Is war possible without Trump?
The stream about Ukraine’s further conduct of the war in such a conflict and the rather harsh pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian statements by U.S. President Donald Trump.
So, a war without Trump. Is it possible and how is it going?
Trump's statement is not yet a decision of the U.S. leadership that has been formalized into anti-Ukrainian policies. In fact, it is a serious idea, a political ramp-up. And, frankly, I understand that Ukraine was in a similar situation in 2014-2015, when our Western allies likewise pressured the Ukrainian leadership at the time—President Poroshenko—to agree to Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 at the cost of certain concessions, at Ukraine's expense. That is, for Ukraine to acknowledge the fact of occupation. At that time, Ukraine's leadership opted to sign the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 agreements, which effectively halted hostilities but created a Russian-occupied territory beyond Ukraine's control—one that was not legally recognized but was acknowledged de facto. Namely, Crimea and parts of Donbas. Now, we are witnessing a similar scenario, but on a much larger scale, with more aggressive and harsher methods—these being statements from the U.S. president. Nevertheless, as of now, we do not observe any drastic shifts in the actions of the American state apparatus. The agreements on financing U.S. military aid are not being extended—this is true. However, the existing agreements concluded under Biden provided Ukraine with a certain, albeit limited, margin of resilience in terms of time. Trump's statements have nevertheless demonstrated that there is no unified stance within the American state apparatus or society. During the visit of Ukrainian officials to Washington alongside the president, meetings were held between our security chiefs and their counterparts. They were invited to closed-door sessions and classified hearings of the Intelligence Committee, the Defense Committee, and the U.S. Congress. Additionally, there were meetings with senior representatives of various U.S. security agencies, where discussions were, in fact, conducted in a tone largely favorable to Ukraine. Support for Ukraine was also expressed, including by Republican congressmen.
We know that within the Republican Party, there are open advocates of Ukraine who publicly support it. Therefore, President Trump's statements do not indicate that American society or the U.S. government as a whole has made a sharp pivot away from Ukraine toward Russia. This means President Trump's political game, but in this game, all the moves have not yet been made. That is, in Trump's own terms, there are many cards in play—cards representing human lives, national interests, and the stakes of various states involved in this war. However, this situation is measured not only by strategic calculations, not merely by money, or the balance of forces and resources. Trump made another statement on his social media page. It is clear to me that Trump, like many populist politicians—including in Ukraine—seeks to generate daily headlines, constantly posting on social media to ensure he remains a central figure in the news cycle.
Nevertheless, this particular statement by Trump is quite telling. Allegedly, he reshared a post from a blogger claiming that Trump is a genius who has outmaneuvered everyone. The post suggests that Trump sees ten steps ahead and that his actions have been deliberately orchestrated to ensure that Zelenskyy will now have no choice but to visit him and plead for an agreement on the joint development of various mineral resources. To be honest, it seems absurd that the leader of a superpower is posting on his social media page about being a genius and seeing everything ten steps ahead. In my view, this is clearly not aimed at people who take war and global affairs seriously, but rather at a marginalized audience that engages in this kind of communication tone. Unfortunately, we also have leaders who communicate with people in this manner, and it always comes across as highly unbecoming. Nevertheless, we can see that a complete break with Ukraine is not a course of action the U.S. leadership is willing to pursue so publicly and openly. They are applying pressure, but at the same time, they are evidently acting with a degree of caution. That being said, the global situation—and this Oval Office confrontation in particular—has sent shockwaves around the world, triggering an unprecedented response from our allies in Europe and Canada.
A very important meeting took place, which, by the way, was reported by the President's Office. It was a gathering of the leaders of most European countries, the European Commission, the European Council, the NATO Secretary General, the Turkish Foreign Minister, and the President of Ukraine. At this meeting, all European leaders—representing the majority of the most influential European nations—expressed their support for Ukraine and discussed the steps they would take moving forward. It must be emphasized that NATO’s support is of absolute strategic importance to us and can play an independent role in the war. While the U.S. position and influence remain unique and unparalleled, Europe, in terms of its overall military and economic potential, significantly surpasses the Russian Federation—by multiple factors. Yes, perhaps not in the number of tanks or specific types of missiles, but Europe possesses, first and foremost—and this is crucial for us—strong economic and financial resources.
