Ukraine has already decided a fundamental issue: an interview with Podolyak about the strategy of victory

Exclusive interview with Mikhail Podolyak / Collage 24 Channel

More than 600 days into a full-scale invasion, there may be some fatigue in the community. However, the Ukrainians have already decided one of the fundamental issues for themselves.

Advisor to the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Mikhail Podolyak, in an exclusive interview with Channel 24, emphasized that we are no longer afraid of Russia and this is important. Moreover, the possibility of holding presidential elections and how to move into a war of maneuver – read on.

Are Ukrainians tired of war?

Now the biggest problem in Ukraine is war. It seems to me that we have begun to forget a little where we are going and what we must do today, tomorrow and until our victory.

You are absolutely right, but this is objective. Almost 20 months of war, 617 days of war and, of course, the moral and emotional background is changing. There is a certain fatigue. There is no premonition that tomorrow will be different and everything will change significantly. This is fine.

But you are absolutely right, there is no need to further depress society, which is already suffering a large-scale war on its own shoulders. In general, we must first of all ask ourselves the question: why am I doing something? What do I want to get in the final? Do I want to get a country that will continue to exist? Or do I want to get a country that will be completely destroyed?

No matter how much someone today thinks about compromises, or about the need to negotiate with Russia, this is impossible. Russia hates you and me fiercely. It will fundamentally destroy us, because we have humiliated Russia in the eyes of the whole world.

20 months of Ukrainian resistance is an absolute humiliation of Russia. This concept, which yesterday was feared, and Russia was considered such a big monstrous country that has the right to behave the way it does. Ukraine killed all this. If we agree on some kind of compromise with Russia, then what will the aggressor country do when it equally hates? She will destroy you and me one way or another.

Full interview with Mikhail Podolyak: watch the video

Today, those who are trying to demoralize the situation are looking for certain reasons, and I can even agree that sometimes there are absolutely fair comments, fair remarks and the like. But the question arises, what do you want to get in the finale? Everyone must pose this question to themselves and answer honestly.

If I am ready to be repressed, this is one position. If I'm willing to live in a country that no longer exists, that's the second position. If I'm ready to kneel before the Russians, that's a different position. Does it have a right to exist? Yes, but not for me, not for you and not for many people who have already given everything and continue to do so.

Sitting somewhere calm, you can talk through various initiatives, but you must always remember that there are people who are at the forefront today. There is the highest price for justice, for which they give their lives.

Are they considering holding presidential elections during martial law?

Nowadays the topic of elections in Ukraine is being heard more and more often. The day before we saw the entire election program of Alexei Arestovich. Experts say that parliamentary elections cannot take place during martial law, but presidential elections can. Are we preparing for presidential elections?

You pay too much attention to Mr. Arestovich. He has the right to behave accordingly, but does this add to our ability to defend our country, or does it not?

We do not have discussions at the level of the President's Office regarding election procedures . This is a discussion that is going on in society, this is normal. There are certain sociological measurements, discussions about what risks we have, from the point of view of security, from the point of view of ensuring the rights of people to be elected or vote, from the point of view of holding campaign events, and the like. These discussions take place at different levels: political parties, parliament and the like.

These are normal discussions. However, this does not mean that there will definitely be elections tomorrow, or that there will definitely not be elections tomorrow. Society needs to be able to articulate this.

Just as society today should not speak emotionally, but specifically about the issue of corruption, which is corroding our social contract. Society must articulate how we should ensure the legitimacy of the government in the future. That is, we need to look for a solution. And these are normal discussions, in my opinion, they are absolutely normal.

The main thing, within the framework of these discussions, is not to make a false start from the point of view that tomorrow that’s it, I will win the elections, or tomorrow I will run as a candidate, so let me destroy everything that works for us today.

Are elections even possible in a country where there is a war? When we talk about the right to choose, the military has the right not only to vote, but also to run for office. If one of the military wants to run for president, should he leave the front?

