Therefore, there will be no legal compromises regarding the territories.
As regards the other things, let me be frank.
When somebody asks what Ukraine is ready for, Ukraine is ready in the first place for the end of the hot stage of the war.
We want peace as nobody in the world wants, because let's be honest, Putin is a murderer and is criminal, and that is a fact.
And if people believe that we must move to the diplomatic track, and I believe that we are ready to move to the diplomatic track, and that at the negotiating table there must be the United States, Europe, Ukraine, and Russia.
We will be speaking with Putin.
Don't we make too many compromises?
Even the conversation with Putin is already a compromise.
Conversation with the TAG.
And I believe that that is a compromise of the whole civilized world to speak to this person.
I am sure of it.
Then everybody must be strong, strengthen Ukraine and not cede Ukraine and Ukrainian interests.
We will not cede our interests but if the partners are with us, because nobody knows how this conversation will start and how it will end.
Nobody knows.
But we believe that President Trump, he wants to succeed in this situation and success is the victory of the common sense.
And that is definitely the end to the hot stage of the war.
And that is undoubtedly strong security guarantees for Ukraine, at least for the Putin not to come back with the war again in half year, months, two, one year.
We must think of our grandchildren.
What if Russians decide to come back in 10 years?
Isn't that a challenge?
That is a challenge.
It's the same challenge because these are the losses.
Therefore, we must stabilize the situation in as just a way as possible without risks for Ukraine and for Europe and for 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 a negotiating table?
Do you think you can do that, given how you feel about him?
If that is the only setup in which we can bring peace to the citizens of Ukraine and not lose people, definitely we will go for this setup, for the meeting with these four participants.
What does it matter how I, what is my attitude to him?
I will not be kind to him.
And I believe that I consider him an enemy.
And to be honest, I believe he considers me an enemy as well.
That's it.
Most people who've 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 sustained 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's support and security that you feel confident that he can't then come back and attack you again.
I mean, do you think that is the most likely way the hot phase of the war is brought to an end?
I indeed believe that the fastest way to move to diplomacy is to guarantee today Ukrainian accession to NATO a strong army, that means the support to the army, because NATO is very, very important, that is support to the people and that means that we will not be alone if something happens.
But I believe that nonetheless, we must guarantee our physical presence not to decrease the numbers of our army.
And even if we decrease the numbers of our army, that this happens without any risks, because the Ukrainian army has to be the biggest in Europe and it must be in Ukraine.
And that was second.
And the third thing is that we believe that a great deterrence package will come with a sanctions package.
And if sanctions are lifted from the Russian Federation, I believe that this will increase the risk of the second invasion.
Security Guarantees Without Membership 00:15:36
And therefore, I believe that here we will have to look for the understanding how to solve the situation.
So as of now, to speak of the territories that Russia holds by force, why they need it, because honestly, that is nonsense.
There are cities that are cut by the front line.
Why have certain part of the town?
Why Russia needs this half of the town?
It's the biggest country on the planet.
Why would it need this dead city?
If the city is divided, there will be no civilization there, no economy, no investment.
There will be many challenges.
And please believe me, I remember what was there when I became the president.
There was Minsk, there was a contact line, and along that contact line, people were dying on a daily basis.
There were no mass murders and no massive artillery shellings, but on a daily basis, something was happening.
Anyways, on a daily basis, families lost their close ones.
The artillery shelling was coming, and all that was not right.
And back then we had the retreatment of the forces.
And today I also heard that from somebody, that there must be a ceasefire, then the forces must retreat.
Believe me, that is a minstree.
We will definitely not accept that.
That is not security guarantees for Ukraine.
We need guarantees because the guarantees are important for everybody.
I said about NATO because really, and maybe I'm repeating myself, recently I said that NATO is the guarantees for us that Putin is not likely to come with the occupation against.
NATO is guarantees for NATO that Ukrainian contingent in the numbers of hundreds of thousands of troops will strengthen them.
That is a strong army for NATO.
