Trump’s statements. What’s next?
The topic of the livestream by Censor.NET’s Editor-in-Chief Yurii Butusov is the unprecedented statements of the President of the United States Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s response.
The first section is not about political history, but about how this will affect the war in Ukraine—whether it will lead to peace or a cessation of hostilities.
The second section examines the possible consequences of a de facto rupture between Trump and Zelenskyy—a completely uncompromising one. Could this lead to a loss of American military aid? It is necessary to outline the scale of this assistance. Can it be compensated in any way? And are there any preconditions for it to disappear?
All Ukrainians defending their country and currently engaged in combat operations need to understand this now.
Donald Trump's statements
The first statement, where he directly and utterly humiliated Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And here's what he said: "A so-called comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, convinced the United States to spend $350 billion to enter a war that cannot be won, that should never have started. He refuses to hold elections, has very low ratings. And the only thing he is good at is leading Joe Biden by the nose. He is a dictator without elections. Zelenskyy had better act fast, otherwise, he would have no country left. Meanwhile, we are successfully negotiating to end the war with Russia. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job. His country is shattered, and millions have perished needlessly. And it's still going on."
Earlier, Trump made a series of statements with personal accusations against Zelenskyy.
-"In this situation, where martial law has been in effect continuously in Ukraine, and the country's leader has seen his approval rating drop to 4%, cities lie in ruins, looking like nothing more than charred ruins. Well, they didn’t do this to Kyiv because they are saving missiles, but if they wanted to, it wouldn’t be just 20% of the country destroyed, but 100%."
I think that if negotiations take place, the Ukrainian people will decide that, oh, it has been a long time since the last elections. It is not Russia dictating to Ukraine that elections must be held. This is an objective reality—just look.
There were also statements regarding negotiations, claiming that Ukraine should have engaged in talks. It was claimed that Zelenskyy's approval rating is 4%, that "I personally like Zelenskyy, he is a good man, but Ukraine’s leadership is allowing the war to continue." Zelenskyy himself does not know where half of the US-provided funds have gone. Ukraine must determine and explain where this money has gone. The Ukrainian leadership had three years to engage in negotiations. "I am disappointed with Ukraine’s stance in the context of the war with Russia."
These were the statements made by Donald Trump. Earlier, he also proposed that Ukraine transfer all mineral resources worth $500 billion to compensate for US spending on the war.
When I heard Trump, to be honest, it was a bit of a déjà vu. I had heard it somewhere that there had been no peace talks for three years, that we needed to talk to Putin, that Russia wanted and was eager for peace talks. And I remember one of those memorable speeches. Let's have a look at Savik Shuster's programme.
"If we are talking about a ceasefire, we will not be discussing it within the Minsk format or at the meetings of the Trilateral Contact Group, but rather face to face with the President of the Russian Federation. By the way, I truly hope that both Germany and France will support us. The meeting itself is already a victory. We have unblocked the process—just as you said, for three years, since 2016, there had been no dialogue, which meant there was no opportunity to even discuss ending the war. This is what I am waiting for, what I am striving for, and what I sincerely want to achieve. You have written ‘Zelenskyy in search of peace,’ and indeed, I truly want to find it. Most importantly, this matters greatly to me—I am a very sensitive person. We spoke with the President of the Russian Federation when we secured the return of the sailors, and we had a conversation over the phone, but that was just a phone call. I want to look a person in the eye, and I want to return from Normandy with an understanding and a clear sense that everyone genuinely seeks to gradually bring this tragic war to an end. I will be able to determine this with certainty at the negotiating table."
For three years, it turns out, the rhetoric has remained the same—practically identical to Donald Trump's statements—echoing what Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself said six years ago. Back then, he also believed and declared that he would bring peace, that someone was obstructing it, profiting from the war, while he would put an end to it. The key, he claimed, was to look Putin in the eye, negotiate with him personally, and peace would follow. For three years, there were no negotiations, which was deemed a failure. But now, negotiations with Putin will take place, and this is considered a success."
Suddenly, we hear the same rhetoric from Trump. Speaking of three years. Let's listen to what Trump said: "In this situation, when martial law has been in effect in Ukraine all the time, and the leader of this country has already dropped to 4% in popularity, the cities are destroyed, looking like nothing more than charred ruins. Well, they didn’t do this to Kyiv, probably because they are saving missiles, but if they wanted to, it wouldn’t be 20% of the country—it would be 100%. I think that if we sit down at the table, then..."