This will be an unofficial position, because I will emphasize once again that we are not officially discussing the issue of elections today in the Office of the President.

But unofficially, I think this: if there is a consensus of society that understands the risks that are generated within the framework of the election campaign, in particular informational, organizational, logistical, and if society accepts these risks and understands the price that will have to be paid. And despite this, he believes that it is necessary to legitimize power for the next cycles, then yes, but only through the consensus of society.

Today there is no such consensus. Now society is openly saying that it does not yet see the possibility of holding elections in such a way that they are absolutely objective from the point of view, as you rightly say, these people run for office, campaign, have the opportunity to be elected, or to be elected, or to vote.

In general, I believe that complex issues such as elections or corruption require frank public discussion and consensus. If the majority says, yes, we are going this way, or we are not going this way, then the minority must agree with this, despite everything for or against.

Should a poll show consensus? Or, for example, we will hold a vote in Die and ask the Ukrainians whether they want elections or not?

It seems to me that many different technological measures will have to be taken in order to accurately hear and see this compromise and consensus. These could be large-scale opinion polls, not just by one company, so that there is trust in this. This could be voting and the like.

There can be any form, except for one – the “jackal express” on social networks. Because everything is decided there, even if one charismatic person made a decision for himself and he has a certain circle of people who support these decisions, then this will not correspond to the concept of consensus.

I think we will find a consensus. Despite all the doubts about whether we have been building our statehood correctly for 30 years, I am still sure that the heart of Ukrainians is much more strong-willed than it might seem. Moreover, they understand exactly what strategy should be implemented next, what is needed for this, and will make absolutely fair decisions.

Let me remind you that Ukraine went through two full-fledged revolutions. Yes, it did not get the results that needed to be obtained, but much more important is the process of revolutionary attempts to transform an ineffective state system.

It seems to me that more than 600 days of war prove that Ukrainians are a strong nation that has already taken its historical place, and it will definitely answer its own needs with a majority, whether to hold elections, or regarding any issue.

I want us to believe in us, to believe in Ukraine, no matter how pretentious it may sound, but it is so. I understand that there are certain doubts. Yesterday there was a column by Valery Zaluzhny about how we can enter a positional war, where we will stand still, and one side or another will not have a significant advantage, because Russia is fighting thanks to the number of mobilized people, old reactivated equipment, and the like.

For Ukraine, in order to transform the war into a maneuver, when there is a lot of movement, certain technological solutions are needed. I think that we will find these solutions together with our partners. We will dominate from a technological point of view further in this war. But I don’t see pessimism here at all.

It seems to me that Ukraine has fundamentally resolved the main issue for itself: there is no need to be afraid of Russia, there is no need to think that we are small, and Russia is big, so it can crush us quantitatively, that we are not comparable in terms of resource capabilities with Russia. All this is gradually fading into the background. Now Ukraine clearly understands three things:

• where and how we should come;
• what needs to be done for this technological thing;
• Yes, we have internal problems, but we still support each other.

This is what we need to do for each other until the end of the war. After the war is over, please let us have internal conflicts, internal political competition, discussions and so on.

Today, too, we can have a discussion, but I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a discussion. But this discussion should be around the tools that we should use, and not around the final goal for which all this that is happening to Ukraine today is taking place.

A survey about the war was conducted in Russia: what the numbers show

The Russian research organization Levada Center released a poll in which 70% of Russians allegedly say they would support Vladimir Putin if he decided to end the war. But the Russians say they are against giving up the occupied territories of Ukraine.

34% of Russians are ready to support the liberation of all Ukrainian territories. 55% of Russian citizens surveyed believe that the war should be stopped and peace negotiations should begin. 38% are in favor of continuing military action. What did you see in these numbers? Are these numbers from the Levada Center and statistics, or are these numbers that came down from the Kremlin, which is starting to prepare the people for negotiations?

These are irrelevant numbers, because they contain what the Kremlin constantly talks about – the capitulation of Ukraine. People tell you frankly that we are ready for “peaceful negotiations,” but this means exclusively on Russia’s terms, that is, on capitulation terms for Ukraine.