The first such response to this situation came from the United Kingdom, one of our most reliable allies, which announced a new financial loan agreement for Ukraine. This was stated by Prime Minister Starmer:
"The purpose of today's meeting was to bring our partners together to strengthen Ukraine and to build a just and lasting peace for all of us. I must ensure that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position so that they can come to the negotiating table from a position of strength. We will redouble our support. Last night, the UK signed a £2 million loan, which will be funded from frozen Russian assets. This will enable Ukraine to access £1.6 billion for the procurement of air defense missiles. This will create jobs in our defense sector, strengthen our infrastructure, and help Ukraine enhance its security and achieve peace—because we must learn from past lessons.
We cannot accept an agreement from a position of weakness—any agreement must be built from a position of strength. This is how we can ensure lasting security and peace: by maintaining capabilities and upholding responsibility. And I take on this responsibility to share this burden equally."
So, Prime Minister Starmer announced the issuance of funding in the amount of £1.6 billion. The Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Rustem Umierov, explained the specifics of this funding and the needs it will address. The British loan will be used to purchase interceptors, missiles—5,000 interceptor missiles and their launchers—along with LMM missiles, or light multipurpose missiles, which the UK had previously supplied in limited quantities between 2022 and 2024. The purpose of these missiles is that they can be used against both ground and air targets; they are low-speed and relatively inexpensive. Umierov emphasized that this funding will be directed towards strengthening Ukraine's air defense capabilities.
What does British aid mean? In fact, it is undoubtedly important on the front lines, and we need it, but we require assistance not only in the form of these LMM missiles. Last month alone, Russian occupiers launched approximately 4,000 drones—strike drones, as well as decoy drones intended to exhaust air defense systems—along with several thousand reconnaissance UAVs. The enemy is likely using one to two thousand reconnaissance UAVs on the front lines. This means that 5,000 LMM missiles, which will not be produced immediately, essentially represent just a month's worth of demand—if one missile is used against each Russian Shahed or Geran drone, then in principle, this supply would last about a month of combat operations. However, in my opinion, securing direct financial aid from Europe would be far more beneficial. This was also a key topic of discussion at the meeting. European countries have provided direct funding, which would allow us to manage many aspects independently. For instance, we could intercept Shaheds using various methods—not only with LMM missiles but also with drones. To effectively counter Shaheds, we also need a network of low-altitude radar stations capable of monitoring lower airspace. All these elements must function as a system—missiles alone are not enough. What I want to emphasize is that Europe has a particular vision: they aim not only to assist Ukraine but also to benefit their own defense industry. By providing us with loans, they are simultaneously boosting the capacities and capabilities of their own defense sector.
This situation is beneficial for us because we stand to gain from investments in the European defense industry, and I welcome this. The more they develop and expand production, the more they will be able to supply in the future, and the more they will attract specialists and advanced equipment. However, the key issue for us now is increasing direct funding for the war in Ukraine. What kind of financial resources are we talking about? According to President Zelenskyy, over the past three years, we have spent approximately $320 billion on the war—of which around $100 billion was provided by the European Union, $100 billion by the United States, and $120 billion by Ukraine itself. What does this indicate? That Europe, collectively, provides us with roughly $33 billion per year. This is, in fact, a relatively modest figure. Even when combined with U.S. assistance, the total volume of military and financial aid remains below $70 billion annually. Can Europe provide more than $70 billion? Absolutely—European nations have the necessary financial capacity. I have no doubt that if, in 2025, Europe allocated at least $100 billion in additional military funding, and if the Ukrainian leadership ensured that these funds were used effectively—not on voter bribery, not on cash handouts, not on purchasing dubious reactors or engaging in yet another scheme to embezzle public funds—but rather directed them strictly toward the development of UAV units, electronic warfare (EW) units, and signals intelligence (SIGINT) units, then even a suspension of U.S. aid would not undermine the combat readiness of the Ukrainian army. We could compensate for the loss of some irreplaceable weapon systems supplied by the U.S.—which Trump, at least for now, does not intend to continue supplying—using European funds. And obviously, if we assess the current situation and European leaders back up their statements with concrete actions, we will secure additional financial support. I have repeatedly stated on air that an additional $5 billion in earmarked annual funding for Ukrainian UAV, electronic warfare (EW), and SIGINT units on the front line could strengthen our defense capabilities by an order of magnitude and severely degrade the Russian army. If we received more financial support, the Russians would have no viable opportunity to advance—provided, of course, that these funds are not squandered on ineffective defensive fortifications that troops refuse to occupy. If these funds are not stolen—as, unfortunately, continues to happen in nearly every state institution—then yes, Europe could influence the course of the war just as significantly as the United States. In other words, the solution is to provide more financial assistance, at the very least increasing funding compared to what the EU and the U.S. have allocated in previous years. We fully understand what drones can do. Modern UAVs can intercept Shaheds at a lower cost than any surface-to-air missile.
