WITHOUT YOU
COMPILATION AND COMMENTARY
BY LUCY MANESS WARNER
SEPTEMBER 18, 2022
LEADERS ARE DIFFERENT FROM POLITICIANS. THEY HAVE PASSION.
THEY HAVE A POINT OF VIEW THAT SEEMS PERTINENT TO THEIR FOLLOWERS, AND THEY
PROPOUND IT REPEATEDLY AND CLEARLY. THEY ARE ELOQUENT IN SOME WAY AND TO SOME
AUDIENCE. THEY USUALLY HAVE SOME PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND AN EXPRESSIVE FACE
AND BODY LANGUAGE. THEY STUDY THE PEOPLE TO SEE WHAT THEIR INTERESTS AND
CONCERNS ARE. IN A TIME OF CONFLICT, THEY SHOW DETERMINATION AND VIGOR.
BOTH DONALD TRUMP AND VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY ARE STRONG
LEADERS AND NATIONALISTS, BUT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT AUDIENCES, WHICH BRINGS ABOUT
DIFFERENT RESULTS. AMERICA'S NATIONALISTS AT THIS TIME ARE ACTUALLY WHITE
NATIONALISTS WHO SEEK TO SECURE THE PRIVILEGE OF WHITE NATIVE BORN AMERICANS
OVER ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR AND IMMIGRANTS IN GENERAL. THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN
DEVASTATING TO OUR AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE AND EVEN THE VERY STRUCTURE OF OUR
GOVERNMENT.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY IS LEADING HIS PEOPLE IN A QUEST TO
PRESERVE THEIR NATIONAL IDENTITY AND TERRITORY AGAINST A HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE AND
ACQUISITIVE POLITICAL FORCE IN THE FORM OF VLADYMIR PUTIN'S RUSSIA, WHICH IS
CLEARLY TRYING TO ELIMINATE EVERYTHING UKRAINIAN AND RESTORE THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE OLD SOVIET UNION. THE RESULT OF ZELENSKY'S LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN A NATIONAL
GOOD. IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, HE TOOK BACK AN IMPRESSIVE CHUNK OF THE
RUSSIAN-HELD UKRAINIAN TERRITORY, SHORT OF CRIMEA. GO TO THE WEBSITE AND LOOK
AT THE MAP. ZELENSKYY'S ABILITY TO UNITE AND INSPIRE HIS PEOPLE IS CLEAR. YOU
SHALL KNOW THEM BY THEIR FRUITS.
NATIONS HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT SORT OF LEADER THEY WANT AND
WHERE THEY WANT TO GO. BAD LEADERS, TO A CONSIDERABLE DEGREE ARE A PRODUCT OF
THEIR BASE AS WELL AS MODIFIERS OF THE GROUP MENTALITY. IN THE SOUTH, WEST AND
OTHER PLACES IN THE UNITED STATES RACIAL HATRED AND SOCIAL RESENTMENT HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT, BUT TRUMP LAID DOWN HIS KINDLING, THEN HIS SMALL TWIGS AND
STRUCK A MATCH. FROM THE NEGATIVE EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENT THAT ALREADY EXISTED
HAS COME A RUTHLESS LEADER, SKILLED AT MANIPULATING HIS VOTERS BY THE USE OF
RACIAL HATRED INTO THE FASCIST-LIKE ETHOS THAT IS A FORCE OF EVIL TODAY.
ZELENSKYY IS A MUCH MORE PRINCIPLED LEADER, BUT HE HAS THE
SAME POWER OF PERSONALITY, AND IS USING IT TO MOBILIZE THE STRENGTH AND ANGER
OF THE UKRAINIAN PEOPLE. IT IS THE JUSTIFIED ANGER OF GOOD PEOPLE. THE
FOLLOWING ARTICLES AND VIDEOS BELOW SHOW ZELENSKYY BY WAY OF CONVERSATION,
RHETORICAL SKILL AND ANALYSIS. SEE THE FOLLOWING RECENT PIECES ON ZELENSKYY AND
THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA WAR WHICH BROKE OUT SO QUICKLY AND IN SUCH A DEVASTATING
MANNER.