We don’t have a single chance with you, if we want to survive, or our children want not to wander around the world, to accept these or other conditions of Russia.

Yes, it's hard. And I say that at this stage we need to constantly talk about it. But in Russia there is a clear feeling of one thing: the aggressor country wants to make Ukraine admit its defeat. And these numbers are not relevant, because in Russia it is impossible to conduct full-fledged surveys that would clearly show the psychological state of Russian communities.

Meanwhile, these figures are precisely a sign of the internal volumetric chauvinism that Russia continues to suffer from. You and I will not get the results we need. There is no need to have any illusions.

Until Russia suffers significant defeats that cannot be disguised, it will not recognize Ukraine’s right to exist. Russia will continue to attack Ukraine until it becomes internally divided. And he will be if we bring this war to an unfair ending. Then Russia will get a puppet government here. I emphasize once again that many will be able to leave this country and wander around the world, but will they be able to realize themselves? No.

Let's record an intermediate conclusion here. Russia has a desire to sit down at the negotiating table and record the defeat of Ukraine. Let’s imagine that we are starting the negotiation process, the Russians have not withdrawn their troops. Do you know what they will tell you in the first round of the negotiation process? They will say, give us back the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.

No, we won’t return it, and then what, are we going back to war? No, we don't move on. Because everyone will already say, yes, you have already sat down at the negotiating table, let’s negotiate. Then you and I immediately reach a dead end, but look what happens next.

Russia will gradually gain aggression points. She will behave traditionally. The Russians will insult, say something, scale up propaganda programs, saying that we are ready to do something here, but Ukraine is not ready. If we go to these negotiations, and this is very important to understand, then we will already lose within the framework of the negotiation process.

You and I will no longer be able to return to a war like today. We will no longer be able to defend our territory by military means, or prove our right to subjective existence in the global political space. I want everyone to realize this.

We have the only chance today, no matter how painful it is to talk about it, either today we prove Ukraine’s right to exist, or then let’s discuss what share of sovereignty we are giving up.

Russia also has problems with resource availability, so it is hysterically looking for where to get some shells. In the same North Korea, somewhere they are looking for an opportunity, together with Iran, a “very effective” country under sanctions, to set up the production of drones. Russia periodically tests Yars or Burevestnik nuclear warhead carriers, but they are all unsuccessful. That is, there is a technological decline in Russia now.

On the other hand, Ukraine understands what priorities are needed in military production. And our partners understand which weapons are most effective and how much to invest. Yes, this is being done a little slower than we would like, but in the meantime it is being done.

In addition, today there is a historical period of time when our partners finally realized that Russia cannot be “embraced.” You cannot make a partner, much less an ally, there is no difference in energy or simply cultural. You and I will not return to this golden time in order to make Ukraine subject. But nations are born through wars, no other way, even in the 21st century.

In the Middle East, Israel is now proving its right to exist as a state. Ukraine proves the same thing, only our enemy is much larger than just a terrorist organization. Therefore, we must all clearly understand that Russia has no desire to leave us alone. Everything you say about numbers and Levada Center only emphasizes that Russia wants to make us lose this war.

The Ministry of Defense conducted a state audit

We saw an audit in the Ministry of Defense on the purchase of food and payments to military personnel, and we saw an article in Time almost at the same time. How do they combine in our reality? Or are these separate stories? How did you react to this article in Time?

They don't fit together at all. We have an objective work of the state audit to check how the money was used. Why objective work? Because it is clear that some heads of certain departments or heads of some ministries for some reason thought that this war could be attributed to anything, even the ineffectiveness of managing certain processes.

The Ministry of Defense conducted a state audit / Website of the Ministry of Defense

Therefore, it seems to me that an audit is a normal thing, it makes it possible to further legally develop appropriate claims against certain civil servants. That is, we developed materials, made a legal analysis of this, and, accordingly, suspicions.

