What should Ukraine do after suspension of US aid?
Very intense political battles are currently unfolding over definitions and the instability in U.S. foreign policy regarding Ukraine.
Of course, all this will have a direct impact on the war strategy and its future. Today, we are witnessing the first drastic steps of the Trump administration. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that the United States had indeed halted arms supplies overnight. In other words, Trump suspended aid to Ukraine following Zelenskyy’s statement about the duration of the war. This assessment comes from The Wall Street Journal, a highly influential American publication. On the night of March 4, the arms shipments that had been moving across the border under an agreement established by the Biden administration were halted by President Trump. The shipments are now stranded at the border. This is an extraordinary development and the first openly anti-Ukrainian step taken by the U.S. administration. The weapons that the United States had independently committed to delivering have been stopped at the border, and no further deliveries are currently taking place. Naturally, this first concrete action—until now, there had only been talk with no real consequences—raises serious concerns about what might happen next. Moreover, Trump’s decision has triggered a series of further political statements.
So, for approximately $66 billion, the Americans have supplied us with three batteries of the Patriot air defense missile system, 12 NASAMS air defense systems with a large amount of ammunition and a significant number of missiles. More than 3,000 Stinger man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) have been delivered. This is the most widely used MANPADS in the Ukrainian army and has played a crucial role in the war. Air defense radar systems – 21 radars. This is more than any other country has provided. HIMARS rocket artillery systems – more than 40 units. The United States is also the primary supplier. Additionally, thousands of missiles for HIMARS are delivered annually. And this, we understand, the role of HIMARS in the war. It is especially important that the United States is the world's largest producer of these missiles. We can no longer obtain such missiles from other sources, at least not in comparable quantities. Guided missiles for the HIMARS system. Towed and self-propelled artillery – 155 mm, more than 200 guns. We have received more than 3 million 155 mm shells—an enormous quantity. 7,000 precision-guided shells. We have received Excalibur and Copperhead rounds, mostly Excalibur. More than 100,000 RAAM shells for mining, which is also a highly effective weapon. 72 units of 105 mm artillery. More than 1 million 105 mm shells. 10,000 rounds of 203 mm shells for our heavy artillery. More than 400,000 rounds of 152 mm shells for Soviet-era weapons systems. 40,000 rounds each of 130 mm and 122 mm shells for Soviet-era artillery. 60,000 unguided rockets for Grad systems. More than 300 mortars. More than 700,000 mortar rounds. More than 150 radars used for artillery reconnaissance. The United States is also the primary supplier in terms of total ammunition quantity—providing more shells than all European countries combined.
The Bradley IFV of the M2A2 ODS modification is the best armoured fighting vehicle of this war. The most effective and versatile. More than 300 of them. Wheeled heavy armoured personnel carriers, modern Stryker - more than 400. M113 wheeled armoured personnel carriers are the best vehicles used by infantry on the front line. There are over 900 of them. Wheeled APCs M1117 - more than 400.
Armored vehicles of various types in the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) class, including MaxxPro and Oshkosh—more than 1,000. Light armored vehicles HUMVEE —more than 5,000. Medical armored vehicles—more than 300. I would like to highlight both the quantity and quality of the armored vehicles. The United States is undoubtedly the leading provider in this regard, and we recognize the critical contribution it has made. We have also received equipment for tactical mobility of armored vehicles and extend their service life, including 80 trucks and 200 trailers for transporting military equipment. Various logistics vehicles for repair and troop support—more than 1,300. 20 helicopters, more than 10,000 guided anti-tank missiles for Javelin launchers. More than 10,000 TOW missiles, including the TOW-2 modification. These are also high-quality, important, and effective missiles. While they are not yet widely used, they serve a specific role on the battlefield. Various types of anti-tank hand grenade launchers and reusable anti-tank rounds—more than 120,000. The United States is also the No. 1 supplier of anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) and armored vehicles. Two Harpoon anti-ship missile systems. More than 100 boats of various types.
And then there’s communications. In fact, we rely almost entirely on American communications systems. I won’t even mention Motorola, which is produced in Ukraine under the Lybid brand—all of this is based on American technology and operates under an American license. We also have Starlink, an indispensable tool for network-centric warfare. Secure communications systems such as Harris and Silvus are among the best in their class. They are also the primary systems of their type in our arsenal.
Why are we highlighting all of this? Because what the Biden administration has done is enormous in terms of the overall scale of supplies. America's contribution to our defense capability is simply exceptional. We simply cannot replace supplies of this magnitude. We need to think objectively and realistically—there is no other country that can provide us with these weapons in such quantities and at this level of quality. That is why this suspension of supplies is such a serious step, the first real step—that will undoubtedly force Ukraine’s leadership to take drastic action.
The American leadership, of course, has accompanied this unfriendly move with its own statements. So, let's take a look at what American officials have said regarding military aid.