So, in principle, there was indeed a parallel with Trump. I want to point out that when Zelenskyy said in 2019–2020 that all it took was to look Putin in the eye and everything would be fine, I argued that this was impossible and completely unrealistic. There are objective factors that define Russia’s war against Ukraine, and they have nothing to do with whether someone looked someone else in the eye. This is an entirely naïve, almost infantile approach to things. Three years have passed since Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed that once he looked Putin in the eye, everything would be resolved—that negotiations had not been conducted before, but he would hold them, and there would be peace, a comprehensive ceasefire. And, clearly, even Zelenskyy himself has now received the message, delivered by Russian tanks and missiles, that no ceasefire can be achieved simply by looking Putin in the eye. In my view, Donald Trump is now facing the same reality. His rhetoric about negotiations with Russia, as well as the talks the Americans initiated in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, are not about achieving peace. This is merely an information smokescreen, which Trump is attempting to break through with a cavalry-style charge—believing he can settle matters through personal ties and commitments from Putin, do something by their own rules, by hood, fix it.
So, in reality, this will not work. If Trump’s grievances with Colombia can be resolved—some minor issue in U.S.-Colombian relations—resolving the question of World War III with a few speeches is impossible. The demands Trump has voiced lack any practical mechanism for implementation. Ukraine did not start this war. Russia did. This was precisely Zelenskyy’s problem when he first entered negotiations with Putin—he tried to appease the aggressor, to establish some form of contact, to build a framework for an agreement. It did not work. And neither will the informal, unwritten understandings that Trump is now attempting to pursue.
Trump’s rhetoric clearly serves two objectives. First, to appeal to Putin and the Russian public—he understands how receptive they are to such signals. Over the past three days, Trump has essentially handed Russian propaganda a massive gift. Russian media eagerly amplifies his rhetoric to portray Ukraine and its allies as weak and to undermine global support for Ukraine. This can lead nowhere else. Trump's proposals are missing the main thing: what actually should be done? What is the mechanism? He offers one mechanism: Ukraine must hold elections. But how? How can elections be held in wartime? It is impossible. Elections under wartime conditions simply will not work, because Ukraine has no legal framework for conducting elections under martial law. There is no mechanism for organizing a campaign, for holding a vote, for managing polling stations while under missile strikes. The risks are extraordinarily high. Yet Trump’s proposals account for none of these realities.
Trump obviously does not like Zelenskyy as a person he wants to negotiate with, and he immediately distances him from the process. He does so in a personal manner to eliminate any possibility of future compromises on an individual level. Clearly, Trump has no trust in him in this regard.
So, what did Volodymyr Zelenskyy say in response to these statements?
"First of all, a KIIS poll was published today showing that I have 57 percent public trust. I have seen various polls reporting 57+ percent. So, if someone wants to replace me right now, it simply won’t happen. That’s how I would put it. Secondly, since we are talking about 4 percent, we have seen this disinformation. We understand that it originates from Russia. We know this, and we have evidence that these figures are being discussed between the United States and Russia. Unfortunately, President Trump—whom I have always respected as a leader of a nation we greatly admire, the American people, who have continuously supported us—has been caught up in this disinformation space. But the real issue is not my approval ratings. The issue is which numbers truly matter. The number one priority today is how to defend ourselves from attacks. I believe this is the most pressing concern—I know it is, based on all available polls. This is the number one issue for Ukrainians. And when speaking with European leaders, it is also their top concern. Yet this issue is not being raised. Another critical issue is the return of prisoners. Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, the foreign ministers of two states are meeting in the presence of the foreign minister of a third state—yet they are not addressing the issue of prisoners. And they are certainly not discussing the ongoing missile and drone attacks. As for my repeated questions for an increase in Patriot systems, I have yet to hear a response from the United States. Despite the fact that I continue to push for it."
Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried not to respond to Trump's accusations in any way. In fact, he said that Ukraine did not receive 350 billion, but much less. And from America directly, that the total aid to Ukraine for the war there was 320 billion, and that America provided about 100 billion of it.
What can we say about Zelenskyy's position?
It is practically non-existent. He deliberately avoided responding to Trump in any way so as not to burn bridges and to preserve the possibility of continued dialogue. Zelenskyy, as we can see from his speech, does not present a clear position of his own. Unfortunately, there is no direct response to Trump's baseless accusations against Ukraine.
Allegations of aid embezzlement
The U.S. has provided no evidence that $350 billion was stolen—especially since no such amount of aid was ever allocated. The actual figure is significantly lower than what Ukraine spends overall. Of the $100 billion in U.S. aid, more than $60 billion has been allocated to military assistance—this includes weapons and equipment that physically cannot be stolen, as they are actively used on the battlefield against Russian forces. The remaining amount, nearly $40 billion, consists of direct financial aid. Yes, $40 billion is a substantial sum, and of course, corruption exists in Ukraine. But when Trump asks, 'Where is our money?'—the response should be precise. There are indeed numerous corruption scandals within our government. More than 30 members of the 'Servant of the People' party are facing criminal investigations, some have even fled abroad, and some ministers are also under investigation. Most of these cases are related to corruption and embezzlement. We have every reason to criticize our government on these issues. However, claiming that half of the $40 billion has been stolen is a gross exaggeration. Corruption exists, but, fortunately, it has not reached the level where half of U.S. aid is being misappropriated—it is significantly less. This is why Trump’s statements appear deliberately designed to amplify existing corruption allegations against Zelenskyy’s administration. He intentionally exaggerated these claims, not just to discredit Zelenskyy personally, but to undermine Ukraine as a whole—despite the fact that corruption on such a scale simply does not exist.