And NATO is guarantees for the Ruskis that Ukraine will not come with war against them, but it will solve all the issues diplomatically.
Therefore, I said that NATO is guarantees for everybody, stable and less expensive.
As you know, President Zelensky, 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's 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?
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PBB situation report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
First and foremost, he started the occupation with the annexation of Crimea, then Donbass, and then after eight years, he started the full-scale invasion.
But he began at the very beginning when Ukraine was not a candidate for the EU, did not have an invitation to NATO, was not aspiring to get, was not NATO candidate.
So we were not members of any alliance.
Yes, we very much wanted that because that is security for Ukraine.
But not only him, other countries in the world did not support our NATO membership.
So he clearly understood that Ukraine will not be NATO member.
He understood that.
That means that the reason for the offense was different.
Second, during the full-scale invasion and because of the full-scale invasion, Finland changed the approach to NATO.
Sweden changed the approach to NATO.
And they received not only the invitation and the guarantees, but they have also become a full-fledged members of NATO.
That means that because of his occupation of Ukraine, other countries became NATO members.
And again, thanks God that there is no war in Finland and Sweden.
But again, here we see that the reason of the invasion is not because of NATO.
Vice versa, some NATO countries are now NATO countries because he began the invasion.
And Finland is afraid because they have huge border with Russia.
They started to be afraid that Putin will go to Finland.
And definitely he wanted and wants.
Therefore, they wanted to become NATO members very fast.
So here's the reply.
The third story.
Putin, please look, he will understand that he must end the war when he is clearly explained to.
When President Trump says to him, shall you not stop the war?
One, two, three things happen to you.
Ukraine receives one, two, three.
Then just and when China says to Putin, we've had enough, otherwise we will not support you economically.
We will not have cooperation with you between our companies and banks when there are very clear conditions.
And look, I'm not speaking about the threat of the war of big countries against Russia.
No, it is enough for them to demonstrate political will and economic steps.
And after that, Putin will end the war.
He's very afraid of that.
He's afraid that his economy will collapse.
He is afraid of people becoming rapidly dissatisfied with him.
And shall that happen?
He will not stick.
He will not hold the Kremlin.
He will lose the power.
That is what he is afraid of.
So there must be very clear signals.
And if it is not NATO, Piers, what you are saying, and I'm being very frank, we can look how Ukraine was supported during the war.
That was very big money.
We have directed all our budget to the war effort.
And the United States and EU with military and humanitarian aid helped us with big, big sums of money.
If not NATO, we will need to sustain a million army.
But the hundreds of thousands that we have will be not enough because you can see that they are on the offense and we do not have enough to fully stem out of our territory.
That means that we will need to finance a million army at the very least.
That is huge money to develop the production, most of our budget, to allocate the funds to defenses, to air defense, to drones, etc., etc.
In any case, that is militarization of Ukraine.
Do you think we want that?
We want security guarantees.
We want to invest in social humanitarian dimensions.
We want to rebuild Ukraine, our cultural heritage that was destroyed.
We want to develop our state that is not only military technologies, that is many, many other things, humanitarian things, medicine, culture, sports.
We need money for all that.
Where we will get it?
That is very, very difficult.
So that's why I believe that NATO is the cheapest option.
If not NATO, then we must say that is huge army, huge money.
That means plus contingents of other partners.
And undoubtedly, that is a big deterrence missile package against the Ruskis if they start to go on offense, that we can use these long-range fires.
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.
It will be just a big risk that the war breaks out.
We will devote all our lives, not to economy, but to the preparation of another invasion of Russia.
So with such support and such weaponry, it will be not that scary for us on the one hand, but on the other hand, it will be scary for everybody else, for the businesses, for the economy.
Who will put money into Ukraine if people will know that we are not NATO members and that the risk of Russia's attack with big army is increasing.
With NATO, it's decreasing, but without it will be increasing.
So the contingent that can be present in Ukraine, yes, it can be a deterrence factor against Russia.