"The suspension of US military aid to Ukraine is a temporary pause," said Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives. In other words, the Americans have not cut off all support, and Johnson stated that "Kyiv and Washington should sign a minerals deal, and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy must rectify what happened last week. I believe this is the best deal that can be offered, and it will help the Ukrainian people."
Vice President Vance also made a statement: "Ukraine must sit down at the negotiating table and start a dialogue with Trump." He indicated that under these conditions, he would be willing to resume arms deliveries. In other words, Vance explicitly linked the resumption of arms supplies to negotiations. These are weapons that Biden authorized through his decisions, and they are still being delivered based on requests from the previous administration. So, these were sharp statements not only from US officials but also from other international organizations and leaders of various countries.
What were the other international statements? "Zelenskyy must return to the negotiating table with Trump," said the President of Poland. The French Prime Minister urged European nations to jointly compensate for the loss of American aid to Ukraine—this was a more concrete proposal. "The supply of American aid," said Bayrou, "is coming to an end, as entire trains loaded for Ukraine were halted and could not reach their destination." The French Prime Minister also noted that Ukraine urgently needs ammunition, certain intelligence systems, and access to communication networks. "This will force us to rethink our model, our priorities, and to reassess the world we thought we understood. We now see that it is more dangerous than we had imagined. And this danger comes from those we once considered our allies."
We see that the French are now referring to the United States as allies in the past tense. What does this indicate? That in the eyes of the European Union, President Trump may be taking steps to suspend this aid indefinitely. In fact, the situation is deteriorating for us Additionally, British Prime Minister Starmer has also called on Ukraine’s leadership to negotiate an agreement and seek a compromise before a new meeting with President Trump.
How did Ukraine's leadership respond to this critical situation? Let's take a look at President Zelenskyy's statements on the eve of Trump's speech to Congress after the aid suspension.
"I spoke to Prime Minister Starmer and discussed the developments. We all need peace, a just peace with clear security guarantees. Together with the leadership of the United States and the whole of Europe, this is absolutely achievable. Thank you for your advice."
Zelenskyy's statement follows: "We are ready to act swiftly to end the war. The first steps could include the release of prisoners, an immediate ceasefire in the sky, a ban on missiles, long-range drones, and the bombing of energy and other civilian infrastructure, as well as an immediate ceasefire at sea—provided that Russia does the same. After that, we want to move quickly through all the subsequent stages and work with the United States to reach a strong, final agreement. We deeply appreciate everything America has done to help Ukraine preserve its sovereignty and independence. We remember the pivotal moment when President Trump provided Ukraine with Javelins—we are grateful for that. Our meeting in Washington at the White House on Friday did not go as expected. It is unfortunate that this happened. Now is the time to set things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive. Regarding the agreement on minerals and security, Ukraine is ready to sign it at any time and in any convenient format. We see this agreement as a step toward enhancing security and establishing reliable security guarantees. We sincerely hope it will be effective."
So, this is a very important statement. The leadership of Ukraine, including President Zelenskyy, has not apologized to Trump. In principle, we have already discussed this. The key question is simply: what exactly should be apologized for? If it is about a violation of diplomatic protocol, and if the price of such an apology is securing a deal, then I believe it should be done. To reach an agreement and avoid giving Trump and the U.S. administration grounds to claim that Ukraine is taking a hard stance, unwilling to compromise, or refusing dialogue—especially since Trump stated that someone in the Oval Office spoke to him in an inappropriate manner—it is important to clarify the nature of the issue.
I do not believe that this constitutes a violation of any national interests if the price of securing beneficial and necessary agreements, as well as implementing Ukraine’s state strategy, is simply a personal apology. However, such an apology must not include any regret for Zelenskyy’s rightful statements calling Putin a terrorist and Russia a terrorist state—there can be no apologies for that. If Trump was displeased with certain aspects of behavior or protocol-related matters, then fine. But this should be acknowledged explicitly as a condition for dialogue between Ukraine and the United States. If meeting with the U.S. president requires an apology, but in return, he unblocks arms supplies, signs mineral agreements, and subsequently provides further assistance to Ukraine—then, under such circumstances, this is a possibility
So, what is the question now? I want to talk about Zelenskyy’s statement itself. Today, it is absolutely reasonable. I can see that, evidently, someone with at least some diplomatic expertise was involved in preparing it. This is important because it is deeply concerning that, during such a critical moment, Andrii Yermak remains the main foreign policy adviser. With all due respect to a man who has spent half his life registering kiosks in Kyiv, it would be far more appropriate to have people next to the president who know how to negotiate at the highest level in such difficult times. It is simply absurd when a former actor and TV producer brings along a lawyer whose previous experience consists of handling minor bureaucratic matters at the city level. What is truly needed in this situation is a diplomat, a team of politicians who at least understand diplomatic protocols and have actual diplomatic experience. These are the people who should be drafting reports and statements for the president. Now, regarding this statement—just imagine if such a speech had been delivered at a press conference, at a meeting with Trump, through an interpreter, and exclusively in Ukrainian. That would have been a reasonable and appropriate approach.
