“I will reveal what was not public”: interview with Kuleba about partners and negotiations with Russia Oksana Kharkovska Olga Bilan As head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba held many important meetings, some of which stirred up the network and even became memes. And some remained unknown to the public until now. Former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba spoke about unusual meetings with partners, negotiations with Russia, and the first days of the invasion in an exclusive interview with Channel 24. Read more interesting details in the article below. Recall that in the first part of the interviewwe wrote about the US elections, Kuleba's dismissal, and also about “secret agreements” between the White House and the Kremlin. Details – follow the link. The head of the US mission to NATO, Juliana Smith, said that today the Alliance has not reached the point where it is ready to offer membership or invite Ukraine. In your opinion, should we even count on an invitation to NATO before the end of hostilities? ? What significance will the US elections play for Ukraine's ambitions to join the Alliance? ? It is not just worth counting on, it is worth fighting for. Here I once again support the president for pushing this issue so decisively, despite the negative signals from a number of key capitals. Because if you do not engage and do not push, you will never get it. We have already been through this with the issue of membership in the European Union, weapons and other important decisions for Ukraine. The Ambassador said what she could say, because the Ambassador always states the official position of the center, and until the position at the center has changed, the Ambassador will say what has been brought to her attention. However, I have information that even when I worked as a minister, meetings and discussions had already begun in Washington, which had not happened before, about the possibility of revising the US position on inviting Ukraine to join NATO. This process is ongoing. There was a public manifestation of this when Joe Biden met with Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer in Berlin. Then one newspaper wrote that they allegedly discussed this and there was a softening of Washington's position. Something is boiling, brewing there, but when and how it will come out is still an open question. US presidential candidates Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are leaving open the option of inviting Ukraine. Full interview with Dmytro Kuleba: watch the video So that everyone understands, there is currently not a single objective argument against inviting Ukraine to NATO membership.The question is only in 2 subjective counterarguments. The first is that there are people for whom the position of not giving an invitation for years was ironclad. They just don't want to look weak, as if they were broken, so that they would change their position. Slovakia, Hungary – that's a separate story. I'm talking more about the USA and Germany now. By the way, the situation is the same with Taurus missiles. I have great respect for German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, but his unwillingness to give Taurus is his personal principled position, that is, it is not a systemic position. However, he did not want to give tanks either, but he had to give them. Here he took a principled position, saying that it will be as he said. He is the leader of the country, he is responsible for it, therefore he has the right, but we must understand the nature of the decisions, what is hidden there. The second factor is that there are heads who come to the offices of the leaders of countries and say, like, if there are negotiations with Russia tomorrow, what will be the subject of these negotiations? The real list of what can be negotiated with Russia is extremely narrow. One of these issues is Ukraine's membership in NATO. That is why the leader is told not to rush with his decision (the leader of the country – Channel 24), because we don’t have many cards as it is, and we’ll take this one away now. Ukraine’s task is not only to receive an invitation to NATO membership, but also to exclude Ukraine’s membership in NATO from the list of negotiating positions. These are the two fundamental tasks. At a meeting of the European Council, the President of Ukraine said that Ukraine's security is either NATO membership or nuclear weapons. These words caused a great resonance in the media. The Bild publication published that Ukraine is allegedly seriously considering the possibility of restoring its nuclear potential. Russian propaganda media wrote that Ukraine is allegedly going to produce some mythical “dirty bomb”, which is not true. In your opinion, how appropriate is it to say that Ukraine is capable of restoring its nuclear potential? And will this guarantee security? Some people just have a memory like a fish. Five days before the start of a full-scale invasion, on February 19, 2022, during a speech at the Munich Security Conference, President Zelensky said, among other things, that you (the Budapest Memorandum countries – Channel 24) abandoned