But Piers, that is all magnificent on the way to NATO.
If we are not in NATO, tomorrow we must understand when we are in NATO.
And that also adds up to the support.
And in all this, I may have the question.
I would like to ask you a question.
You say that Putin started the war, there isn't such opinion because we were... about to become a NATO member.
Then I have the question, if we're now not NATO members and if some people do not want to get us to NATO, why he doesn't leave our territories?
Please agree that there is a logic and I'm correct.
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.
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, 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 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?
For us, when we go to NATO, all this time when we are waiting, no matter how long it takes, and unfortunately does not depend on us, if this process is protracted for years or decades, not because of us, but because of partners, then we have absolutely just question what will be defending us against this evil for this whole time, on this whole path.
Which support package, which missiles, will we be given nuclear weapons?
Then let them give us nuclear weapons.
Will they give us the missiles in the quantities that we can stop Russia?
And I'm not sure of that, but I think it would help.
Otherwise, what missiles can stop Russia's nuclear missiles?
That is a rhetoric question.
So let's do it the following way.
Give us back nuclear arms.
Give us missile systems partners.
Help us finance the 1 million army.
Move your contingent on the parts of our state where we want the stability of the situation so that the people have tranquility.
If we're speaking about this, okay.
But here the question arises that I mentioned to you.
If we are not in NATO, why is he on our soil?
If we are not in NATO and America says that we are not ready to take Ukraine to NATO, then Putin must fully retreat from our territory.
That is logical.
Then we will speak about everything else.
Financial compensation for all the losses we've suffered.
Because there must be logic.
He invaded because he was afraid we'll become NATO members.
Okay, we're not NATO members.
Go back off our land.
It must be viewed like that.
Because what 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 90s?
In other words, if you still had nuclear weapons, do you think it would have deterred him from invading?
Yes, he would not invade.
Never.
He would not invade in 2022 because I am sure he would get signals.
Billion Dollar Aid Debate 00:15:08
And it is not right to step to the nuclear war because that would destroy the whole world.
He would be afraid of that.
He would be afraid of his society.
They would understand all the risks.
Our nuclear weapons was exchanged for nothing.
That is the influence of Russia.
That was the agreement between Russia and the US, that Ukraine gives up nuclear arms.
Maybe there were some other players who've been in negotiations, but there were players who were signing the Budapest Memorandum.
But the main thing was done by Russia and the US.
We lost.
We lost protection.
We lost our security guarantees.
Those were our security guarantees.
Definitely because of that, he invaded.
No, even if we were to give up the nuclear arms, yes, there was such policy in the world, but for what?
We should have exchanged it for NATO, for NATO arms.
Because even NATO arms, Pierce, honestly, we began to receive it after full-scale invasion.
Really, real arms.
Real arms.
I'm not speaking about the certain small numbers that was after Crimea during this frozen conflict after means.
We've received certain things, but that was nothing.
That is nothing.
Now, daily, we expend more than we've acquired during the eight years.
On a daily basis, we spend more.
So really, NATO arms, NATO protection, and air defense first and foremost, we began to get after 2022.
And if honestly, after we managed to stop it, simply to stop.
That's it.
We had no security guarantees except for the nuclear arms.
No, 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.
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 am ready to explain in numbers.
And it seems to me the most important thing.
I have reacted, I would never, never raise up the topic, but I react with the numbers to the calls that Ukrainians have received hundreds of billions from the United States and that a lot of money disappeared somewhere and they are nobody knows where And hundreds of billions of dollars Ukraine never received.
That is first.
Ukraine received support by all the institutions of the US, of the Congress, of the White House, on military in the three years on 77 billion.
77 billion in arms, in arms, not money, in arms, came to Ukraine.
Had to come to Ukraine.
In reality, as of today, 46 billion out of this package arrived in Ukraine.
46 in reality actually came.
Legally, 77 billion must come.
15 billion out of these 77 must come in arms this year.
We are waiting.