Ukraine is to blame for the ongoing war
This is a blatant lie, and the head of state should have responded much more firmly and unequivocally. I don't quite understand this tone and these justifications, which only demonstrate that no one was prepared for such statements. And all these speeches and videos, neither Yermak nor Lytvyn provided Zelenskyy with a coherent message or a logical strategy for responding. He really doesn't know what to respond
I hope that the president will ultimately rely on the Ukrainian parliament and the Ukrainian people, take time to formulate a well-thought-out and dignified response to Trump’s attacks. After all, this is our national position.
Zelenskyy is a dictator
Zelenskyy himself has created grounds for such accusations on the international stage. He has imposed sanctions, for instance, against the leader of an opposition party, without any legitimate justification. Even the head of the Security Service of Ukraine and the chief of the Defence Intelligence of Ukraine did not vote in favour of these sanctions at the National Security and Defence Council. Nevertheless, the sanctions were enforced for the sake of political PR. Furthermore, the rights of journalists are being restricted—their access to the president’s press conferences is limited, and the media face growing constraints. Zelenskyy has also initiated surveillance of journalists, attempting to obstruct civil society in various ways. And here is the result: Trump is now exploiting these actions to serve Russia’s interests, giving the Kremlin a narrative that equates Zelenskyy with dictators. In doing so, he places Zelenskyy on the same level as Putin.
However, despite his increasingly authoritarian tendencies, Zelenskyy remains constrained by the strength of Ukrainian civil society. Ukraine still upholds freedom of speech, and despite the government's pressure, open discussions continue. Public opinion in Ukraine, when powerful enough, has a tangible impact on the authorities. This is why accusations of dictatorship and authoritarianism must be countered with a firm and decisive response.
Now, these narratives are spreading in Western media. Under the pretense of discrediting Zelenskyy, Trump has, in fact, struck a blow against Ukraine’s position as a whole. Naturally, this is entirely unacceptable to us. And while there may be legitimate grounds for criticism, the way Trump framed it was not just unfair—it was an outright insult to Ukraine, expressed in a completely unacceptable tone, even coming from allies.
Answers to questions
Will there be a truce, elections, and then war again?
Let’s assess what Trump has actually done. There are relations between Ukraine and the United States.
What does the U.S. do for Ukraine?
First, it provides direct financial assistance. Second, it serves as a guarantor of financial aid for other countries and international organizations, such as the IMF. Third, it supplies direct military aid, including weaponry. Fourth, it provides intelligence of strategic and operational significance. Fifth, it offers organizational support—assisting Ukraine’s military-industrial complex, supporting specific military units within Ukraine’s defence forces, and doing so effectively. Additionally, the U.S. provides training and instructional support. These are tangible and material contributions for which we are grateful to the American people and government.
Has Trump disrupted any of these concrete forms of support? No, he has not. The United States continues to support all aid programmes for Ukraine. Has Trump eased sanctions on Russia? On the contrary, I would like to remind you that one of President Biden’s recent decisions was to tighten sanctions on Russian maritime trade, particularly on fuel and lubricants, as well as on the ships transporting them. There are also strict sanctions against financial institutions facilitating Russian foreign trade. Have these restrictions been lifted? No, they remain in place. What we are witnessing now is an emotional attack from Trump, but it is not directly aimed at pressuring Ukraine or undermining U.S.-Ukrainian relations. Instead, it is a personal attack on Zelenskyy. The core of Trump’s message is his demand for elections in Ukraine. He justifies this by claiming that Zelenskyy lacks credibility, is corrupt, authoritarian, and has numerous shortcomings. In essence, Trump wants a different, more "competent" figure as a negotiator—someone he believes could better represent Ukraine’s rights and interests during the war. He sees Zelenskyy as a weak leader, incapable of effectively advocating for Ukrainians, and is therefore pushing for elections.