us – you took away our nuclear weapons in response to a promise to guarantee security, and now we have no nuclear weapons, no security, we are on the brink of war. Then the Russians also picked up on this and started making up stories about Zelensky threatening to create a nuclear bomb, restore nuclear potential, and our partners were running around, worried. Our partners, who have done a lot for us, just need to worry less about what Ukraine can do, and work more on what they can do to protect Ukraine and Europe from Russia. Because whoever thinks that Vladimir Putin will win in Ukraine and stop there doesn't understand anything about Putin at all. I know there is a big historical debate about this. But was it a tragic mistake for Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal? It was. Who deprived us of our nuclear arsenal? President Bill Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin. They conspired against Ukraine. Now restoring nuclear weapons will be the solution to our struggle? No, it will create more problems than it solves. I don't even know, scientists still have to say – do we have all the technical capabilities for this. But these constant attempts to accuse Ukraine of wanting to do something that should not be done are already boring. It is clear that behind the “curb” it is their job to accuse us of something, but when close friends start to spread this story and scare Ukraine, then you need to have a conscience. You remembered the president's speech a few days before the start of a full-scale war. The US was then sure that Ukraine would lose. The partners assumed that the Russians would kill the President of Ukraine. You said that a great friend of Ukraine suggested that Zelensky prepare a video testament. Can you say who it was? And did you pass this information on to the President? How did Zelensky react to this? This is a very good person, known to everyone. Not only to politicians, but to all Ukrainians in general. His heart really ached for Ukraine. The Russians were already on the threshold of Kyiv at that time, and he was very worried. To be honest, I don’t see anything seditious in such a proposal, because the man had such an emotional gesture of empathy. But I didn’t convey this message to the president for one simple reason – I knew that our president was in a completely different reality, and he wasn’t going anywhere. I remember those days well, and if the president had left Kyiv, we would have lost Kyiv, because everyone would have fled. Yes, there were many casualties, many of our soldiers and civilians died. But the fact that the president stayed was a signal to many people who were planning to “run away”. They would have fled and the government would have simply collapsed. The truth will emerge one day, who behaved and how in the first days of the war. Are you talking about someone from the Ukrainian government? From the Ukrainian government in the broad sense: judges, prosecutors, employees of ministries and other government bodies. The members of the government acted in a very organized manner. It was decided to split the government into two parts – some remained in Kyiv, and others went to Ivano-Frankivsk. And everyone who has read the history of Ukraine knows that the story with the government in exile always ended in total defeat. Even if it is an internal exile. I returned to Ukraine from a business trip on the night of February 24-25. For me, there was no question of whether to return or not. And then they told me to go to Ivano-Frankivsk. I was like, “No, no, not that. No governments in Exile.” That was already the case: a government in Zhitomir, in Kamianets-Podilskyi. I almost threw up at the thought that we were taking the path of our predecessors, whom I, of course, respect: Petliura, Vynnychenko, Hrushevsky, Shulgin and others. But you can't leave the capital, it's just fucking nuts. I am absolutely sure that the president's decision to stay in Kyiv broke this vicious circle of Ukrainian history, when at the first blow from the north the authorities “packed up” and wandered around Ukraine. Then they lost, ended up in exile abroad and wrote memoirs about the lost Ukraine. I knew that the president did not plan to join his historical predecessors, so he did not leave Kyiv. I did not even forward him any messages about the video will. We had to fight. We had to toil day and night on weapons, on sanctions, because that's what really helped Ukraine. And everything else only weakened us. Even some thoughts about “plan B” would have made us weaker. I want to go back to September 2021. Then you and the head of the President's Office went to Washington. You had a meeting in Congress. And then the legendary phrase was heard: “Guys, dig trenches.” How did you perceive this phrase then? Then they said that there would be an offensive not only in the East, but also from the North and South? The main problem in communication with partners from September 2021 to February 2022 – some said that there would be a war, other partners said that there would be no war. Those who said that there would be a war did not provide any details about the scale and