As I mentioned to you, the processes are slow.
It maybe will arrive.
We do not know when, but it's in process.
So 77 in arms had to come.
46 actually arrived.
As regards other money to the budget support of Ukraine, Ukraine received 31.5 billion.
And if you actually see, in reality, not on paper, we got to the budget 31.5 billion support.
There are important things there, energy, etc.
We are very grateful.
And 46 out of 77, and you, so you receive overall 77, 46 plus 31.
That is what I said, 77.
I never lied about that.
That is what we have actually.
And as I have said, additional to the 46, some arms can arrive.
I'll list you some examples.
Some people in the US said that about the support of Ukraine.
I'll give you an example.
Of course, there are organizations in the US that were providing assistance to other organizations in Europe.
For example, they were allocating money to support Ukrainian refugees.
Let me give you an example.
Ukrainian refugees were provided with around five or six billion.
These are Ukrainians that live in Europe and US where they have flat.
And Europe supported refugees a lot.
We are grateful that Ukrainians abroad are being supported.
Different countries in the world, in Europe, have given this support.
European Union allocated 18 billion, 20 billion in the they have had decisions in the first year.
And this money never came to Ukraine.
Never came to Ukraine.
I always said, give money to support of refugees to Ukrainian budget.
And we, from Ukrainian budget, will give it to the refugees that are abroad.
Not to lose connection with Ukrainians.
It was very important for us.
But nobody wanted that.
They wanted to give directly to Ukrainians.
Why?
So that this money stays abroad.
I can understand.
And the US have directed 5 to 6 billion.
But Piers, in the first year of the war, citizens of Ukraine carried out of Ukraine, at least of peace, 35 billion in the first year.
35 billion, and nobody could stop them.
It's their money.
It's their right.
They are free people.
But they have took.
They have transferred their accounts abroad.
Yes, our economy collapsed.
And one of the reasons was that large sums of capital was took from Ukraine.
So just to compare, in the three years of the war, the US directed to refugees five to six billion in aid.
And in the first year, Ukrainians took out of the country 35.
Therefore, I do not consider it the support of the Ukrainian budget, but it's support of people, and we are grateful for that.
But one cannot say that we have directed hundreds of billions to Ukraine.
That is not true.
So that is the second example to you.
Very interesting one.
Part of the money that the people speak in the US about was financing the production of the United States of America.
Yes, companies who were producing weapons.
Of course, they said that this money is for Ukraine.
Undoubtedly, we are grateful for this money.
But you know, they have calculated this money in the package when they allocated this money for Ukraine.
Yes, they increased the production in the US.
This helped us.
But all this money stayed in the United States of America in the specific companies, at the specific plants, making profit for specific people for the salaries of solely US citizens that are working in those companies.
That is a good decision, but this money was not directed to Ukraine.
I simply say that the numbers are numbers.
One cannot say we've given hundreds of billions to Ukraine.
Where is the money?
Because when you say that we've given billions to Ukraine, where is the money?
You can find that the majority of the money is in your country.
And this is what happened in reality.
Although, for sure, without the US and European help, we would not withstand.
And that's a fact, and we are very grateful for that.
But I am for, when we speak about numbers, I am for speaking about precise numbers.
One implication from the Associated Press interview 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?
This money wasn't in Ukraine.
Ukraine had 46 out of 77 billion that came with arms.
31.5 came to our budget aid.
Undoubtedly on the, for example, on training, on the on the training to uh Ukrainian troops by NATO, US country.
As as I'm aware, this this uh training sum was in this 46 billion.
So the training were also calculated in the package.
So where on the way was this money spent, what came, what not, what not arrived.
It seems to me that we must be transparent with what Ukraine received, what Ukraine, our state received, our army, our budget.
And for this, we are ready to report.
We have precise numbers.
And to those, President Zelensky 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?
By the way, part of this message stems, Piers, from your question that I have just replied to.
By the way, one part of the money was allocated by the government to the production in the United States for increase in production.