As for the essence of these demands. Are elections possible in Ukraine? Is this the path to ending the war? Let's think about it. Suppose we hold elections, and by some miracle, the Verkhovna Rada adopts all the necessary laws to make them happen: allowing elections under martial law, introducing special voting procedures. Would this bring an end to the war? Even if we imagine that the elections take place, that the government-run telethon—which effectively serves one candidate, Zelenskyy—somehow loses its influence, and that other candidates gain access to media platforms. Suppose Zelenskyy loses. A different figure emerges. Trump’s argument is that Zelenskyy is weak, that his approval ratings are low, and that someone with stronger support should take over. But would this end the war? No, it would not. How could it? How could a candidate advocating for surrender and the abandonment of Ukraine’s national interests possibly win under current circumstances? Instead of Zelenskyy, who is not truly a wartime leader for the army and is absent as a leader of the resistance, someone else will come—someone far more deeply connected to the war. A person will emerge who is fully committed to resistance, someone who has been shaped by this war, someone who will fight to the very end. So, will there be a more compromising figure? No. Therefore, are Trump's proposals realistic? Right now, he has only one proposal: hold elections. Is this a realistic way to end the war? No. Are peace negotiations realistic? No. In other words, all of this is just rhetoric—empty words without real policy or logic behind them. And, to be honest, I see this as an emotional put-down by Trump—an attempt to appeal to Putin, to build some kind of personal relationship with him, much like Zelenskyy once tried to do, believing that if he just sat down, looked Putin in the eye, they would come to an agreement. The result will be the same. Why am I so certain that America will not change course? Because in the U.S., politics is driven by institutions of civil society and economic interests. Trump's support base includes both the American military and civil society—those who demand a strong defense of U.S. national interests. It also includes American industry. And, ultimately, there are many pro-Ukrainian voters who support the Republican Party.
As for the essence of these requirements. Are elections possible in Ukraine? Is this the way to end the war? Let's think about it. We hold elections and a miracle happens. The Verkhovna Rada adopts all the laws necessary for the elections to take place: that elections can be held under martial law, that there are special forms of voting. Is this the way to end the war? Even if we suddenly imagine that the elections are taking place, and the telethon, which works for one candidate, Zelenskyy, for people's money, let's say, has no influence and other candidates also have access to some media. And Zelenskyy loses the election. It's a different figure. Here's what Trump says: 'Zelenskyy is weak, he has a low rating. Someone with a high rating comes in. Will this lead to the end of the war? No, it won't. Well, how can it? How can someone who is in favour of surrender and surrender of Ukraine's interests win in Ukraine now? Instead of Zelenskyy, who is not really a leader in the war for the army, he is absent as a leader of the resistance. But he will be replaced by a person who is much more connected to the war. A person will come who will be charged with resistance and who will be specially raised in this war. A person who will go to the end. That is, will there be a more compromising figure? No. Therefore, are Trump's proposals realistic, and he has only one proposal among all his proposals now - hold elections. Is it realistic to end the war? No. Are peace talks realistic? No. That is, all of these are rhetorical figures with no real policy or logic behind them. And, to be honest, I'll tell you, this is an emotional attack by Trump, in my opinion, who wants to please Putin and wants to build some kind of personal relationship between Putin, just as Zelenskyy once tried, that he would sit down, look him in the eye, and they would agree on something. The result will be the same. Why am I so sure that America will not change course? In America, politics is based on civil society institutions and the economy. And Trump's support is the support of both the US military and civil society, those who demand a strong defence of American interests. This is American industry. Finally, there are many pro-Ukrainian voters who support the Republicans.
So, is American politics capable of simply overturning everything and saying, "Okay, that’s it, we’re changing course"? No. I think it’s obvious that Trump has not done anything so far aimed at breaking ties between Ukraine and the United States. That’s why I want to emphasize that elections, a ceasefire, or a new war are not immediate concerns—these are distant prospects. After all, Trump has neither announced nor articulated any ceasefire plan. He has not spoken about a truce, its terms, its timeline, who would guarantee it, or what mechanism would be in place... So, what elections are we even talking about?
I wonder—does anyone actually know how to end this war without surrendering? The enemy is not considering any other options today.
I agree. Capitulation is not an option. For the past three years—and for the past eleven years, in fact—I have repeatedly stated on air that the fate of any negotiations depends on Ukraine’s strength on the battlefield. Effective combat organization and execution, the resilience of Ukraine’s front and defense, the ability to halt and destroy the aggressor—this is the foundation of any negotiations. This is where negotiations begin. This is where Ukraine’s capabilities are assessed—what Putin might try to take and where we must not concede. A stable front. And yet, instead of focusing on strengthening Ukraine’s defenses and stabilizing the front, our government is busy with PR, playing politics, figuring out how to respond to Trump. Then we see that the president doesn’t even know what to say in response to accusations—he talks about opinion polls. This is nothing but childishness. In my opinion, the President of Ukraine, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, must respond to Trump from the frontlines, among Ukrainian soldiers. Not from some headquarters, where Zelenskyy usually arrives at a brigade checkpoint 50 kilometers from the front, takes a photo, and is gone in an hour. There should be real engagement with the troops, addressing the problems on the frontlines that the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is failing to resolve.