It seems to me that this is a normal path that will lead to us having a much more transparent system of relations within the framework of budget financing of certain projects. And it’s very good that these audits are going on. It's very good that we talk about this.

This is where I always have one remark. You know, even if an audit has been carried out, then we need to analyze it all legally and see whether there is a crime there or not, or simply ineffective management.

I think that law enforcement agencies, and today we have a fairly tough anti-corruption vertical, and, in principle, law enforcement agencies – the SBU, respectively the State Bureau of Investigation. I think that they will draw certain conclusions and there will be certain legal consequences for people who were directly involved in negative things, that is, corruption. And this is good.

How to feel about the Time article about Zelensky

Regarding the article in Time, I generally perceive it all differently. I understand why there is such a fuss about this article. Because there are no significant events, that is, there is a certain depression in the intra-information space.

And here we are talking about the fact that we are tired, we are not given the necessary amount of weapons, our partners, I emphasize again, are tired, and therefore this can cause certain negative adversities, we have corruption there and the like.

Any journalist has the right to do this, again, has the right to describe how he sees the situation. This is fine. The question is, why is it that if we always have something negative, it is exclusively anonymous sources. This always bothers me a little.

But meanwhile, I don’t see any negativity. You and I realize that there is a certain fatigue, a certain informational distraction from the Middle East, for example, from Ukraine.

You and I realize that the weapons we are agreeing on there are not coming too fast, that is, slowly. We realize, and we have said this many times, that the volume of weapons is not what we agree on and the like.

And the key thing is that we realize that it is very difficult to be in a state of war for 20 months without an exact understanding of when we will be able to restore our careers. This means when we will be able to plan our lives in a completely different dimension. Well, it's hard psychologically.

And so we take it easy. I will give a little advice – you need to calmly accept the journalist’s right to his subjective opinion. This is fine. And we still need to analyze what is written about. I like the passage there that the president is absolutely clearly aware that winning this war is extremely important for the life of Ukraine.

If we do not win the war, if we make the compromises of 2014, then this will only mean a more extended process of destruction of Ukraine.

Again, this must be a social consensus. Today, as I know, the consensus in society is quite strong. We cannot agree with Russia on certain compromise terms, essentially recognizing surrender. And I quite like this passage, for example, in the text.

And everything else that concerns corruption – we talk about it. I understand that today, during the war, I would like to see my nomenclature a little different. But she is blood of the flesh, part of society.

If you have been involved in corruption for many years, then you will not be able to change it in a day or two. But the main thing is that we need to talk about this, we need to prove the legal components of the crimes. And today Ukraine is doing this. Not so, again, quickly, because this is a huge amount of analysis that needs to be carried out. But it seems to me that we will come out of this war with three achievements :

• we will understand who we are and what we are capable of. And not only us, but also many other people in the global world;
• we will have more transparent relations between the institutions of the state and society;
• We will have the key army in the world today, which, with vast experience, will advise everyone else on life safety rules.

We noted that the Time article should be read as a whole, taking into account both the past and the feedback of the person who wrote it, and understanding that a link to anonymous sources already tells us something for sure.

The question here is definitely not one of joy or victory. Here the question is that this article is most likely aimed more at either the Western viewer and reader, or at what they are once again trying to tell us and show that “a bad peace is better than a good war.”

No, it’s a little different. Of course, you are absolutely right, I just wouldn’t pay attention to the feedback about what kind of journalist he is, because every journalist has a specific biography. Still, we were not all born at once during Ukraine’s defensive war against Russia.

Many journalists worked in different regions, including Russia, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Therefore, I am calm about the biography of any journalist.

The question here is different – that there is a certain consensus among Western political elites. They clearly understand today the nature of this war and the risks that Russia will generate if it does not lose.

And they, accordingly, are already significantly investing in Ukraine. Yes, slowly, but they are investing. By the way, I will make a link to Joe Biden’s speech, where he clearly states that Russia is the key driver of today’s global instability.