THE FIRST IS A DESCRIPTION BY RACHEL MADDOW OF A RECENT
MESSAGE AIMED BY ZELENSKYY AT PUTIN, IN WHICH HE USES A CLEVER AND POWERFUL LITTLE POEM. I OFTEN
GET MY CUES ON THE NEWS FROM RACHEL MADDOW AND OTHERS AT MSNBC. CUSTARD PUDDING,
THEY ARE NOT, AND THEY HAVE RARELY BEEN CAUGHT IN FACTUAL MISTAKES. THEY ARE
INCISIVE, BUT NOT CARELESS; OPINIONATED, BUT IT IS OPINION I AGREE WITH. WE ARE
IN A WAR OF IDEOLOGIES AT THIS TIME AND NOT ONE WHICH IS UNIMPORTANT OR
THEORETICAL, BECAUSE IT IS, LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE, HAVING REAL WORLD
CONSEQUENCES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK5FBPXVMd4
1:46, #msnbc #zelenskyy #putin
Zelenskyy Has Choice Words For Putin As Ukraine Makes
Remarkable Progress Repelling Russia
198,497 views Sep
13, 2022 5.3K LIKES
MSNBC
5.22M subscribers
Rachel
Maddow reports on the significant amount of land Ukrainian forces have taken
back from Russia's invasion and shares a strongly worded statement from
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Vladimir Putin.
»
Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
Follow the
MSNBC Midterms Elections guide to the important races across the United States
as Americans prepare to cast their votes.
Countdown
to the Midterms: https://on.msnbc.com/3KlULq8
NEXT, THE TELEGRAM POST FROM ZELENSKYY ADDRESSED TO RUSSIA,
WHICH QUICKLY BECAME VIRAL, IS ANALYZED BY CNN. IT IS A WORK OF ART, BUT ART
WITH A PURPOSE. SOMETIMES PEOPLE, AND PEOPLES, HAVE TO MAKE DIFFICULT CHOICES
AND PURSUE THEM RIGOROUSLY. UKRAINE IS AT A POSITION OF THAT SORT NOW. THE
ARTICLE IS WELL WORTH READING. IT IS CALLED "WITHOUT GAS OR WITHOUT
YOU?" THE VIDEO INTERVIEW WITH FAREED ZAKARIA SHOWS ZELENSKYY AND THREE
SCENES, TWO OF WHICH SHOW THE PEOPLE AS THEY RESPOND TO THE SITUATION. THEIR
FEAR AND THE GRIMNESS OF THE SITUATION IS PALPABLE.
WE HAVE NOT HAD TO LIVE THROUGH ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THIS
COUNTRY WITHIN MY LIFETIME, AND MAYBE NEVER. DURING THE REVOLUTIONARY AND THE
CIVIL WAR SOME CITIZENS ACTUALLY DID FACE THE INCURSION OF A LARGE NUMBER OF
SOLDIERS, OF COURSE, AND IT WAS HORRIBLE. WE HAVE BEEN RELATIVELY SAFE IN OUR
ISOLATION. STILL, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE. FOR THAT REASON, SEEING DONALD TRUMP
FLIRT WITH RUSSIA'S PUTIN WORRIES ME. I DOUBT THAT THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ACTUALLY
HATE AMERICANS ENOUGH TO TRY TO PROSECUTE A WAR ON OUR LAND, BUT A LEADER
HUNGRY FOR POWER LIKE PUTIN COULD TRY TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT, ESPECIALLY IF
WE BECOME WEAKENED AND DIVIDED IN OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR AWARENESS OF DANGER.