We received weapons from your storages.
And you know that not all that weaponry was brand new.
We're grateful for that, but many things we had to refurbish.
So you have renewed, the United States of America have renewed their army, their weapons, because they have allocated the packages.
And for that money, the new weapons were produced.
The state-of-the-art weapons.
We are grateful for everything.
We will be forever grateful for that.
But you must know that these weapons are made in the 70s and 80s.
That is very important.
I think your people and in America, they must know about that.
You have received, and please, I apologize, I mean the United States, have received the refurbished army.
And I believe that's a very good thing.
Second, you have increased the number of working places on the plants and the taxes.
And third, American companies, American companies today now have the contracts for these arms and the highest prices for these arms in the last 50 years because there is such a huge demand because of Russian offense.
All European countries have this request.
People are afraid.
This is huge money.
The companies, American companies made millions even on licenses, because there are offices in Europe.
And so these are billions of revenues.
And I believe that this war has brought it for sure, apart from all bad things that it brought to us.
Furthermore, the U.S. received from Ukraine the experience, experience of modern big land warfare.
Americans and Europeans, but Americans in the first place, have all the information, not only from intelligence, directly from the military, what American weapons works, what doesn't work, what is efficient, and Russians have not found a key to that.
We have built the electronic warfare system against the modern Russian drones.
We ourselves created such drone systems against Russian equipment and their energy grid and the military targets, such drones US Army never had.
And all these technologies were open to the US.
So that means refurbishing of the army and weaponry, but also making it more modern.
Inauguration Invitation and Drone Tech 00:06:45
That is a fact.
Furthermore, we destroyed a real Russian land potential.
So Russia is no longer a dangerous adversary for the US.
We have destroyed their cadre-experienced military.
And let's be honest, we've destroyed it with our own lives.
That is very important.
Furthermore, the Americans, thanks to Wisbaden, thanks to many other things, are fully aware of how modern Russian army acts, how it wages war, who fights, who is pretending to fight, and who is professional on the battlefield.
American army knows about them everything, who they are, how they live, where they live, what they are capable of, what they achieve, what they cannot do, and what they will never do.
All that America as of today knows.
And I believe that is a precious experience.
Absolutely.
That is in my opinion.
Apart from that, America did not send its kids to die.
Ukraine stopped Russia, yes, on its soil.
Stopped.
And Russia did not invade any NATO country, which would definitely lead to the participation in the war of Russia, of American troops, French, European troops.
We have preserved lives to all warriors of these countries, to all children.
This is what Ukraine did.
So is it that after all that, Ukraine does not deserve peace?
The peace with dignity, the security guarantees from the countries to whom Ukraine honestly preserved lives of the people?
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 for 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?
People among those who support certain messages or who repost the people that are close to President Trump, they act absolutely irresponsibly.
And in support to Ukraine Can lead with very likely to the victory of Putin.
And that means dragging the United States of America and all Europe to a third world war.
So that is irresponsibly.
I do not want to give characteristics to posts or reposts or messages on support or some discussions that does not interest me.
He, Donald Trump, is the president of the United States of America and the responsibility will be on him.
And I am the president of Ukraine and therefore the responsibility is on me.
And it does not matter who says something to us.
The main thing is to look a bit ahead and see how it will end for my country, for my people, for my family, for all of us.
And I think that I very much believe that President Trump, when he asks himself such questions, he finds the answers that Ukraine must be supported.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the worlds of politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
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 us like 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 and foremost, I'd like to say that President Trump invited me to his inauguration, but he invited me in very general terms as maybe other leaders.
I'm not aware whom he invited personally or in other matter, but I believe just that we need time to sit and speak about how to end the war and we need time for that.
And in this moment, in the inauguration moment, I think that he has his own issues on the agenda.
That is maybe one of the most important days in his life, in the life of the American people.
Church Councils vs Moscow Patriarchate 00:02:30
And I think that was simply not very appropriate for me to come.