I wrote today that I would like to see the President of Ukraine address the nation and the army, calling for the continuation of the fight, accelerating the organizational reforms of the military, and assuring our allies that Ukraine will not succumb to blackmail or pressure—we will remain steadfast in defending our freedom and independence. The third thing I believe the president must do is take concrete steps to strengthen the country’s defense capabilities in these critical times. First and foremost, we should not be spending money on populist elections, on "Vova’s Thousand," on national cashback programs, or on Bulgarian reactors that may not even be completed next year. Instead, we must prioritize funding our greatest strategic advantage—our Armed Forces. This means investing in ammunition and, above all, drones. Only then will we see results.
This should be Zelenskyy's answer, not these childish explanations that he was told he had a 4% rating, so he says he has a big rating, not a small one. The Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine must respond with dignity and rely on those who truly uphold Ukraine’s credibility—the Ukrainian Defense Forces. He should be in Ukraine, not running around seeking meetings in Saudi Arabia, but asserting his position from here. He should be doing everything possible to strengthen the Ukrainian military and its defenders. These steps have not been taken. I want to emphasize that while politics is being played here, the majority of our UAV units at the front still lack clear, direct funding for the year from the Ministry of Defense and other defense structures. The Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief has failed to plan for securing our battlefield superiority in drone warfare. They cannot seem to find the money for this—yet volunteers are the ones still buying Mavics.
For three months now, there has been no procurement of Mavics, the primary reconnaissance asset. No heavy attack drones of key types have been procured. There is no funding for the units that dealt major losses to the enemy in 2022, 2023, and 2024. None of this is of interest to our government. But there is time for such childish statements.
According to your forecasts, how much will the supply of weapons and ammunition decrease in 2025 if the US ceases its assistance?
Firstly, there is no reason to believe that the United States is stopping its supplies. At present, there has been no suspension of deliveries and no decision to halt them. If that were to happen, we would be in an extremely difficult position because the US provides us with critical weaponry, such as the HIMARS operational-tactical missile system. In fact, nearly all our ammunition comes from the United States. We all understand how vital HIMARS, Starlink, Patriot systems, and missiles are for us. US support is of immense significance. This includes artillery shells and financial aid. I would like to express my gratitude to the US intelligence agencies and the US Armed Forces, which directly support a significant number of our best units in Ukraine, including UAV units, both materially and technically. They provide crucial assistance, including direct material support, to strengthen the most capable forces. Moreover, American support in the development of our UAV technologies is invaluable in certain areas. Technologically, we do everything ourselves. But the support of materially specific units that know how to make drones and how to use them is incredibly important. I have repeatedly thanked the US leadership for this and personally expressed appreciation to Secretary Blinken for successful partnership and cooperation projects.
At this moment, we must directly represent the position of Ukrainian society and the Ukrainian people. I would hope that the Supreme Commander-in-Chief not only speaks of resilience and unity but also implements these principles through concrete actions—forming a unified position of the Ukrainian state and society and conveying it directly to the American people, the majority of whom support Ukraine.
We must engage in dialogue at multiple levels. It cannot be limited to just a handful of political figures. The fact that Trump does not respect Zelenskyy is not the issue. Many in Ukraine do not respect Zelenskyy either. However, he remains the president, and as Ukrainian citizens, it is in our interest that our country’s representative maintains a strong position in advocating for our national interests. That is why we must help reinforce this position.
We must also articulate the position of Ukrainian society. Therefore, I am confident that we will be able to avoid a complete breakdown in relations. I am also sure that the United States will not cancel its aid programs. Even if Trump were to attempt this, it would not be an easy or straightforward process for him. That is why I would consider a potential reduction in certain US funding, or possible restrictions on the supply of certain types of weapons, but not a complete termination. American supplies are critical for us, and we would not be able to replace them—not because of unique technologies, but because no other country in the world produces weapons on the same scale as the United States. Likewise, no other country has provided Ukraine with direct financial assistance on the scale that the US has. This deserves recognition and gratitude, and we hope that the US leadership, including President Trump, will see a strongly unified position from Ukrainian society, leading to adjustments in such statements.
Similarly, in 2019-2020, Volodymyr Zelenskyy attempted to establish closer ties with Putin, only to be confronted with reality—and he failed. All those "looking into Putin’s eyes" efforts ultimately led to a full-scale war, and Zelenskyy has since revised his views. I am confident that, in time, Trump will also change his perspective on Putin.
Because Putin is not someone who seeks negotiations. He seeks the destruction of Ukraine. He has no other goals.
I think Trump's policies have created an opportunity for Europe to wake up. There will be more supplies of weapons to Ukraine and more money because, without euro money, our economy will collapse.