Can NATO truly serve as a security guarantee for Ukraine, given that Russia intends to target NATO countries and the Baltic states next?
In reality, for Russia, launching an attack on Europe would be an extremely complex issue. The defense potential of European nations— even without U.S. involvement—surpasses that of the Russian Federation by a significant margin. To put it in perspective, Europe's population is three times larger, and its economic potential is ten times greater. Therefore, while individual European armies may appear modest compared to a fully mobilized Russian force when combined—with their operational reserves and mobilization capabilities—Europe is fully capable of defending itself. Therefore, while individual European armed forces may seem insignificant compared to a fully mobilized Russian army when combined—with their operational reserves and mobilization capabilities, believe me —Europe is fully capable of defending itself. The threat with an attack on the Baltic States is that Europe and the Baltic States, our close friends, they are afraid of the simple quick actions that Russian troops will take before NATO troops can deploy to protect them. This remains the most critical security risk for the Baltics: preventing the aggressor from executing a swift offensive. At this moment, I would emphasize that security guarantees from Europe, even without U.S. involvement, would be an absolutely effective solution for Ukraine. Two European countries—the United Kingdom and France—possess nuclear capabilities. Moreover, Europe holds vast financial resources, which Ukraine urgently needs—arguably even more than weapons—to ensure the continuous operation of the state apparatus and the military. This is why Europe remains an effective partner for us. And what we are witnessing in Europe right now—following Trump's theatrics—is a growing consolidation and structuring of aid to Ukraine. This presents a significant opportunity that Ukraine’s leadership must seize and utilize effectively.
Answers to questions
Should Zelenskyy publicly apologize to Trump as requested by the US leadership?
I cannot say at this moment whether the President of Ukraine should apologize for anything in this conversation. Personally, I don’t see it. I see no reason to question the statements that were made regarding Russia and Putin. However, if the Americans express a specific need for an apology in order to sign security guarantees, conclude an agreement on joint development, or establish a shared fund—why not? This is diplomacy. If there are details, then it should be done. I don’t know what Zelenskyy, Yermak, Trump, and Pence discussed behind closed doors. To me, such a mix of populists in one office creates an entirely unpredictable dynamic, and frankly, it’s unclear what they could have been talking about. I would have preferred to see other individuals present at these negotiations—people whose words and reasoning we can trust and who could provide a reliable account of the discussions. That said, if the Americans say, ‘Do this and that, and we will provide financial aid, funding, and military assistance,’ then the process continues. Trump himself stated during this Oval Office meeting that military aid would continue—he did not refuse it. So, if this is the case, then apologies and discussions should take place. This is not a matter of pride or ambition. This is a matter of principle—we do not acknowledge anti-Ukrainian statements in Ukraine’s presence. Such statements are inexcusable, and there can be no apologies for them. However, if Trump sets it as a condition for signing the necessary agreements and allocating the required funding—for the President of Ukraine to say, 'I’m sorry, I apologize,'—and if these apologies do not involve retracting his words about the terrorist Putin and the terrorist state of Russia, then why not? This is diplomacy. I said on my broadcast, which was devoted to all the events, that I think it was just a spectacle, what Trump and Vance staged, and these statements that were made there are absolutely, categorically unacceptable in the presence of the president of Ukraine. However, I believe that in meetings with such individuals—who are simply looking to put on a show—one should not engage in discussions without an interpreter, nor should one enter into debates with them. Instead, it is essential to state one’s position clearly and avoid reacting to provocations. Simply say what you believe needs to be said. For us, the top priority now is to secure the support of the United States. We need to demonstrate to the American public—to all American voters, many of whom do not closely follow the situation in Ukraine or fully understand what is happening—that we are a friendly nation, that Ukraine is an ally of the United States, that our people are capable, willing to seek compromise, and committed to fostering strong relations with the U.S. We do not dwell on emotional disputes or even insults if setting them aside is necessary to safeguard our national interests.