AMERICANS HAVE BEEN COMPLACENT AND NAÏVE, AND THAT CONCERNS ME.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/12/europe/zelensky-message-kharkiv-russia-ukraine-intl
‘Without gas or without you? Without you’: Zelensky’s words
for Russia as Ukraine sweeps through northeast
By Sana Noor Haq, Kostan Nechyporenko and Anna Chernova,
CNN
Published 10:52 AM EDT, Mon September 12, 2022
VIDEO --
On GPS: Zelensky 'not afraid' of Putin, 03:59 MIN. , FAREED ZAKARIA GPS, CNN
CNN —
President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued a stark warning to Moscow, declaring
that “history will put everything in its place” as Ukrainian troops swept
through the northeastern region of Kharkiv.
In a
Telegram post addressed to Russia, Zelensky asked: “Do you still think that we
are ‘one nation?’ Do you still think that you can scare us, break us, make us
make concessions?”
“You
really did not understand anything? Don’t understand who we are? What are we
for? What are we talking about?,” said the post, which published Sunday.
“Read my
lips: Without gas or without you? Without you. Without light or without you?
Without you. Without water or without you? Without you. Without food or without
you? Without you,” Zelensky wrote.
“Cold,
hunger, darkness and thirst are not as scary and deadly for us as your
‘friendship and brotherhood,’” he added. “But history will put everything in
its place. And we will be with gas, light, water and food … and WITHOUT you!”
PHOTOGRAPH
-- Smoke rises over Kharkiv's western outskirts as firefighters put out the
fire after a Russian rocket attack hit an electric power station on September
12.
Metin
Aktas/Anadolu/Getty Images
Zelensky’s
message came after a week of stunning transformation on the battlefield of
eastern Ukraine, as the country’s forces punctured Russian defenses and
recaptured more than 3,000 square kilometers (more than 1,100 square miles) of
territory.
Russia’s
recent collapse in Kharkiv has been met with stinging criticism from Kremlin
loyalists – and prompted the question of how Moscow will respond to its
failure.
Zelensky
said Russia retaliated on Sunday with missile strikes on infrastructure that
caused a power outage in parts of eastern Ukraine, including the regions of
Kharkiv and Donetsk.
“Even
through the impenetrable darkness, Ukraine and the civilized world clearly see
these terrorist acts. Deliberate and cynical missile strikes on critical
civilian infrastructure. No military facilities,” Zelensky said via Telegram.
KHARKIV,
UKRAINE - SEPTEMBER 11: Ukrainian flag waves after Ukrainian army liberated the
town of Balakliya in the southeastern Kharkiv oblast, Ukraine, on September 11,
2022. (Photo by Metin Aktas/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
RELATED
ARTICLE -- Russia's collapse in northeast Ukraine ignites fury from Putin loyalists
On Monday,
Russia launched fresh airstrikes on Kharkiv as the Kremlin sought to downplay
Moscow’s setback in the region, insisting that it would achieve all the goals
of its “special military operation” in Ukraine.
“The
special military operation continues and will continue until the initial goals
are achieved,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday, adding that
Russian President Vladimir Putin was aware of the situation on the frontline.
After the
success of Ukraine’s counteroffensive on Saturday, the Russian Defense Ministry
sought to present its retreat as a strategic regrouping.
“The
decision was made to regroup Russian troops in the areas of Balakleya and Izium
and redirect their efforts in the Donetsk direction,” it said.