I agree, and I would like to say that Trump's actions are forcing the European Union to evaluate its contribution to supporting Ukraine. Trump is explicitly demanding that they spend as much on supporting Ukraine as the United States does. And this is a very important factor. Now we hear that the Europeans are really trying to increase the amount of financial aid to Ukraine, and this is, among other things, the result of pressure from President Trump. I would note that in this case, President Trump is acting in our common interests. The pressure on the European Union has already resulted in an increase in the next military aid package to an unprecedented €6 billion, as the Europeans have announced.
Could you please tell us a few words about the assault on the Dnipropetrovsk region?
I actually write about this and have several articles, I advise you to watch the broadcast about the best UAV units. I also spoke about the operations in the Pokrovsk direction. At the moment, there are heavy battles, but the enemy has been stopped at certain lines. Unfortunately, these are not defensive lines, but simply certain positions in the forest plantations where our troops have hastily entrenched themselves and are engaged in heavy counter-battles with the Russians. However, I would like to point out that following the Russian offensives in November, particularly in December and January, during which the Russians suffered significant losses, the number of attacks, the number of assault operations carried out by the enemy, has substantially decreased. The number of forces, the number of people and equipment used by the enemy has decreased significantly. Therefore, we can say that this is not stabilization by any means, but we can say that Ukrainian soldiers, with their skillful and heroic resistance, have now forced the enemy to stop on the border with the Dnipropetrovsk region. Unfortunately, the situation is not sustainable. However, there are certain signs of the command and control being streamlined. In particular, a headquarters for the interaction of UAV units has been set up in the area, several of our commanders have been concentrated, several units have been adequately staffed, and at least some minimal coordination of UAV assets has begun. These are the first steps, but they have already yielded significant results. They allowed us to conduct several successful combat operations to eliminate Russian groups. And, in particular, to liberate the village of Pishchane near Pokrovsk. That is, we can organize the elimination of the enemy. We have all the forces to hold Pokrovsk, to stabilize the enemy on the border, to prevent the enemy from reaching Mezhova, Dnipropetrovsk region, and central Ukraine. I have repeatedly said that the loss of these borders and the enemy's entry into central Ukraine would be a huge military, political, and informational defeat for Ukraine. And this must be avoided. It all depends on the Ukrainian command.
I posted an interview with Hero of Ukraine, the company commander of the 110th Mechanized Brigade, Ihor Tymoshchuk, on my channel. He shared how incompetently the Ukrainian high command managed the actions of the units defending Velyka Novosilka. This not only led to the loss of the settlement but also to unjustified personnel losses and failure to complete the combat mission due to a lack of rational assessment of the situation and inadequate decision-making. It's crucial to create a public response with such material. If leadership continues as it did with the 110th Brigade in Velyka Novosilka — from the high command, the tactical group, the OTG (operational-tactical unit), and the OSGT (operational-strategic grouping of troops) — then nothing can be held. However, if decisions are made wisely, as they were during the operation in Pishchane, then the enemy can be stopped, and Pokrovsk can be saved. Otherwise, we’ll face the same outcomes as in Avdiivka, Velyka Novosilka, and other places: Bakhmut, Soledar, Sieverodonetsk, Lysychansk.
Unfortunately, there are a number of cities where we have suffered defeats due to inadequate management approaches. That is why I am reluctant to use the word "stabilization" at this point. The enemy has been attacking for a long time without success, suffering heavy losses, and now their numbers have significantly decreased. They can no longer break through the frontline here.
I don’t think this will last long, though. I believe the enemy will regroup and accumulate new forces. If we can streamline our actions, we can stop the enemy. I am closely monitoring the situation. At times, I pause in covering developments. This is because I need to assess the evolving situation. Changes are occurring, and I cannot discuss them in real time. However, in the coming days, as the situation becomes clearer, I plan to release several reports about the battles near Pokrovsk with the Russians, some of our successful offensive actions in certain areas, and some defensive battles.
And what is this offensive in the Kursk region? Is it a preparation for the exchange of territories?
The information I currently have regarding Russian actions in the Kursk region suggests that it is essentially an attempt to divert the forces of our strike group, which is defending the buffer zone in that region. The enemy is trying to distract our forces and conduct operations on Ukrainian territory to draw forces away from that direction. We'll see how persistent the enemy is in this persistent and what forces they gradually deploy. We will observe this in the near future.
Why are you confident that the US will not cut aid?
Because the United States is an institutional state, and one president does not make all the decisions. There are many institutions that uphold American democracy through a system of checks and balances. So, while I do not rule out a reduction in aid, I do rule out the possibility of America cutting it off entirely. That seems to me an unrealistic scenario. However, a decrease in aid is possible, and we need to prepare for that. These are the necessary actions of the Ukrainian government.