on what basis they made this conclusion. The United States initially simply warned that they had information that such a decision had already been made. Over time, somewhere in late autumn, when a large accumulation of weapons on the border had already begun, they began to say that this would be a full-scale story, and not just an operation in Donbas. In particular, they talked about missile strikes. But I emphasize again – there was no more detailed information. You have to imagine – I’m sitting in front of you, and another person is sitting there, you trust both of them, but I say there will be a war, and he says there won’t be a war. You ask to explain where this information came from. One responds that he can’t say everything, but he knows for sure that there will be a war. The other person says that they checked everything with the Russians, they say they have a trusting relationship, and the Russians say that this is just a build-up of tension, a promotion of “Russophobia” – and there won’t be any war. And here you have to make a decision. The fate of the country depends on you. Interview with Dmytro Kuleba/Screenshot from video I'll be preparing anyway. Of course, that's why in October I gathered the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and vaguely hinted: “Just imagine that you and I find ourselves in a crisis of unprecedented proportions, when there is no communication and all lines of communication are disrupted” and so on. We inside, the ministry, the diplomatic service, know what to do, we have all the protocols written down? It turned out that we had zero readiness – some prehistoric instructions that no one had ever read or prepared for. And in October we began to prepare for work in conditions of a “crisis of unprecedented proportions.” I could not come then and claim that there would be a war. Although for myself I understood that it would be. I wonder if the White House has secret information. They know for sure that there will be a full-scale war, but “we won't tell you the details.” What is the White House guided by? It's fear – they were afraid that this information would get somewhere wrong? No, I don't have such facts. The decision about the war was made in a super narrow circle. For example, I think that Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – Channel 24) did not know that there would be a war. If something was decided in a super-narrow circle, and you know about it, then any detailed information about what exactly you know will allow us to identify the source. Perhaps they were worried about the source of the information inside Russia, or did not want to reveal access to communication lines that Russia considered secure. The question here is different – what did the partners do to prevent this war ? < p dir="ltr" >< em >< strong > Sanctions ? < p dir="ltr" > What sanctions ? There were none. We asked for preventive sanctions. They were not there, because “it would be an escalation.” We asked to begin massive arms deliveries. That didn't happen either, because “it would be an escalation.” In fact, history will judge everyone. Could we have done more inside the country, and could our partners have done more on their side, to prevent the invasion? No, to be honest. I think it was already impossible to prevent it. It was only possible to delay the invasion a little in time to prepare better. But our partners, unfortunately, did almost nothing to really strengthen us on the eve of the invasion. Two days before the full-scale invasion, you had a meeting with Joe Biden in the United States. A photo was published of you in masks. What did he tell you then and what was your reaction? It was a very important and warm meeting. Even in the office I understood two things: We were very lucky that Joe Biden was the US president at the time of the full-scale invasion. He is the only US president since 1991 for whom Ukraine was not just a dot on the map, but a dot in his heart. He was very touched by our fate. So I left – I realized that everything was already done, all the conclusions were made and I went home to fight so that all the US analysts would be mistaken in their calculations regarding Ukraine. Dmytro Kuleba and Joe Biden on February 22, 2022/White home What were your most unusual meetings that you remember? In 2023, Anthony Blinken came and you sat in “McDonaldze”. In 2024, Blinken also arrived in Kyiv, you were at Veterano Pizza. What other meetings do you remember that Ukrainians don't know about? Anthony Blinken is a great friend of Ukraine, when they had discussions within the administration on supporting Ukraine, he was always our advocate. This is a man who did a lot to ensure that Washington made important decisions on arms supplies, sanctions, and financial support. We didn't just go to McDonald's for nothing, he played a role in its return to Ukraine. When I realized that McDonald's doesn't work in Ukraine, I asked him why? I understand why there is no McDonald's in Russia, but why it doesn't work here? This isn't even about burgers and pies, but about a signal to global business. If McDonald's doesn't operate in a country, then any