The statement that the President of Ukraine made today leaves the U.S. leadership with no choice but to acknowledge that Ukraine is ready for compromise. This is, without a doubt, a statement that clearly and correctly signals that compromise. I hope that now the U.S., its leadership, and Trump himself will have to take the next step, considering this important statement. From the very beginning, I have argued that the agreement on creating a joint fund for mineral development in Ukraine should be strategically beneficial for us. This is an initiative of the U.S. leadership—our key ally in many military matters—and losing this support would come at an extremely high cost. We must do everything possible to restore relations with the U.S. administration while remaining firm on our fundamental principles—such as recognizing Russia as a terrorist state and Putin as a terrorist. It seems clear to me that compromising on certain issues will not help us in any case. If we back down from defining the enemy, the aggressor, and the terrorist for what they are, then what would be the point of peace negotiations? That would no longer be a discussion about a ceasefire between two equal parties but rather negotiations over surrender.
So now, let’s hope that after this compromise statement by Zelenskyy, in which he expressed his readiness for dialogue, the U.S. leadership will issue a response. But what should we do if Trump once again puts forward new conditions? I have also spoken with American journalists, and they ask: 'Why doesn’t Zelenskyy want a ceasefire? Why doesn’t Ukraine want to see ceasefire?' And I responded: 'What is the model for this ceasefire? These are just empty words. At this moment, there is no concrete framework. All of the Trump administration’s demands revolve around Ukraine sitting down at the negotiating table. But how? The war is ongoing. How is a ceasefire even possible? Under what conditions? Who will determine them? Who will guarantee or enforce an actual ceasefire? Who will force Zelenskyy or Ukraine to issue any orders? That is clear. But who will force Putin? There are no agreements concerning Putin. None have been announced.
In essence, President Trump is trying to enter negotiations with Ukraine already prepared to accept the outcome of his potential deal with Putin. But what exactly would that outcome be? What would it entail? We have seen this model before—back in 2014. And at that time, the leaders of the Western world demanded the same kind of unconditional guarantees. The leadership of France, Germany, and the United States also attempted to broker peace at Ukraine’s expense. It didn’t work, because the conditions Putin put forward amounted to the dismantling of Ukraine as an independent state with a sovereign government. Back then, Putin set conditions for implementing the Minsk-1 and Minsk-2 agreements that made their execution impossible. Ukraine was expected to integrate Russian-occupied and Russian-controlled regions—just as Moldova was forced to do under Russian pressure in 1992. Of course, such an outcome is completely unacceptable. It would mean permanent destabilization, ongoing chaos, and a scenario that simply does not work in the modern world.
I believe that discussing guarantees now and demanding security guarantees from the U.S. is a purely political issue. If the U.S. and the European Union claim that they want peace, then any peace model must be based on a balance of power.
This is what happened, for example, when the Korean War was halted in 1953. A balance of power was established on both sides, which ultimately forced both parties to agree to a cessation of hostilities. While they did not sign a formal peace treaty, a demilitarized zone was created along the front line. There was a mechanism of guarantees—not in the sense of promises, but in the presence of forces: on one side, American and UN-allied troops; on the other, Chinese, North Korean, and Soviet troops. This balance of power enabled successful negotiations. So how can this be achieved in our case? What should be done next? I believe that the main priority should be prisoner exchanges and halting specific hostilities. However, to be honest, the proposed elements—such as prisoner exchanges and a no-fly zone—are already part of a broader process aimed at ending the war. The enemy will not agree to these measures immediately. First, we must establish a balance of power. But what will ensure this balance if the U.S. halts arms supplies? In that case, two things become absolutely essential for us. Prime Minister Starmer has outlined them clearly. He stated that before peace can be achieved, Ukraine must first become strong. And this is absolutely the right approach—the only possible approach. Ukraine must become strong.
What does it mean to become strong, and how do we balance the forces? First and foremost, we must use this situation to push our European allies to allocate funding as quickly as possible. Only then will they support us not just with words, but with real resources. At this stage, the main issue for Ukraine is not the supply of weapons—it is funding. The financing of the war and the country's infrastructure is now the top priority. To become strong, we need investment in high-tech weaponry. Fortunately, the drone war is being waged with minimal assistance from the United States. Most drone and electronic warfare (EW) technologies are being developed without U.S. support, and nearly all of them operate without U.S.-made components. For us, funding must be direct. I have repeatedly stated that if at least $5 billion were allocated to drone and EW units on the front lines this year, we would see a significant shift. Yes, we would not be able to launch as many HIMARS strikes, we would not have the same volume of artillery shells, and we would lack heavy armored vehicles—but we would be able to eliminate Russian occupiers on existing positions much more effectively. I believe that overall enemy losses, both killed and wounded, roughly align with the estimates provided by our General Staff. I do not think there are more than 40,000 enemy fatalities per month, but when including the wounded, the total losses exceed that number. If we secure direct funding for our best drone units, we will be able to inflict significantly greater losses on the enemy, eliminating the resources Putin sends to the front each month. We can already see this in action south of Pokrovsk, in the breakthrough area where the enemy attempted a prolonged offensive to encircle the city. As soon as they entered the area, the advance stalled. For two months now, the enemy has been unable to make progress, despite sustaining heavy casualties and constantly receiving reinforcements. Why has this happened? Because of tight drone control, which provides a highly effective reconnaissance field, enables the elimination of individual targets, and allows for the destruction of shelters for infantry groups and enemy staging points. It also facilitates precision strikes on enemy command centers, UAV operators, and other critical infrastructure. The result is clear. Under these conditions, our infantry can operate much more effectively. We can preserve lives, conduct counterattacks under the protection of a drone umbrella, and inflict enemy losses that far exceed our own. This is why the offensive has stalled, in battles.