So the only question here is this: if Trump wants the President of Ukraine to apologize, and if this serves a concrete purpose, then it can be done. However, if such an apology is merely rhetorical and without substance, then it makes no sense. Every process must have its own internal logic.
Can you tell us about the situation on the border with Sumy?
The situation in the Kursk region is deteriorating significantly, as the enemy has been concentrating superior forces there for several months—deploying elite units, including marines and airborne troops, alongside a massive influx of cannon fodder and a large stockpile of ammunition. Despite suffering enormous losses, the enemy advances at any cost, advancing step by step at a heavy price. Russian troops are being eliminated in staggering numbers, yet they persist in their efforts to break through. From the outset of the incursion into the Kursk region, it was evident that our bridgehead had a critical vulnerability—its relatively narrow frontline. The offensive was concentrated within a confined sector, and the objective, as far as we can assess, was to penetrate as deeply as possible. Unfortunately, our logistical supply routes were heavily reliant on just two main highways. These highways, surrounding a relatively small bridgehead, are now under intense enemy fire control. Footage released by the Russian Ministry of Defense from two sections of these roads shows that approximately 40 of our military and transport vehicles were destroyed by Russian drone strikes. The enemy maintains close proximity to the highways, with drones of various types—radio-controlled and fiber-optic-guided—constantly operating in the airspace, inflicting severe losses. These attacks are primarily targeting our equipment but are also resulting in casualties among personnel. As a result, the area is effectively under blockade, and the sustained damage is severely complicating combat operations.
It is worth noting that we see videos of our soldiers, and the enemy is also suffering significant losses while attempting to launch frontal assaults on the buffer zone in the Kursk region. Therefore, it is crucial to assess the situation adequately and determine how we can ensure superiority in this ongoing drone warfare in Kursk. Under the current conditions at the front, the only viable option is to significantly reinforce our drone units. This requires effective and competent command of drone, UAV, EW, and SIGINT units. A fundamentally new effort is needed, as securing the main supply routes necessitates the deployment of engineering units to protect extensive sections of highways from drone attacks, construct shelters for military equipment, establish protective measures, and create decoys and model targets.
Additionally, the use of remotely controlled ground platforms for logistics support is essential. We already possess such platforms, and our specialists continue to develop them. In other words, systematic, organizational, and command-level solutions are required to increase enemy losses and prevent Russian UAV operators from maintaining tight control over our supply routes. Failure to implement these measures will soon lead to a critical situation. We will be unable to sustain logistical support, as the entire bridgehead relies on just two supply routes. This is, of course, an unsustainable approach. The enemy is also making persistent efforts to further constrict this bridgehead, aiming to facilitate more effective strikes. We will continue to monitor the situation. However, without immediate improvements in command and control structures and a substantial increase in the effectiveness of UAV, EW, and SIGINT operations, defending this sector will become exceedingly costly and dangerous. This could result in a scenario similar to Krynky, where logistical constraints turned the operation into a highly unfavorable engagement, with the bulk of losses occurring along supply routes.
We must avoid such an outcome, but resolving the situation remains possible. Our forces are making tremendous efforts to disrupt enemy movements, deny them operational freedom, and inflict heavy losses at their approach points through drone strikes.
What do you know about the enemy's attack on the training ground in the Dnipropetrovsk region?
The strike targeted the training center of the "East" Operational Command, where the 168th Reserve Battalion is stationed. I spoke with servicemen who were present during the Russian ballistic missile strike. This battalion consists mostly—almost entirely—of personnel who have left their unit without authorization and are either attempting to transfer to another unit or waiting for someone to extract them. The number of people there is quite significant. Although they are spread over a large area, it remains a high concentration of personnel.