He wouldn't have time for personal meeting.
As regards this person, firstly, I'd like to tell you that Ukraine has a council of churches.
It is an institution that is the biggest in Europe.
I was told by my colleagues in the United States of America that you have, in terms of the amount of, in the US, they do not have such amount of institutions.
This is a very serious, serious community where all the denominations, all the religions are members of, no matter the Orthodox, the Catholics, or Muslims, or the Jews, we have many, many Baptists.
So we have many, many various churches, various denominations, various religions, and all of them are members of the Council of Churches.
And also, the Moscow Patriarchate was also a member of the Council of Churches.
And where he is mistaken, not me, not somebody else.
It is that all the population is against that Moscow Patriarchate, even as it sounds.
And the thing is that nobody was closing anything, is that the Council of Churches and they discussed and decided it among themselves that they have excluded the Moscow Patriarchate out of the Council of Churches.
This is done by only denominations.
They do it themselves without any influence.
So the religious institutions decided that.
Second thing is on legislation level in parliament a decision was enacted that there can be no Moscow Patriarchate.
That means that this church must re-register legally.
There can be no legal connection with Moscow.
This is what it is about, that Moscow Patriarchate is being closed.
There can be no legal connection.
And they must be Ukrainian church legally in Ukrainian jurisdiction.
Medvedchuk and Terrorist Attacks 00:15:20
And language here doesn't play any role.
That is all lies.
That is Putin's narrative.
Putin has narrative about Moscow Patriarchate, Russian church.
Putin has narrative on elections, on my illegitimacy, on dictatorship.
That says a person who is 30 years in power, the bloody dictator, murderer who violated territorial integrity of Ukraine and not only in other nations.
And he says about some illegitimacy.
And what is very interesting, as denominations, as elections, all that is Putin's narrative.
And regrettably, this blogger or journalist, whatever he wants to call him, he unfortunately fully repeats words of the Putin.
And what he wants, he works for the Putin because he wants to lower me to the level of Putin.
This is what he wants.
He wants us to be equals.
And what's afterwards, then people would need to find the balance, to strike the balance, to find compromise.
Putin is not so bad.
You know, he was against NATO.
He started this not simply.
Putin murdered tens of thousands of civilians.
And the majority of those were Russian speakers because he murdered people.
And in the majority, 90%, those were eastern parts of Ukraine.
Parts he occupied, that is east of our country.
In the majority, it is there that there were people who spoke Russian lived.
Why he started the invasion from there?
Because he wanted the support.
Because people, somebody told him all the time that there the Russian speakers live and the occupation will go smoothly.
But that was not true.
There were many people who spoke Ukrainian.
Various people, but if we speak about Russian speakers and about the Russian language in the majority, and its majority is in the east of the country, it was always like that in all the books.
Just come here, you will see, you will speak, and you will take people who have moved because they have lost their flats.
If you see those people who lost the flats because they were occupied, yes, there are many of the Russian speakers.
But he killed himself, those people.
And ask how they now.
What's their attitude to Putin?
They hate him.
They hate him.
To Crimea, before Crimea, before Crimea, they approached him as a neighbor.
We must live in peace with the Russians.
We must have good relations with Putin.
Ask those people now, the people whose households Putin killed.
They will tell him in Russian language.
Mr. President, in relation to what Togova also said about...
And about the killing of Burdering political.
Whom have we killed?
There was one person.
His surname is Medvedchuk.
That person is now in Moscow.
Medved Chuk was the leader of the second size party after our party.
He had second party in terms of size in parliament.
This party is the party that Putin was controlling via Medveduk.
Medveduk is the godfather of Putin's kids.
So they are like relatives.
Medved was always against Ukraine, against our independence, against the EU, against Europe, against NATO, against all that.
And all Russian narratives that came from Putin, they came via Medvedchuk.
They for years have been doing everything.
So we become dependent on Russian gas, oil.
They were making profits on Russian oil and gas.
So that was the party.