Every day, thousands of Ukrainian soldiers make this possible—infantrymen in the trenches, drone operators, and the command center coordinating artillery and drone operations in this sector. All of this is the result of human effort, and all of it can be replicated in other parts of the frontline. But it requires funding. In my view, if the U.S., if Trump, if Europe truly want to balance the situation and reach peace talks, this is my proposal. This year, fine—if America does not want to provide weapons, then we need financial assistance. If Trump refuses to provide it, then Europe can step in. Europe has financial resources that are at least on par with the U.S., if not greater. If we are allocated funding for UAV, EW, and Signals intelligence (SIGINT) units—at least $5 billion this year, or better yet, $20 billion—then all our units would receive virtually unlimited funding to develop their EW and SIGINT capabilities, as well as an unlimited number of UAVs. With that, we could utterly dismantle any Russian offensive. They would be unable to advance anywhere. This would create a situation similar to the Korean War, where the front line became stable, and the attacking side suffered exponentially higher losses than the defending side. This can be achieved through a combined effort of infantry, drones, electronic warfare systems, artillery, and armored vehicles. All of this is realistic right now. The issue is financing. To make this possible, we need to secure additional resources and compensate for the funding previously provided by the U.S. last year. The Europeans have the money. If Trump wanted to force Putin to negotiate, he could do so as well. Fine, you don’t want to provide weapons—then at least provide financial aid. Give Ukraine enough funding to reach a balance of power with the enemy. From a financial perspective, the Russian Federation, according to the reputable Swedish SIPRI Institute, spent more than $460 billion on the war in 2024. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s total annual defense spending is around $100 billion. That’s a fourfold difference. If that gap were reduced—not to parity, but simply to a 2-to-1 ratio—meaning if Ukraine could spend up to $200 billion annually through its own budget and international aid, still 2.5 times less than Russia, it would create a breakthrough in quality, efficiency, and technological advancement. At that point, the Russian army would simply cease to exist—no matter what politicians say, no matter what decisions are made.
Ukraine has highly skilled soldiers and qualified personnel who can effectively deploy high-tech weaponry and deliver a decisive blow to the enemy. We need a clear-cut defeat—one that wipes out everything the enemy manages to replenish within a year. And we need to stop the frontline from moving. This will be the only foundation for real negotiations.
Now, let’s take a look at the situation. Okay, Trump has cut off aid. Europe might not provide financial support. What else can make Ukraine strong? Without a doubt, President Zelenskyy must focus not just on the foreign policy arena but, first and foremost, on strengthening Ukraine from within—just as Starmer has pointed out. Yet, to this day, the president has not outlined any concrete plan for how Ukraine will respond if Trump continues his political maneuvers in pursuit of a compromise with Putin. We simply do not know. But we do have the ability to influence the situation. To do so, we need to redirect all available funds. We need to stop the distribution of money through election-driven handouts and suspend non-essential social benefits—at least for now. I say this with great respect for those who are struggling and genuinely need financial assistance. But at a time when some people are suffering due to financial hardship, others are dying on the frontline to protect not only our present but also the future ability of the state to even consider increasing these social benefits. We must acknowledge that these are simply incomparable issues. Every day, large numbers of Ukrainian soldiers are dying because they lack sufficient support and resources—whether it be transport, electronic warfare systems, vital supplies, or drones of various types. Right now, if we truly want to be strong, the key issue is not to focus solely on text of statements—something our government tends to prioritize—but rather to focus on action plans.