We have seen the video released by the enemy, showing the missile strike on this training ground in the town of Cherkaske, Dnipropetrovsk region. The footage reveals a dense concentration of vehicles and a cluster of simple tarpaulin tents positioned closely together. Dozens of people can be seen moving around the tents, forming up in ranks, and walking in various directions. There is continuous movement of personnel. All of this is clearly visible from drones. There is no protective infrastructure. The tents are not fortified or dug in. No defensive measures are being implemented. Personnel are stationed directly on open ground—and have been for an extended period. According to my information, some personnel in this reserve battalion have been stationed there for up to two months. The enemy eventually took notice, obtained obvious human intelligence, and deployed a drone for reconnaissance. Our air defense systems are, unfortunately, they have no control over what is happening in the fourth year of a full-scale war. An enemy drone managed to enter central Ukraine—this is not the first time. Everyone is aware that they do this. Nevertheless, it once again went undetected. We do not have deployed air defense crews capable of intercepting these UAVs—conducting deep intelligence gathering at such a great distance from the front line—using FPV drones. Unfortunately, such capabilities are absent. Moreover, this is yet another strike in the Dnipropetrovsk region—it is not the first. Once again, there was no warning. The command of this unit was not alerted that an enemy drone was overhead. If it penetrated this deep, it was no accident. It was a missile strike spotter—there can be no other explanation. This situation highlights a critical gap: we lack electronic intelligence capabilities, radar stations, and an effective early warning system. Meanwhile, personnel continue their routine activities as if nothing is happening. The casualties, unfortunately, are severe. According to official reports I received this morning, 32 Ukrainian servicemen were killed. According to the unofficial information I was provided, the actual number is slightly higher. The total number of killed and wounded is approximately 130.
Significant, heavy losses among those who came to this reserve battalion in search of their assigned military unit. The real tragedy is that there is endless talk—politicians, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief addressing the public daily—repeating the same mantra: "We must protect our people, we must preserve our forces." Yet nothing is actually done to protect them. Is this the first strike? I’ve lost count of the attacks on the training center in Desna. The missile strikes on March 18, 2022. The strike on the barracks of the 35th Marine Brigade in Mykolaiv. The strikes on a training center in Poltava. Just four days ago, there was a missile strike on the training ground of the National Guard’s military unit 3029. Again—a drone, target correction, a missile. There were casualties there as well. Fortunately, the numbers were significantly lower, but they were still losses. And they were heavy. And now, yet another strike. Why? What is the reason? Absolute irresponsibility at all levels. They claim there is a manpower shortage in the army, that recruitment is failing, that people are not enlisting. And now they talk about offering a million as an incentive. What level of irresponsibility, what complete lack of intelligence does it take to put on this spectacle, pretending they will pay a million to young recruits? Here, they have hundreds of people sitting in an open field, without any shelter. No one considers that they need dugouts, that they should be dispersed, that they must not be concentrated in such large groups. This is the fourth year of the war, yet no one is thinking about it. The leadership does not care. And then, once again, they will talk about preserving lives, about manpower shortages, about offering a million to young recruits to encourage them to enlist. But they are not even protecting those who have already joined and are waiting to be deployed to military units. 130 dead and wounded—that is an enormous number. It is the equivalent of one and a half companies. And yet they claim there are not enough troops. If personnel continue to be squandered so incompetently, there will never be enough. Not now, not ever. This is what it means to wage war with human lives as expendable resources. Unfortunately, many Ukrainian leaders, due to their irresponsibility, their unwillingness to conduct After Action Reviews, to draw conclusions and analyze mistakes, continue to send soldiers to their deaths simply because of their own incompetence and mediocrity. How many times have these strikes been discussed? We have lost hundreds of soldiers in these training centers—men who never even saw the enemy. They joined the army to fight, yet they are left exposed in these tents. Air defense is not functioning. It does not provide any information. How is this even possible? Do you know why? Because there is irresponsibility at the highest levels. Losses are covered up, no conclusions are drawn. Let me ask you this—has a single commander ever been held accountable for any of these mass casualties? Not one. Why? Because these failures always stem from systemic solutions. There are no systemic solutions—air defense is not functioning, there are no early warnings, drones are not being shot down, soldiers are not being properly trained. What has changed now? Only now—after so many have died—has the 168th Reserve Battalion stopped these forming-ups. Only now have they stopped gathering troops in large crowds at the training ground. They have stopped marching in ranks and companies for routine tasks. Only now have they begun dispersing personnel to prevent another disaster like this. But tell me—have they banned parking cars there? Because there was a parking lot right next to the tents for convenience. Does this require some kind of specialized military knowledge? Do you need to graduate from a military academy to understand something this basic? Is this what military service is for—that they cannot grasp such fundamental measures?