What would you do right now if you were in Zelenskyy's place?
If I were Zelenskyy, my first priority would be to develop a clear stance to consolidate the nation, as well as to unify and strengthen all defense forces. I would prepare a speech, providing a clear assessment of all the statements, insults... made by Trump, highlighting the mistakes he made in his assessment of the situation. I would emphasize that the Ukrainian people are fighting for their freedom — not for anyone to mock. Such mockery is absolutely unacceptable.
And I would appeal to the nation to concentrate all forces to demonstrate that Ukrainians are truly united in defending their country. I would announce the steps the government is taking to strengthen resistance in this difficult situation. This includes cutting untargeted spending – these bloated administrative apparatuses that are completely unnecessary right now. All untargeted programs, such as national cashback schemes, the "Vova 1000" initiative, Bulgarian reactors – everything used to launder money and that cannot be implemented this year or will not be completed this year. All of this must be ruthlessly cut.
The main resources must be directed towards the defense of Ukraine. Ukraine must throw every penny into the fight, rather than lining the pockets of those close to the President’s Office or the 'Servants of the People'. We need to show that we are tackling corruption ourselves. It is essential to hold an anti-corruption council with the involvement of NGOs – which, for some reason, Zelenskyy hates, even though they help him fight corruption – as well as involving all law enforcement agencies. We need to demonstrate the anti-corruption cases Ukraine is currently working on, how many cases are ongoing, and what the courts are doing with these cases.
That is, to show that all state bodies and civil society are actually united in the fight against corruption. And we are all doing everything we can to reduce it.
Then it is imperative to hold an offsite meeting at the front, with the participation of the current brigade commanders. There is no need to drag the entire Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. The commanders of the most capable brigades and battalions themselves will tell the president what is needed. They will tell him that there is no money for drones, the decision to form army corps is still being delayed, which is why there is chaos in the command. There is no defense line, no one is building it, because money is being stolen by those civil-military administrations, and no one is coordinating with the military on what is being built in the rear. They are constructing plans of positions, plans of military-defended posts that I have repeatedly written about and shown to the troops, which they cannot take up. These are all defense plans, some kind of plans for these military outposts being built by local administrations. These ideas come from the mid-20th century and are very poor, both in terms of execution and design. That is why I expect from the president, from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, actions that demonstrate the resolve and effectiveness of our struggle. This is what unites the nation. And it sends a message to the whole world that no threats or shifts in the stance of even one of our major allies will deter Ukrainians. We will be able to withstand even in such a political storm. This is what I expect from the president, and I believe this is what needs to be done.
In other words, the priority is to gather all resources, eliminate untargeted expenditures, and allocate all funds to specific needs that will strengthen the combat capability of certain fighting units. Not just scattering funds across newly formed brigades, where everything will simply dissipate. But focusing on those that already have combat capabilities. This is where the impact will be. And when it comes to anti-corruption efforts, we need to stop fighting with Shabunin, who is hated by the President’s Office, as well as with the Anti-Corruption Action Center, and instead, start listening to them and cooperating with them. Naturally, this will require getting rid of some of the more notorious "servants of the people."
What is more important for the president? For people to keep stealing from him during the war, or for the authority of the state? I think Zelenskyy should prioritize the state over Yermak, Kolubaiev, Mindych, and the rest of the parasites who, let’s say, keep running around, constantly sticking their hands into the state budget.
If the US shuts down Starlink for us, will there be big problems at the front?
Of course, there will be. Starlink is our key network for network-centric warfare. However, I don’t see any signs yet that the U.S. is planning to cut anything off. Let’s deal with problems as they arise instead of scaring ourselves with something that hasn’t happened and hasn’t even been announced.
Please tell us, how do you see Kherson's fate in the negotiation process? Could the city of Kherson become a bargaining chip, for example, in exchange for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant or something similar?
I think this is absolutely impossible. Ukraine will not trade its territory or its people. This is out of the question.
If we have an unlimited number of drones, can we turn the tide of the war with their quantity?
In reality, Ukraine doesn’t need a million drones. What we need are modern drones that can be quickly adapted to the number of operators we actually have. We need a lot of drones, but they should be of various types—hundreds of thousands, but of many different models, dozens of them. There should also be special conditions for their modification and upgrades during production. This means continuous modernization.b Yes, drones can change the course of the war. Yes, drones can carry out offensive and defensive operations independently. Drones can destroy the enemy more effectively than any other means. However, drones are not all-powerful. We still primarily need well-trained, well-equipped infantry. They are the main force in the war. We need artillery and mortars—kinetic weapons of destruction. And, of course, we need drones. We need a huge number of drones of many different types. Drones can really do this, micro drones can really change the course of war. That's why I say we need to focus money on drones. The state has currently allocated up to UAH 50 billion a year for drones. This is a meager amount, which doesn’t even come close to covering 10% of the needs of the Defense Forces. We need to increase this amount to at least $3–4 billion annually for the military. That’s the minimum. And then we’ll stand strong. Considering the volume of aid and the funds available in the state budget, as well as international assistance, we can certainly find this money. If by 2025, the state allocates at least $4 billion in direct funding to military units so they can purchase and produce drones—combat, reconnaissance, and drones of all types—we’ll have an advantage over the enemy on the front lines and be able to defeat them in the positional battles of 2025.