That was a pro-Russian party.
When the war started, Putin was giving his ultimatums via this party to me.
And when the war started, Medvedchuk and his colleagues demanded that Ukraine cedes Ukraine to Putin.
That was their plan.
To put Medvedchuk to rule over Ukraine.
So that it is the same as in Belarus, the same as in Chechnya, the same as everywhere where they come.
So that we run, so that I flee abroad to other country, etc.
They very much wanted that, but it didn't happen that way.
Ukraine reserved its independence.
This is what happened.
And then Medvedchuk, nobody killed him.
He was arrested by the security service of Ukraine.
And in time, we exchanged him for 200 Ukrainian military personnel.
So I'm not aware of which opponents he speaks.
All my opponents are the opposition.
All the opposition that was there when I became the president.
It is all there in the Ukrainian parliament.
And even this party that was the party of Medveczuk whom we exchanged, those MPs are in parliament.
It seems to me that to this journalist, I do not remember his surname.
Excuse me, Takir.
Yes, yes, Takir is his name.
But it seems to me.
He needs to more deeply understand what's happening in Ukraine.
To stop working for Putin.
To stop licking his ass, honestly.
It seems to me very important.
It seems to me that the person, no matter where he lives, must understand things.
When he simply says something, you know, just throwing the words, has he for one time in his lifetime lost his clothes once?
I wish to his family, I do not know his family, I wish them peace and no losses.
But one must have his own opinion and understand that he probably influences many people and he's simply disinforming them, misinforming the people.
As we've been talking, President Zelensky, there's been an assassination in Moscow, an explosion, believed to be assassination.
This is of the man accused by Ukraine secret services of orchestrating assassinations in Kyiv.
And according to Russian state news agencies today, Armin Sargisan Yan 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 cannot speak about any assassinations.
I know that Security Service of Ukraine has eliminated one person that stands behind killings of Ukrainians in the east of our state, behind the killings of Ukrainians during times of the revolution of dignity on Maidan.
And I know that the Security Service of Ukraine has given the official message regarding this.
I do not know this person.
I do not know his name.
It's difficult for me to say, is this that case or not?
I'm not sure that something happened during the time of our conversation.
If it is something that happened before, I know that they had certain just aim, a person that is a killer, a murderer, an assassin.
I know that there was an elimination of such person by SSU of Ukraine.
I'm not sure that this is, you said the name, the surname, it doesn't say anything.
I believe it is the same person we're talking about.
Yeah, I think just more information has come out as we've been talking.
So you appear to have confirmed.
Ukrainians do not do any prepaid assassinations.
We have security service of Ukraine that can eliminate only the murderers who have been torturing citizens of Ukraine.
If they have certain criminal case, if they have the evidence, if that is their just target, then the Security Service of Ukraine does it.
You must see the official message.
On this, 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 fire 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 are you allowed to do that when you're on the way out?
Like the people don't want you to be there anymore.
There should be like some sort of like a pause for like 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 former president.
The whole thing is nuts.
I mean, look, I don't know shit about politics.
Zelensky says Putin is terrified.
You know who he's talking to?
Fuck you, man.
Fuck you people.
You fucking people are about to start World War III.
What I found strange about that, President Zelensky, 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 the respect to the boys, to Joe Rogan, to his guests, you understand, I have the feeling when the war is somewhere away from somebody, we speculate and we do not understand all the pain.
But when we replicate to our experience, to our life, we can find more or more right answers.
On the 9-11, there was an attack on the United States of America.
Thousands of people have been killed.
What Americans had to do to leave this impugn or strike the terrorists.
They have attacked the terrorists and they did the right thing because they put them into their place.
They destroyed the terrorists.
Destroyed those who ordered it.
They for years have been destroying those terrorists then.
And that was absolutely just to stop the terrorists.
Otherwise, if you don't stop them, they will come again.
So that is the reply.
Ukraine hit Kursk region, where Russia brought North Korean troops, 12,000 North Koreans.