After all the previous incidents—still nothing? Alright, let’s accept that no one was held accountable for past failures. But where is the order prohibiting such actions from happening again? Where is the directive outlining the proper deployment of field camps, protective measures, and the preservation of personnel? Where are the clear instructions, the concrete directives? Where is the air defense for these training centers, of which there are so many? And it’s not just training centers in the Dnipropetrovsk region—there are many other facilities as well. And yet, Russian drones continue to fly over them with impunity, conducting long-range reconnaissance. No one intercepts them. No one provides any information. This is complete irresponsibility, total incompetence. And then, once again, there will be the evening video message, and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief will declare that there are not enough soldiers. That we are doing everything to preserve lives. More hypocritical words with no substance behind them. Just a meaningless phrase.
You can see the infantryman Khyzhak (Predator), who I interviewed on this channel, who fought heroically as part of the 92nd Brigade, was wounded, treated for a long time, and is now being redeployed. He wrote: "I was at this training ground just 2 weeks ago, waiting to be transferred, there are no shelters there, no tents buried." The laziness and wooden-headedness of the commanders is to blame. I hope this will be a good lesson for everyone. My condolences to the families of the victims.
I realize that this will not serve as a lesson. A lesson for whom? I can only address those watching and say this—if a commander gathers you in a single room with hundreds of other soldiers, if you are stationed in tents packed closely together, surrounded by vehicles and large groups of people, there is a high probability that you could be killed. Because only units led by commanders who do not care about your life would allow such conditions. And you cannot follow the orders of such reckless leaders. You cannot gather in one place, sit idly, or wait passively. The consequences of such negligence are devastating. I want to make it clear—a significant number of soldiers from this reserve battalion, after what happened, and even before that, when they encountered such disregard for their safety and the poor organization of service at the training ground, chose to return home. Many transferred due to AWOL mechanism, while others simply abandoned service altogether. And now, once again, a significant number of soldiers from this reserve battalion have left the service and returned home. They feel disrespected because of the way they are treated. A soldier's life is worth nothing in our army, as no lessons are learned from past incidents.
Enemy footage shows crowds of soldiers, large groups clearly visible from drones. I don’t know what else to say. There must be strong assessments—otherwise, nothing will change. I have noticed that Zelenskyy and the generals react only when there is significant media outcry.They don’t act rationally at all. Everyone remained silent when the Mykolaiv barracks were hit, when Desna was struck in 2022. No conclusions were drawn. No orders were given. Nothing. Let's see if we have a Minister of Defense Umierov, if we have a Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces Syrskyi at all. Will they ever speak out about this? Will real measures be taken to prevent such concentrations, to establish proper procedures for troop safety, and to avoid such heavy losses? Well, someday this will be done. I will continue writing about this outrageous case. Combat brigades do not suffer such losses in a single week. Soldiers were essentially living at the training ground. Many brigades, I can tell you, do not experience such casualties. I know a significant number of brigades that do not take such losses—not in a month, not even in two.
Starmer's statement is important: "We must use economic sanctions and pressure on Russia to strengthen Ukraine. Secondly, we agreed that any lasting peace must ensure Ukraine's sovereignty and security, and Ukraine must be a party to this agreement. Thirdly, in the event of a peace agreement, we will enhance Ukraine's own defense capabilities to prevent any future incursions on its borders. Furthermore, we will deploy a contingent to Ukraine to safeguard the implementation of this agreement. We cannot afford to wait or ignore the opportunity to assist. We will immediately step up our support, including aircraft in the skies and troops on the ground. However, to ensure peace and success, these efforts must be backed by the United States. We are already working with the U.S. on this following my meeting with President Trump last week. And I want to be clear: we must act together now. Finally, we agreed that we will meet again very soon with the American president to continue working until we have a comprehensive joint plan."