Ukraine has significant domestic resources that have not yet been fully utilized. Money is still being spent on all sorts of secondary projects and issues. And people across the country can see it. There is a war going on, yet in western Ukraine, there is a well-known case where the head of the Lviv Regional State Administration built a road to a hotel in Skhidnytsia, which journalists claim he is affiliated with. And this is simply astonishing. There are many such cases where officials continue to use their authority for personal benefit, allocating funds to minor projects that have no connection to the war. And there are plenty of these misallocated resources. Right now, all available resources must be concentrated and directed toward targeted support for the army—not funneled into the central budget, where Zelenskyy and Yermak can spend them as they see fit, but instead allocated as direct aid to military units. This is a fundamental issue. If President Zelenskyy wants to rally the nation around him and mobilize it effectively, he needs to step into the role of a leader—not focus on popularity or approval ratings. He must unite people around his leadership through actions—through a clear action plan. And that action plan must be publicly announced. Now, Defense Minister Umierov has stated that a drone program is being implemented, with five military units receiving 5 billion hryvnias in funding. This is an insignificant amount. The majority of drone units remain unfunded. The procurement of many critical types of drones, such as those with satellite communication capabilities, has not been funded at all. We are in a worse situation with drone financing now than in 2023. And in 2024. This is what has happened. Now, in 2025, instead of planning the distribution of funds toward key defense expenditures, the government is allocating money to unclear projects while using a single initiative for five units as a cover. With all due respect to these five units, the 1,200-kilometer front is being held by at least 300 different military drone units, all of which require funding and logistical support. Because without a sufficient number of drones, who will monitor and secure this frontline?
I have spoken and written many times about the successful operations in the south of Pokrovsk. There, 12 drone units are operating simultaneously. This is necessary to maintain a high concentration of assets and to carry out different types of missions. But we do not have enough units for this everywhere. That means we need to involve everyone. Every unit must have clear funding and be able to plan its resources accordingly. But none of this has been properly done. That is why I urge our leadership—if they are truly serious about this and not just playing political games—if they genuinely understand the gravity of the situation we are in, which is critically serious, then they must act accordingly. We need to make Ukraine strong from within, to consolidate our resources around a clear action plan and well-defined priorities. Our top priority—especially now, as the U.S. limits the supply of missiles and artillery shells, which will have a severe impact on us—is the development of drone production, EW, and signals intelligence. We need to invest our resources precisely in these areas. And we must ensure that Europe’s attention is focused on this as well.
This is the model that the French Prime Minister referred to when saying that we need to rethink the security framework. And we must do the same. We, Ukraine, need to rethink our security model. What will it look like now, if Trump decides to suspend aid again or if it remains unclear when this assistance will resume? We have sufficient internal resources—perhaps not enough to fully compensate for external support, but certainly enough to significantly improve the organization and deployment of high-tech units that account for 80% of enemy losses on the frontline. This is the key issue. The key issue is that we must not remain in a constant state of "save us," "help us," "give us more." We must enter negotiations with a plan—a plan that demonstrates Ukraine’s ability to continue resisting, that proves Ukraine remains combat-ready. Ukraine will not collapse just because someone temporarily suspends assistance. This is a serious challenge, but one we must confront head-on. We must do everything possible to restore strong relations with our American allies. But if they impose delays, we cannot afford to delay. Ukraine is at war. And war demands immediate decisions based on the current battlefield reality—not passive waiting for external actions. Among our top priorities, above all else, is investment in drones and EW. And in this area, we are facing a complete failure. A complete failure. And this failure must be corrected. The nation must unite around an effective defense strategy. I hope that Volodymyr Zelenskyy will recognize that his authority—and that of the Ukrainian government—on the world stage is not just an abstract concept. It is not merely about saying "the Ukrainian army deserves gratitude." It is about real, tangible people holding the frontline. People with real needs—needs that remain unmet. Issues that remain unresolved. And these people require systematic, real support and cooperation. Not just five units—all units. Because every unit holds the front, and without them all, this cannot be accomplished. This is entirely feasible. Right now, the frontline is more or less static—it shifts, the enemy advances, but we maintain overall control of the situation, we see what is happening. And now, we must move beyond words to concrete actions. Actions specifically aimed at supplying our troops, improving the deployment of forces, and increasing accountability among commanders—so that we no longer have situations where entire units suffer heavy losses, where soldiers go missing, and where their relatives have no idea whom to contact or how to find them. For me personally, missing soldiers and prisoners of war are primarily the result of failures in organization, planning, and the deployment of forces. This is an issue that must be continuously addressed at the command level. It is a problem of intelligence, command and control, decision-making and operational assessments. The issue of missing persons must be taken seriously. It is essential for society, and it is essential for those who are fighting. The issue of supply shortages must be resolved in every unit. And the state has the necessary resources to do so. Problems like those in the 168th Reserve Battalion, where soldiers have been living in tents for months with no proper facilities—I will be writing about this, by the way. I have investigated this case and will provide a detailed report in writing so that everyone can understand the situation, and it can be more easily included in the materials for criminal proceedings. All of this demands responsibility and concrete decisions. The army requires rapid and continuous changes. If we have fewer resources and are facing restrictions on weapons supplies, we must compensate by outpacing the enemy in managerial and organizational decisions. But none of this is happening. I expect that the President of Ukraine will come down from his sky-high expectations about global politics, delegate the drafting of foreign policy statements to professionals, and begin listening to the military experts who are actually managing the war across the entire frontline. We need real changes across all 1,200 kilometers of the front. Only once stability is achieved there will these diplomatic statements carry real weight. Only then will we be able to participate in negotiations not as a passive object, but as an active subject—as a real participant in the process. To be one of the decisive players in negotiations, we must first be able to dictate our own terms. And right now, the key question for Ukraine is: how we can seize the initiative on the front and stop the Russian army.