That is, we cannot end the conflicts in the Middle East if we do not resolve the Russian issue. Because Russia will continue to invest in the instability of the region, because it is a key beneficiary of what is happening there.

Russia will continue, but in a more aggressive manner, it will finance different tourist groups. And we will have increasing escalation. And then people, meaning those who belong to Western democracies, will have to invest much more money in their defense than is needed in Ukraine today.

It is very important that Biden constantly talks about this, and this is very good. Not only him, but also Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron, Georgia Meloni and others.

Joe Biden/Getty Images

I'm not even talking about the leaders of Eastern European states, they are absolutely clear and aware that Russia will not stop, it will continue to take off the shoes of Eastern Europe, continue trying to establish control in one dimension or another over the countries.

But regarding budgets. Let's talk about the budget. If we take, for example, the American budget as a whole, then, for example, assistance to Ukraine is 0.004 or 0.005, which they send to help Ukraine.

Do you understand what numbers we are talking about? This is even 5% of the Pentagon's annual budget. That is, in total the Pentagon budget is, for example, 820 billion, we receive 40 or 50 billion in direct military assistance. This is 5% of the Pentagon budget.

That is, today you are solving for a very, very small amount of money the issue of the global security circuit, because the capabilities of the key opponent – Russia – are being destroyed – economic, military, reputational, etc.

Also, if we take 5%, then 90% of that money stays in the United States. Therefore, let's speak objectively, they remain in military production, new jobs, etc. Let's say objectively that this is beneficial to the American economy.

That is, you are simultaneously solving the issues of stimulating your economy and, on the other hand, you are simultaneously solving the issues of guaranteeing the global security architecture thanks to the support of Ukraine with a small, relatively small, means. We need to talk about this correctly, and we are talking about it.

And therefore, returning to the topic of publications of one or another, it is normal in the modern world to receive a publication that is hype or puts emphasis quite provocatively. Why? We live in a time of hype, we live in a time of clickbait, we live in a time where you need to get a million views and nothing else.

And when you say simple and correct things, they do not resonate. Only at first they cause a certain resonance, and then you get used to them. And you're looking for something that might spark some discussion. Just like the Time article. It provoked some discussion and that's okay. But from a journalistic point of view, it is very beneficial for them to have such provocative texts.

For you and me , apart from the internal discussion, this does not change at all :

• attitude towards Ukraine in the global market;
• the fundamental decision of our partners is to go with Ukraine to the end;
• the fundamental decision of our partners is to provide military assistance and invest in military production, in particular in Ukraine;
• does not in any way affect the reputation of Vladimir Zelensky in terms of who he is and what he does on the global political market. And in general, how important is Zelensky’s role today in terms of promoting the fundamental concepts of what freedom is and the protection of freedom.

And therefore, for you and me, this does not change anything, except for one thing – we will have to talk about this even more at different platforms, explain. Fatigue is understandable, informational attention to other regions is understandable.

But don’t forget – the only key donor of today’s instability is Russia. It does this through the financing of certain conflicts, and through the transfer of intelligence information, and through the involvement of these countries in armed cooperation, and through consultations, and through economic capabilities.

We must not forget or explain this. And so everything, in principle, is going quite predictably .

The US wants to impose conditions on Ukraine

Republicans say there are several conditions for further aid to Ukraine: a strategy to win, not just help for as long as needed, regular reporting and progress on the front. They are also talking about guarantees from NATO and the EU, which should support Ukraine if assistance from the United States is blocked.

We should not forget that this is an internal political discussion in the States, we will not interfere, they have the right to discuss because they are interested in answering the questions of their voters. We are also interested in answering the questions of our voters, like any country, any political leaders are interested in this, because this is the direct work of politicians.