It simply trained them to kill us, and they came to kill us.
4,000 we've destroyed.
We asked to give long-range weapons so that those thousands not reach us.
But excuse me, I'm not.
I apologize, I'm not comparing with 9-11, but we have 9-11 for three years.
And when we appeal to the Americans, to our partners, give us long-range weapons to the military targets of the terrorists from other countries who come to us and destroy us at the distance and they bomb us from the aircraft, our hospitals, our schools, our commercial centers.
That is what missile attacks are.
The North Koreans that have signed the treaty with the Russians, the Iranians that have signed the agreement with Putin.
Please tell me if tomorrow at the border of the US, Iran will be standing.
There will be North Korean troops.
And you will know that the US will know that tomorrow they will attack you.
Will you destroy them or no?
Or will you stand there and wait?
Okay, continue.
We won't do anything because there is a big risk of the Third World War.
Third World War is now today in the head of Putin, North Korea and Iran, and the followers of those who are like them.
This is where in whose heads it is.
So they must be stopped.
It must be stopped.
And it seems to me that 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.
Heroic Teenager James Wilton 00:02:17
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, my sincere condolences, first and foremost, sincere condolences to the relatives, to the close ones.
Your boy gave his life, the most precious thing he had.
It's a great sorrow.
And I want you to know that we appreciate it so much.
We are so proud of such warriors.
Unfortunately, he gave his life.
He's among heroes among Ukrainians.
For us, he's ours.
And of course, we will never forget it.
I'm grateful that today you ask such a question, because if there is such a question that is, you know, like a notification about such people, and no matter where he comes from, he definitely is in our hearts, in Ukrainian hearts, in British hearts, that is a heroic, heroic person.
It's important to speak of it.
Then it stays in the memory, undoubtedly, of the close ones and relatives in the first place, but also in the memories of those who did not know such boy.
And now we all know him.
We all speak about him with great, great honor and with pain.
Thank you.
Thank you for bringing up such moments.
Thank you for your very kind words.
It'll mean a lot to his family, I'm sure.
Finally, Mr. President, like I say, 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.
Gratitude for Withstanding War 00:03:50
But you just put a video out saying, I'm 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've never changed my view.
I do think you're a heroic figure in this war.
I think you've led your people magnificently.
I hope you get the peace in the way that you want it and that this bloodshed ends.
And we both know President Trump well.
I just wonder whether you'd like to end with a final message, because I'm sure he'll 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 definitely be on on the shoulders of Ukrainians and on the shoulders of President Trump.
I know he has many internal issues, but yes, we must end the war during his time.
I very much need it.
You know, there are days when there is an opportunity to save people at the greatest, but there are also days when too many people die.
And the majority of the days during this war are like that.
Sometimes there are successes and few losses, but tens of people daily.
I think very important is that we not lose such days because the losses do not decrease daily.
They increase.
And I think it's important not to protract.
It is important to do everything to prepare the common vision, the plan, the simple, understandable plan.
If it can be simple, of course, the end of the war cannot be simple, but to concentrate fully at the war ending without a prospect of it coming back.
The fact that people have withstood for so long, I think it will be very difficult for us if the war comes again to withstand.
I think it will be very difficult.
And it seems to me that the main thing is why I always underscore it.
We need such security guarantees that this person never comes back.
I simply don't want another challenge like this for Ukrainians.
Let's not test our resilience again.
It seems to me it's been enough and we therefore deserve a just peace.
And today, the timeframe of the agreements, the strength of the agreements, it depends on President Trump and on us, on our dialogue, and to pressure Putin.
I think the sooner we do it, the happier people will be everywhere.
President Zelensky, 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.
But 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.
Thank you so much.
Come to Ukraine.
You're always a desired guest.
You're very welcome.
I will take you up on that.
Thank you very much.
Good luck, Pierre.
Okay.
Okay.
Good luck, Tiers.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I think you need the luck more than me, but thank you.
I appreciate it.
Export Selection