I have spoken about this on air dozens of times. And now, we are facing it directly. Instead of the position of "save us, everything is lost," we must shift to a position of strength: Look—the enemy cannot advance anywhere. The enemy is being destroyed. Their losses exceed what they can replenish at the front. The personnel crisis within the Russian forces is undeniable. The Russian offensive stalls wherever they face active destruction. This is a trend that has already become clear. We understand how we can stop them. But what do we need? What organizational and managerial changes must be made? What logistical support is required? What resources must be mobilized? All of these resources already exist within Ukraine today. We don’t need to wait for a miracle.Take, for example, the procurement of Mavic drones. Today (March 4), the Ministry of Defense, for the fourth time this year, has once again failed to conduct a proper tender for purchasing Mavic drones—the primary reconnaissance drone of the Defense Forces of Ukraine. Right now, all drone purchases are being handled by individual brigades using small operational funds. Each brigade receives no more than 30 million hryvnias per month, and unfortunately, this amount is nowhere near enough to acquire the necessary drones. Some brigades don’t even receive 30 million—many are allocated just 14 million. There are major funding issues. And now, the burden is falling entirely on the soldiers themselves and on volunteers. This is not how things should be done. I don’t know how else to put it. What kind of strong state fails to establish even a basic organizational and logistical management system? I believe that if Volodymyr Zelenskyy does not take heed of Starmer’s words—that Ukraine must be strong as a prerequisite for negotiations—then there will be no successful negotiations with Trump and Putin. Success is the ability to dictate terms to the enemy. Putin will stop only when he realizes that continuing these meat-grinder assaults is no longer an option. Yes, Russia will always have more financial resources than we do. But they are running out of cannon fodder. We can eliminate them. We can destroy everyone who tries to enter and attack our positions. We can inflict unacceptable losses on the enemy—losses so severe that further offensives become impossible. The principles of our defense are clear. So, dear friends, this is the reality we are facing.
Answers to questions
Why does the Supreme Commander-in-Chief mention security guarantees so often?
Security guarantees are fundamentally a political issue, because every agreement requires a guarantor—someone responsible for upholding it. By insisting on security guarantees from NATO, the United States, and the European Union, Ukraine is effectively acknowledging that it cannot fully defend itself alone. The idea is that if these agreements with Putin are violated, NATO countries would step in and actively defend Ukraine. But after eleven years of war, it is clear—no one is willing to provide Ukraine with political security guarantees. We are not being admitted into NATO precisely because that would entail granting us real security guarantees. After all, NATO itself is a security guarantee. If you truly want to give Ukraine security guarantees, admit us into NATO. Under Article 5, NATO members are automatically granted collective protection in the event of an attack. But NATO refuses to do this. Every country says not yet. So let’s be realistic. There are no security guarantees. Ukraine’s only real security guarantee is its own Defense Forces. There are no others. No other country is willing to fight Russia on our behalf. And why would they? We need to talk about it. This needs to be openly acknowledged. There is no need to turn security guarantees into a political slogan. These guarantees do not exist. Let’s be realistic from the start. Ukraine’s security is guaranteed by one person—the Ukrainian soldier. All others have stepped away from this responsibility. This is our national issue. This is our state’s responsibility. So let’s talk about concrete solutions. If a country truly wants to support Ukraine, if it calls itself our ally—like many European nations do—then okay. You may not have the same stockpile of missiles and ammunition as the Americans. Then give us the money. We can compensate for the shortage of one type of weaponry by investing in others—by financing new, advanced systems. That is a practical approach. That is a real security guarantee. And that is what will actually bring this war to an end.
At a meeting with Secretary of State Blinken, I stated that we could halt the offensive on Pokrovsk if UAV units operating in that direction received $500 million in funding. I made it clear—if this money is allocated now, I have no doubt that, with such financial support, our drone operators would inflict maximum damage there. This funding would cover all units in the area. And the enemy would suffer unacceptable losses. That’s it. War is, first and foremost, about money and logistics. It is a technological issue. It is not just about how many soldiers you can send into the trenches at any given moment. Modern weapons allow us to resolve this through technology, drastically reducing the number of personnel required on the frontlines. Reducing the need for manpower—significantly reducing it—down to nearly zero.
What about the production of Neptunes?
According to my information, Neptune missiles are in the plans. However, I have yet to hear of any actual funding being allocated. The plans exist. Unfortunately, procurement planning for 2025 is still lagging behind. Some discussions have begun, and a few protocol-level decisions were made—only at the end of February. But no contracts have been signed, and no actual funds have been transferred. Instead, the money is being funneled into a highly publicized drone initiative—but for only five units. What exactly is this so-called 'drone line' limited to just five units? It is physically impossible to cover the frontline with just this. Five regiments—or even five brigades—of drones will not be enough to secure the entire front. We need an entirely different approach. We need less PR and more structured, targeted funding for all combat units that maintain Ukraine’s actual fighting capability. The production of Neptune missiles is planned—I won’t disclose specifics regarding volume, but the plans are there. I will tell defense procurement planning later—because, frankly, there are some scandalous issues involved.