Starmer's statements are quite positive for us. The key point is that Starmer is making every effort. The UK, I would like to remind you, is a crucial ally of the United States in the effort to bring Ukraine—and President Zelenskyy—back to the negotiating table with Trump. Undoubtedly, this is a matter of fundamental importance for us. However, if the Europeans are truly as resolute and committed as they claim, they must back up their determination with financial support—funding for the Ukrainian army, which we urgently need right now. To be frank, there has been a failure in financing ammunition and weapons production programs, and most critically, in funding drone units and drone manufacturing. The situation is extremely dire, and I am frankly shocked to see the government allocating billions of hryvnias from taxpayers’ money to non-essential expenditures while crucial defense and security programs remain unfunded. As a result, the enemy continues to kill Ukrainian citizens and bomb our cities, simply because we lack the necessary weapons to defend ourselves. The situation is dire. Europe can keep supplying us with weapons indefinitely, signing long-term agreements and issuing loans—all of which are for the distant future. But we need funding now to strengthen our position in 2025, because the real risks we face are in the immediate term, in the short window ahead.
How long will the aid approved by Biden last?
Well, it will be sufficient for some time. I want to emphasize that Biden’s aid does not come solely from the United States. We receive comparable assistance from the European Union. So, while we are at risk of temporarily losing U.S. support—though we have not lost it yet—the White House’s statements indicate that this could happen for a certain period. Clearly, European support remains crucial for us. Our focus should not be on whether we can hold out or not. Instead, we must concentrate all efforts on securing European assistance and making the most effective use of the resources we already have. We possess substantial resources, very substantial. And we have sufficient resources to wage an effective war against Russia, even to increase the losses of Russian occupiers.
Will criminal cases be opened for yesterday's Novocherkask and Zaporizhzhia?
In our country, the system is built in such a way that criminal cases are never in question. Hundreds of them are opened every day. No matter the issue, the authorities will always say, "A criminal case has been launched." Wherever you look, there is already a criminal case.
But our problem is not the number of cases. Our problem is the lack of accountability for human lives. A criminal case means nothing. What does it lead to? What came of the criminal cases regarding the missile strike three years ago—March 18, 2022—on the barracks in Mykolaiv? The 35th Marine Brigade was hit. Young soldiers, conscripts of the 137th Marine Battalion, were caught in the strike. But did anything change? Nothing. It led nowhere. There are cases, but no results. So let’s measure the state's responsibility not by the number of documents, not by press releases and evening video addresses, but by actual results. Results in safeguarding the lives of Ukrainian soldiers, in organizing operations at training grounds in the rear, at staging areas, and in permanent deployment sites - zero. A complete failure of state leadership. Total inaction from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief’s Headquarters, inaction and helplessness from Zelenskyy, inaction and helplessness from Syrskyi, and the inaction and helplessness of the Minister of Defense, who is nothing more than an empty seat. He sees nothing, he takes no responsibility for the lives of soldiers. He simply does not exist. Who is in charge of the war? Nobody. In reality, it’s Yermak, but officially, there is just a scattered group of people responsible for individual details—writing press releases and recording videos. That’s it. There is no one who truly takes responsibility for the lives of soldiers, for their safety, for the missing, for prisoners of war, for the effective deployment of troops at the front, for those actively engaged in combat, or for logistical support. No one. What we have is a leadership that is virtual, hollow, cellophane-like—living in a parallel reality. It seems as though it is concerned only with foreign policy while neglecting the urgent, real issues of strengthening Ukraine’s defenses. And the key takeaway is this: if Volodymyr Zelensky truly values the support Ukrainians have given him—after this Oval Office meeting, which was uncomfortable, unfortunate, and disadvantageous for us—if he truly appreciates the price paid in hundreds of thousands of lives for his status, for the applause he receives in Europe which is not due to any extraordinary personal achievements or unique qualities of his own, then he must act accordingly. If he values and respects this, then if he cannot lead the war himself, he must at least delegate it to a competent and responsible person. But right now, there is no such person in his inner circle. No one has full responsibility for the war. And he himself refuses to take it on, despite being constitutionally obligated to do so.
How do you think, will there be elections in Ukraine?
I've answered this question many times before—right now, the very existence of Ukraine is at stake. Therefore, the issue of elections ranks somewhere around 5800th on the priority scale. It is completely unrealistic at this point. The only people actively discussing elections are those trying to attract public attention. There are no practical prerequisites for them. With the current state of internal and external policies, this war could last for many years. If people continue to be wasted so incompetently, if leadership remains just as ineffective, the war could drag on for a very long time.
Will the banned U.S. aid severely impact Ukraine's defense capabilities?
Of course, it will—there's no doubt about it. It will be a heavy blow, but if we have European support and organize ourselves properly, if lessons are learned, and if the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief finally starts listening at least to what military unit commanders in Ukraine are saying, then we will be able to become significantly stronger, reinforce our positions at the front, stop Putin, and improve any future negotiations.