Can Europe produce more weapons than the US, and how long would it take?
Theoretically, they could, but practically, I don't think they'll be able to do so for another 15 years, even if they want to. The U.S. has a large and powerful military industry, and it is developing at a faster pace than the military industry of the European Union. So, when this happens in Europe, I don't see it happening yet. Theoretically, Europe has more people, more resources, and they could achieve this, but for now, we don't see such investments.
Do you support Taras Nesterenko’s idea that elections are necessary?
I support the idea of elections, but under one condition: first and foremost, Ukraine must stop the front. We need to build a reliable defense. That’s key. As long as the enemy continues advancing and capturing some of our positions every day, talking about peace, about elections, about the existence of Ukraine—this is manipulation. We must clearly understand that Ukraine may cease to exist. The enemy continues its advance.
No meetings in Riyadh change anything at the front. They don’t stop Russia. It keeps advancing. And any effective policy we may have can only begin once we have effective defense. First, defense, first, the destruction of Russia's strike groups, first, the construction of a continuous zone of destruction along the entire front, 20-30 kilometers deep. Only then can we talk about politics. As long as we cannot stop the enemy, while Russia's hired marginal forces are pushing and breaking through our defenses with meat-grinder assaults, we won't have any normal politics. It will be chaos. It will be like we had in Ilovaisk, Debaltseve when we went to negotiations under unfavorable conditions. But these are not the days of Minsk, not 2014, not 2015. Now Putin wants to completely destroy Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine's fate is decided on the front lines. All these speeches are just annoying sidelight for now.
Why did Trump choose to cooperate with Russia? What's in it for him?
Trump is trying to strike some kind of conceptual deal with Putin, to look him in the eye, just like someone recently tried to do in Ukraine. This won’t end well. There are no practical conditions for this. Russia is fighting for global domination, and for them, it’s crucial to destroy Ukraine. The destruction of Ukraine means that Europe loses its shield against Russian expansion, and the world faces an aggressor state that wages wars in Europe. There will be no peace, no balance. And after this war, Russia will continue participating in other wars, not just in Europe, but worldwide. Therefore, there are no compromises. Russia wants to invade Ukraine not for negotiations, but to destroy Ukrainians, including as a nation, so that no one remains here. They want only a small number left—just like what they did in Chechnya, where they killed hundreds of thousands, forced hundreds of thousands to emigrate, and left only a small, loyal, submissive group of Chechens bought by Moscow. The Kadyrovites as well.
Will there be a stream dedicated to the events of 10 years ago regarding the withdrawal from Debaltseve?
This needs to be done, and I will do it soon.
Is there a need to organize an informational campaign to influence partners?
Absolutely. This should be done by each of us, as well as on the level of civil society. And ideally, the state should also take part in this. Instead of fighting critics of the government on social media, I would like to see Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Andrii Yermak pay a little more attention to state policy and the protection of national interests. Zelenskyy should remain president until victory, but the Yermak-Zelenskyy dictatorship must be dismantled. We need a National Unity Government, where all political forces are involved.
Look, Zelenskyy seems to have some dependency on Yermak. I won’t speculate on what it’s based on, but it’s a very questionable situation, raising a lot of questions about the nature of their relationship. And that’s why Zelenskyy won’t let go of Yermak. For Zelenskyy, Yermak is essentially his alter-ego now—he writes the texts, and Zelenskyy just voices them. So Zelenskyy, under Yermak, has no independence whatsoever. Can we separate them? No, we can’t. And if there’s a government that Yermak doesn’t control, Yermak won’t allow it. So, unfortunately, with the elected leadership, we have to keep moving forward. Our primary goal now is success on the front lines. If the war stops, then we will be able to think about reforming the government.". But if there’s no success on the battlefield, there will be no government, no Ukraine. We need to understand this clearly and not think that Ukraine’s fate is being decided in Washington, Riyadh, or Brussels. Ukraine’s fate is being decided on the battlefield. It’s being decided in Kyiv, where orders are given and resources for the war are allocated. That’s what matters.
Thank you to all the sponsors of the "Butusov Plus" channel. We have 2,800 sponsors supporting us. I’m very grateful to all of you for watching. I hope I answered the main questions. Thank you for the broadcast, and Glory to Ukraine!