Will we be able to close the sky during massive missile attacks without air defense missiles from the United States?
Well, it's impossible because missiles are primarily supplied by the United States. How can we defend against ballistic missiles and multiple high-speed missiles without them? Unfortunately, we can't. But that doesn't mean that if we lack this capability, we are doomed and resistance is impossible. Resistance is possible.
Why would Russia seek a truce now?
At the moment, Russia has no grounds for a truce or any means to end the war. On the contrary, Russia sees that its strategy of pressuring the West is proving successful. It continues to recruit cannon fodder—though it’s becoming increasingly difficult, and they are scraping the bottom of the barrel—but they are still managing to find people. They are waging war to the last Russian. However, they are now encouraged by what they see: the once-unified NATO front is fractured. NATO’s common stance is splintered. There is an opportunity to once again exploit divisions among NATO members—between Europe and the United States. There is an opportunity to apply pressure on multiple fronts. So, of course, Russia will continue to apply pressure, and our task is to demonstrate, as Prime Minister Starmer stated, that Ukraine is strong. I hope President Zelenskyy will also emphasize this. That Ukraine is strong and capable of defending itself. We have the strategy and the means to do so. Unfortunately, our president is absent, and without him, nothing gets done. While he is traveling on diplomatic missions, all domestic work is at a standstill. Everything comes to a halt because decisions are made in a single office, and when the people from that office go on tour, everything stops. The Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief is paralyzed, no decisions are being made, nothing is being done. Absolutely nothing. And the efficiency of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief? It’s already March, and still, no funds have been allocated, no contracts have been signed for the production of most drones. How is that even possible? Anyone in their right mind who understands that we are in the middle of a war would not allow this. They would not allow procurement tenders for drones to be disrupted. Unfortunately, we see no such sense of responsibility from those in power.
Don't you think it's all manipulation? No matter what Zelenskyy says, Trump will find a way to blame him for a prematurely failed truce.
When we talk about diplomatic rhetoric, the intended audience of our statements—whether we express readiness, reaffirm our friendship with the United States, apologize for certain protocol matters that someone might have found objectionable, or conclude agreements—is not just Trump alone. The audience includes the American ruling class, American civil society, and the American media. That is who we are engaging in dialogue with—not just Trump, not just Vance. So when the President of Ukraine makes statements, he must understand his audience. This is not a well-known stadium; this is a different country, a different society, a different system of communication. If even the U.S. president does not hear us, or if he has a different perspective on us, that does not mean we should focus solely on that. We need to pay attention to the fact that this is a diplomatic interstate relationship. No matter how unpleasant the statements from the U.S. president may be, we must remain focused on protecting our national interests. The U.S. president can afford to make certain incorrect or provocative remarks, but we, in our dealings with the United States—given that we seek their support—must think carefully, remain as diplomatic and respectful as possible, and strive to garner the backing of the entire American public. That is what we are fighting for.
Could you provide information on the condition of the prisoners from Kyrgyzstan?
Please contact the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine. I think they will direct you.
How realistic is it to replace this assistance on our own?
I have demonstrated the scale of U.S. assistance. Replacing it entirely is impossible. However, it is possible to concentrate resources on other priority areas that we can sustain and leverage to gain an advantage.
Is there any revival of the military-industrial complex for the production of missiles?
Yes, there are several missile production programs underway, but we must understand that the development of these technologies is, unfortunately, a long-term process. Scaling up missile production is also not something that happens quickly—it depends on funding, time, the quality of engineering, and the effectiveness of development strategies. This is not a process that can be rapidly expanded; in fact, it is quite difficult to scale. It will take more time. There are ongoing developments in drones with jet engines, as well as in cruise and ballistic missiles. However, when it comes to ballistic missiles, progress remains slow, and scaling up cruise missile production also requires both resources and time. While work is being done in this area, it is not entirely successful across all aspects. At this stage, there is no point in discussing the details.
Why are EU countries not providing aircraft and air defense missiles?
Simply put, they do not have the same level of resources as the United States. In reality, they are providing assistance, but the defense industry in the European Union is not as developed on the same scale. They simply do not possess the stockpiles of weaponry in such large quantities.
Are you ready to work together with Volodymyr Zelenskyy to build on President Trump's strong leadership to achieve a lasting peace?