Do you know the state of affairs in the K-2 regiment?
The regiment is being successfully formed, and according to my information, over 900 servicemen have already been enlisted. The formation is progressing at lightning speed and continues to expand. Kyrylo Veres, as always, remains in a determined combat-ready state and is working as quickly as possible to secure the first combat assignments. The goal is to deploy the regiment’s first units to the front and begin inflicting maximum damage on the occupiers as soon as possible.
Will Ukraine make territorial concessions to Russia?
That's a good question. Let me tell you this: Ukraine can only make territorial concessions to Russia in the event of a military defeat and an inability to continue resisting. If we are unable to hold the front and eliminate more Russian troops than Putin can forcibly conscript from the ranks of the homeless and marginalized. Can we hold the front? Can we defeat the Russian army in its current state? The answer from all the competent unit commanders I speak with at the front is a resounding yes. Ukraine has all the necessary capabilities, resources, and manpower to build a strong defense, halt the Russian offensive, and defeat the Russian army. This requires high-quality, competent organizational and managerial decisions from Ukraine's leadership. That’s the biggest uncertainty in this situation—because these people are chaotic and irresponsible. We hope that public pressure will force Ukraine’s leaders to listen to reasonable and pragmatic proposals. They are doing something, of course. We've been demanding the formation of military units and larger formations at the front for three years. Now, after three years of full-scale war, they promise to establish army corps by the end of March. They even claim that commanders will be appointed by official orders. The commanders have been selected, but the orders still haven’t been issued. So when will this happen? No one in Kyiv is in a hurry. And what is there? There is no commander, no corps, we have our own issues here. We will postpone this, let them sit for another month. The leadership has no interest in the war. That's all. Every issue is put on the back burner, shelved indefinitely, left to linger for months.
Should Zelenskyy make concessions to Trump?
Concessions to Trump in what? I don't see the need to make concessions in anything.
Together with Trump, we need to work out a way to protect Ukraine's interests, not make concessions. A concession could be that we can make some political statements in his favour and in favour of the model he is proposing, for example, in terms of economic cooperation. I think it would be useful to create a joint fund for the development of mineral resources in Ukraine, the US and Ukraine. I have repeatedly said and written about this. But to exchange the territories of Ukraine, of course, is neither useful nor necessary for us. This is not a concession that is even worth discussing. We have opportunities. The question is whether we need it at all, whether there is any need for it at all. Of course, we have opportunities.
You said that Zaluzhnyi would not run for election, but why did he start his own YouTube channel?
That's a good, even amusing question. First of all, friends, I never said that Zaluzhnyi would not run for election. What I did say is that, at this moment, I personally do not see any steps from him that indicate political ambitions. Maybe that will change in the future. What I do see, however, is mass hysteria being fueled by Zelenskyy’s supporters. Sock-puppet farms, funded by the Presidential Office, have been hired to destroy any potential electoral competitor to Zelenskyy. Anyone well-known, anyone who voices criticism, becomes a target. It’s essentially an online version of a propaganda telethon. So, I don’t see why this should be an issue. Why shouldn’t Zaluzhnyi launch a YouTube channel? I don’t understand the problem. A YouTube channel is just a personal blog. Anyone can create one. Zelenskyy has one. "Kvartal 95" has one. Millions of Ukrainians have started their own YouTube blogs. What restriction applies to Zaluzhnyi? As Ukraine’s ambassador, he has a duty to represent Ukraine’s position—and social media is a tool he can use for that. Even before becoming an ambassador or Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, Zaluzhnyi already had a Facebook blog. So what? That didn’t mean he was running for office. And now, just because he’s launched a YouTube channel, does that suddenly mean he’s campaigning? Of course not. Let’s not give in to hysteria. People in the Presidential Office work for money. They rake in large sums of cash from smuggling and various corrupt schemes, use that money to fund massive bot networks, and spread propaganda. Their goal? To discredit anyone who doesn’t sing praises to Volodymyr Zelenskyy. So let’s not pay attention to this discreditation campaign, all the meaningless noise being spread online.
I thank all 2,800 sponsors of Butusov Plus for their support. Thank you for the broadcast and glory to Ukraine!