other international company will think about why it should come back if McDonald's hasn't come back yet? It was not only a decision to return at least some minimal comfort to the people. It was also a signal to Western businesses that they needed to return to Ukraine. I raised this issue with Anthony Blinken, he got involved and McDonald's returned. We celebrated by going there. And Veterano was a signal of support for Ukrainian veterans. Some special moments, negotiations of a different nature are divided into 2 categories. The first is location and format. The second is content. It seemed to me that nothing could throw me off balance, but there was a conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one Latin American country. Honestly, I almost sent him after the Russian ship at the meeting. Ukrainians should also understand this: the way we see the war is one thing; the way the countries closest to us see it is another; and the way our war is seen in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is a completely different planet. When they start telling you absolutely seriously, like, “we are for you, we sympathize so much, but we sincerely believe that we need to stop supplying you with weapons – and the war will end. You know, Russia, of course, made a mistake, but Russia is a kind and positive country that has done a lot of good for us all, so let's somehow find mutual understanding.” Or about “two Slavic peoples who were forced to fight each other.” When you listen to all this in such a concentrated “package” from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of another country… These were 3-4 conversations when you specifically wanted to send. As for the location, I'll reveal something that wasn't public. In 2023, the then British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly arrived in Kyiv on a visit. We completed the negotiations, ran through all the programs, and I invited him at about 10 p.m. to a Kiev bar owned by very famous volunteers in Ukraine. They raise a lot of money to support the army. We came to the bar, poured a glass of whiskey. There he met with Ukrainian volunteers, we drank moderately. But it was a very important conversation. When he left the bar, he said: “Dmitry, Ukrainians are invincible.” I am convinced that this was the result of communication with our people. On the surface there were blackouts, shelling, war, and you go down into the dungeons, sit down with people who, despite everything, tell you that they manage to help the army, run their own business, drink and work. It was such a break from the pattern. James Cleverly was very moved by this story later. I know that I later cited this visit as an example of how indestructible the Ukrainian spirit is, and how we manage to do everything at the same time. You said at the very beginning that the most difficult negotiations were with one of the representatives of the Asian countries. However, in one of your interviews you said that the most difficult negotiations are when you want to punch someone in the face. That's what I wanted then. And I also wanted to punch Lavrov in the face. Then there was a meeting in Antalya in 2022, what exactly was discussed? The price of any mistake, even the smallest one, was very high there. As soon as I entered the negotiating room, I turned off all emotions. I turned them on only when I left. In such a situation, emotion will play against you, make you weaker. These were probably the only negotiations in my life that I conducted like a machine. Just artificial intelligence, which is completely focused on processing information, calibrating its words, completely depriving itself of any emotions. Lavrov failed to do this. He did not feel confident and demonstrated that he is not such a scary wolf as he is portrayed. Then I realized that Lavrov is certainly a strong diplomat, but not as strong as people used to think of him, that he is like the ideal of a top-level diplomat. There were 9 of us in a room without the media. There were 3 ministers sitting – me, Lavrov and my Turkish colleague Mevlut Cavusoglu. Each had 2 people next to us. We did everything. That's when I realized that he most likely did not know about the start of the war and did not influence the decisions that were made. Perhaps this has changed for them now. There was such an episode. I suggested agreeing on at least a 24-hour corridor from Mariupol, because all this was happening against the backdrop of a siege of the city. Lavrov replied that these issues should be resolved by the military. I said that let's call whoever we need to now. I called our defense minister, and Lavrov called his. But he replied that it was not within his authority. Then I said that foreign ministers have the authority to discuss anything, so let's call the presidents. He snorted something and refused to call. Although I was really ready to call Alexey Reznikov or the president to coordinate all this. The Turkish delegation watched this “ping-pong” with great delight. In the end, Lavrov showed that he could not bring himself to call his superiors to resolve some issue, and that he was not inclined to resolve