Well, what choice do we have? We all live in the same country. Of course, if the President of Ukraine were genuinely interested in certain matters, he would act on some of the findings from the investigations I conduct and discuss on these broadcasts. The problem is that Zelenskyy only takes action when there is a scandal—when we expose it, when journalists cover it, when public opinion keeps bringing it up, when there is a massive wave of feedback, reactions, and engagement. Only then does he make a decision. It’s a very complex and slow process. That being said, I stated in my last broadcast that I support the President of Ukraine in what happened in the Oval Office regarding this situation. I believe that his response—defining Russia’s actions for what they are—was not a provocation or an attempt to derail negotiations, but rather the only appropriate tone when addressing an aggressor state and a terrorist state. In this case, Volodymyr Zelenskyy acted correctly in the Oval Office. However, what I would like to see is for Zelenskyy not to assume that a single moment of confrontation automatically translates into broad and lasting support. When it comes to corruption, the disorder and mismanagement of the military, and the lack of proper planning in defense policy, I have criticized him, I continue to criticize him, and I will keep doing so. Because rather than strengthening Ukraine—as British Prime Minister and our ally Keir Starmer urges us to do—Zelenskyy, through his actions, is weakening Ukraine and undermining our negotiating position. And that must be criticized. If the government were willing to listen to this criticism, it would act accordingly. But what we see is that those in power only acknowledge problems and make changes under the pressure of scandals. That is why I want to thank all the viewers of my channel, Butusov Plus, and others who support investigative journalism—those who demand reforms and a stronger national defense system.
What about the construction of defensive structures in the Dnipropetrovsk region to avoid repeating the mistakes made in the defense of the Kharkiv region?
Oh, dear friends, unfortunately, all of this is being done Incompetently. And once again, it comes down to responsibility. The people are digging this are those in charge of spending the defense budget. They receive the funds and allocate them as they see fit. But this is being done without any real consideration for the realities of modern warfare. The defensive structures being dug along the borders of the Dnipropetrovsk region do exist. Some of them may prove useful, but in many cases, the way they are constructed and the way funds are spent make them completely ineffective and of no real benefit to the defense effort. In a war dominated by drones, defensive positions must be built with a clear strategy—taking into account the enemy’s extensive arsenal of strike and reconnaissance capabilities, logistics routes must be protected, concealment and the safety of infantry and firepower must be prioritized. Yet none of this is properly considered. Unfortunately, the planning of defensive fortifications in the Dnipropetrovsk region remains at a very primitive level and does not meet modern military requirements. I don't think that is realistic in our current situation. We have a monopolized government—Servant of the People controls all levels of authority and every key position in the state. And I see no willingness on their part to relinquish even a fraction of their power. To them, power means control over budgets and decision-making, and they are unwilling to delegate authority. On the contrary, for the past three years, they have worked to centralize power, concentrating all decision-making in just a handful of offices. I don't believe this is a wise approach, but it reflects the intellectual level and political mindset of those in power. They are incapable of uniting the country, even at a time when the nation is under direct attack. Unfortunately, there is too much PR, too many words, and very little concrete action or forward-thinking strategy. This is a defining feature of our government. So discussions about forming a government of national unity are pointless—believe me, they have no intention of doing so, and we all understand that clearly. Why talk about the impossible?
What will you do without U.S. intelligence? They have even restricted data access for the European Union
It will be difficult for us, but fundamentally, we have the capabilities to counter the enemy. This is, of course, a significant loss—a very significant one. However, we can still carry out our missions. Yes, there will be limitations, but we will continue to cooperate with our European allies, the United Kingdom, and also receive valuable intelligence to a considerable extent. This loss can be partially mitigated, though not entirely. It is a setback, but it will not result in total disaster.
Friends, thank you for being with us. Now in these times, when you hear many words, it is essential to focus on actions. The overall situation is critical, but it is not catastrophic. We still have significant leverage. Trump speaks the language of cards—he values cards. And we do have leverage in this situation. We are not defenseless, nor are we a helpless victim that will collapse the moment U.S. aid is suspended. The idea that everything will grind to a halt and that we will be unable to continue existing is simply not true. The situation is extremely difficult, and we must focus all our efforts on regaining support—both within the U.S. government and among American society and media. What we need now is a large-scale campaign, an active diplomatic effort in the United States.
At all levels. We need to strengthen Ukraine both militarily and diplomatically. To achieve this, state representatives other than just Zelenskyy and Yermak should be giving interviews. With all due respect to their rather limited diplomatic capabilities—frankly speaking—we need a much broader range of negotiators conducting discussions. The president must delegate individuals who, at the very least, understand the nature of Ukraine-U.S. foreign policy discourse. At the very least, this. We must immediately implement a program to concentrate all available resources on defense. Every single one. We need swift, clear, and systematic steps in every sector of defense and diplomacy. So far, we are not seeing this, but we must recognize that we can still emerge from this situation as victors. The loss of U.S. assistance is not a catastrophe for us. We still have leverage. And as civil society, we will do everything in our power to put pressure on the government and push it toward making the necessary, correct, and urgent decisions.
I would like to thank all 2,830 sponsors of the Butusov Plus channel. Thanks to you, we will continue to work and go on air. Thank you, all my friends, for your support. I believe in our victory, and it is absolutely real. Thank you.
Glory to Ukraine!
Yurii Butusov, Censor. NET