But I don't see anything wrong with the Republicans saying to talk through the strategy. I think it can be spoken. Again, I refer to Zaluzhny’s article and to what the President of Ukraine constantly talks about. The strategy is clear for us :

• significant tactical defeats of Russia on the front line, it makes no difference where;
• chaotic collapse of the front;
• partial flight of Russian military personnel to Russian territory:
• the beginning of certain rebellious or revolutionary processes in Russia;
• a break in the traditional system of Putin’s vertical;
• transition to other formats of governing Russia, in particular to formats of transitional weak democracy.

In addition, there is another point – how many weapons will be required for this . The Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine has clearly stated this: a certain number of drones, aircraft, missile defense systems, a certain number of mine sweeps, long-range missiles, etc.

There are certain specifics there, there are no figures in the article, but I have no doubt that Valery Zaluzhny is discussing these figures during the negotiation processes with our partners.

Now we need to think about how to organize these quantities. If we want to build a system of military cooperation with Ukraine, this could be investments in our production, it could be directly transferred to us tools produced in the countries’ military production facilities, etc.

Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine / Facebook of Valery Zaluzhny

Of course, the EU will support us, because this is extremely important for Europe, otherwise Russia will dominate Europe, no matter what anyone says. We won’t go into why this will happen now, but for sure Europe will dominate, and Eastern Europe will always be in flames. Russia will not forgive Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Poland or the Czech Republic, will not forgive Romania, Bulgaria, etc. – active pro-Ukrainian position. These are obvious things.

As for NATO, the key is the United States – the core of NATO. If the United States were taken away from NATO, it would look very strange to me. We come back to the core issue, and I think the Biden administration is doing that quite effectively.

We must explain that we cannot isolate ourselves because the global world looks different today. Today you cannot build boundaries and think that you are safe.

If Russia wins, in one sense or another of the word, it will mean the complete destruction of the global security space. Accordingly, the United States will constantly provoke in one direction or another, including in the direction of the United States itself.

This will lead to a significant increase in military budgets, spending on their defense and the direct participation of Americans in certain military operations, which will gradually scale up.

These are obvious things – if you want to live in a safe United States, despite all the internal discussions and the like, then you need to invest today in those countries that will organize this security for you, based on who is the main rebel in the global market today . It's Russia.

Losing to Russia is the only guarantee that in the United States it will be possible to live peacefully, build a career, and predict something for 10 to 20 years. By the way, the same as in Ukraine.

What does Zaluzhny’s article on deadlock mean?

In the article, Zaluzhny says that we need something new to get out of this impasse. Is there any understanding of what this could be and has this “new” already been invented?

It is described there – these are just the latest troop control systems, that is, the speed of decision-making, the mobility of their adoption. These are certain tools in a certain quantity. I said about them: drones, missiles, a very necessary aviation component, taking into account the fact that Russia constantly dominates the air along the front line, forms additional aviation brigades or corps of helicopters, tactical aviation.

To finally remove Russia’s dominance in the air, we need certain components, Zaluzhny lists them. On the other hand, in order to advance faster, we need the same mine trawls in a certain quantity.

No one was preparing for such a large-scale, in the quantitative sense of the word, war. Not a single industry in any country was prepared. In addition, this war provides a lot of material for analysis of how exactly the war should be won, how to build defenses, offensive operations.

By the way, Mr. Zaluzhny’s rather interesting phrase is that according to NATO textbooks, according to our preliminary analysis, after four months of intensive offensive operations we should have been operating somewhere near Crimea or even in Crimea. But, as it turned out, a war of this type is a slightly different war; it needs to be analyzed today.

Ukraine analyzes much more deeply what is happening along the entire front line: what the Russians are doing, how many resources they have, how they use them, what logistics and logistics are, what different types of warehouses are, etc. Ukraine is talking about this – by breaking the supply logistics with the help of long-range missiles and drones of a certain range, we will dominate.

Further, having broken, for example, electronic suppression systems, we will dominate. By increasing our presence in the air, we will dominate, and this will change the conditions of warfare. Today we are in a positional war, a stationary one, but as soon as we additionally receive the necessary tools, we can transform positional warfare into a maneuverable one in one direction or another and increase the volume of initiatives we have.