any issues at all. Lavrov was allegedly unaware of the invasion of Ukraine/Getty Images The Turks saw this and understood who had what goal. Lavrov wanted to act as a “smoke screen” for the war, an imitation of diplomacy. My goal was to solve specific problems, save the lives of Ukrainians and try to stop the war. Lavrov showed the face of Russian diplomacy at BRICS. They circulated a video of Lavrov standing on his foot, then picking his nose while Putin was saying something. This is the face of what we call Russian diplomacy. Trolling in diplomacy is, in principle, a normal and correct thing. It is normal when people want to troll, let off steam and emotions. But Russia is a very serious enemy. Any war is a war between two systems. We can troll Lavrov and the funny-looking Russian generals as much as we want, but then you read the news from the front and realize that the Russian system works. Yes, it suffers terrible losses, grinding up people's lives, but the system works. I am not against trolling, but I would focus more on Ukraine building a system that will be able to stop Russia for the first time in history. We can talk endlessly about how Ukrainian diplomacy put Russian diplomacy in its place. There are many examples of how we “dragged them around the table” in different places and made them “wash their faces with their own snot and tears”, but the point is not to sit and tell how cool we are. The point is to win. I always say that we shouldn't get too carried away by these stories about stupid Russia. We need to work daily to create a system of the Ukrainian state that is capable of stopping Russia for the first time in history. Where to stop? How to stop? These are other questions. This is a war of two systems, if we want to survive, we must build this system. And the solution to building this system inside Ukraine: in the fight against inefficiency, injustice, corruption, failure, disunity. These are the problems that we need to deal with daily in order to become strong. Our internal strength is our only path. If we delegate everything to partners, then in the end we will have to do what they say. Unfortunately, the history of Ukraine shows that this never ends well for us. Since we remembered the funny stories, you created a meme at the Munich Security Conference when you lit a cigar on live TV. What happened then? There were a lot of funny pictures then, what is your favorite joke about it? I was at a meeting with the G7 foreign ministers. We held talks. First of all, we talked about weapons. I leave the meeting and they tell me that I need to do an interview. There is a camera in the courtyard, I asked how much time I have. They said 10 minutes. I understand that these are my 10 minutes for a cigarette. I want to tell everyone that smoking is evil, it is dangerous for your health, but I am not without sin. I am standing there smoking, and then a journalist says that there is a change of schedule – I need to get into the frame. I started smoking cigars when I was a poor student. They were very expensive for me and it was hard to get them. I developed a habit of smoking them to the very end, when it already burns my fingers. Such a habit, forgive me. When they called me into the frame, I saw that I still had some left to smoke, so I took it in my hand and hid it. I was standing there, doing an interview, and it was all over. I lit a cigarette for myself, but it turned out that the interview was not over. We are all living people. I took it calmly. My son said that TikTok and Instagram positively appreciated this episode. If my son is not ashamed of me, then I'm happy. For me, this is the main criterion. He sent me one of the memes, where I first take a drag on a cigar, and then allegedly pass the cigar to a famous rapper. It was funny. There was also a picture of you allegedly lighting a Russian plane, and then it flies down. It's normal, it's life. A person should always be themselves. This way others can better understand what this person really is. If we constantly pretend to be perfect and sinless people, we will lie to everyone around us. And I have always been categorically against lies. A person should be himself and should never do something you don't believe in. That's why when I was asked as a minister whether I really believed in Ukraine's victory, I always answered: “If I didn't believe, I simply wouldn't do this job.”Discussions have begun in Washington that have never happened before was
“This is a tragic mistake”: about nuclear weapons
Zelensky was asked to prepare a video will
How we prepared for the invasion of February 24
Why didn't the US give full information about the invasion
About the meeting with Biden on February 22, 2022
The most interesting meetings with representatives of other countries
With Blinken at McDonald's
With the head of the MFA, whom I wanted to send
Meeting with the former head of the British Foreign Office in a bar
Probably, Lavrov did not know about the invasion
About how I lit a cigar on live TV and my favorite meme
“I will reveal what was not public”: interview with Kuleba about partners and negotiations with Russia
30
previous post