A WASHINGTON POST INTERVIEW WITH ZELENSKYY IS NEXT. I
ALWAYS WANT TO WATCH A POLITICIAN'S INTERVIEWS AND CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE THAT
FORMAT SHOWS THEIR MENTAL AGILITY AND ABILITY TO EXPLAIN THEIR VIEWS, AND THEY
EXHIBIT THE INNER PERSON TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT THAN A SOUND BITE OR EVEN A
SPEECH. SPEECHES ARE WRITTEN AHEAD OF TIME AND READ. IN A CONVERSATION THERE IS
ALWAYS THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING CAUGHT OFF GUARD AND THE DENIAL OF AN ANSWER IS
AS TELLING AS A STATEMENT. INTERVIEWS HELP ME DECIDE THE DEGREE TO WHICH A
LEADER IS AN HONEST PERSON – AND SOME REALLY ARE HONEST. NOT ALL POLITICIANS
ARE CORRUPT. NEWS INTERVIEWS ARE GREAT, BUT PERSONAL VISITS TO SOME TALK SHOWS
ARE EVEN BETTER. THIS WAPO INTERVIEW, WITH TRANSCRIPT, IS CALLED "RUSSIA'S
GAMBLE." AN OPTION TO LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS IS ALSO AVAILABLE, 39 MINUTES
LONG. GO TO THE WEBSITE FOR THAT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/16/zelensky-interview-transcript/
RUSSIA’S GAMBLE
An interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
Image without a caption
By Isabelle Khurshudyan
Updated August 23, 2022 at 5:57 p.m. EDT | Published August
16, 2022 at 5:00 a.m. EDT
PHOTOGRAPH
-- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, seen at his office in Kyiv this
month, said Ukraine was "as strong as we could be" when the Russian
invasion began. (Emily Sabens/The Washington Post; Heidi Levine for The
Washington Post; iStock)
KYIV,
Ukraine — Over the past six months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has
become an inspiring wartime leader and champion of his country. During an
hour-long, wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post at the presidential
office, where hallways are kept dark and are lined with sandbags to protect
against Russian attack, Zelensky discussed U.S. warnings about Russia preparing
to launch a full-scale invasion — and if he believed them.
The
following is a translated and lightly edited transcript of the interview.
VIDEO --
Zelensky on downplaying the threat of war to Ukrainians, 1:05
Ukraine's
President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to The Washington Post in Kyiv on Aug. 8,
about the fear felt by Ukrainians before Russia invaded. (Video: Whitney
Leaming/The Washington Post)
Q: Can you
describe to us the moment when you found out a full-scale invasion had begun?
Who informed you and what were your first moves that morning?
A: First
of all, the war began in 2014. But I do not want to look like some deep, great
historian right now and say that the war began long before 2014. The war of the
Russian Federation in one form or another against Ukraine or against the
sovereignty of our state or against statehood or against the general existence
of Ukraine — this war is old, and it has been going on for many decades, even
hundreds of years. But if we rely on the date that appears everywhere as the
date of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, of course, this is Feb. 24,
2022.
They began
this war of occupation where they chipped away from us little by little in
2014, although I believe that they have been encroaching on Crimea since 1991
through [providing Russian passports to Ukrainians] and various other steps.
These are hybrid, heavy, cynical measures — albeit professionally implemented
ones. They have been trying to devour our country through their information
policy, all of their television — I worked in [television], and I understood
perfectly how this functions. They have been devouring Ukraine as they had big
assets, the petrodollars and revenue from gas, so of course, they bought up our
industries and so on. They acted through informational [policy], humanitarian
[means], passportization and then bought up the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada
[parliament] of Ukraine, financed various parties. And by the way, their party
was the second party in the country by the time I became president. The second
party in the country was the party of the Russian Federation. If I hadn’t — not
specifically because of me — but if I hadn’t run for president, this party
would have been the first.
This is
also very important to understand. I am not saying that this is my personal
merit; this is the merit of the people of Ukraine, who believed [in us]. I am
not trying to break this down into right or wrong, but this is a fact. The
influence is so strong that this party would have been the first party. Today,
we see that this party does not enjoy trust anymore. And this suggests that
starting from Feb. 24, there has been a complete reboot, a complete reset of
consciousness in Ukraine. That’s what I think.
To
understand that they would invade — well, look, we lived in different worlds, I
and our Western partners. From the moment when I had the opportunity to
communicate closely with the leaders of various countries, be it at the Munich
Security Conference or through my speech at the U.N. General Assembly, we’ve
been saying that Russia had already begun a full-scale invasion, it was only a
matter of time. What will happen next? What is “time” here? That is the moment
when they will feel they are capable and when they’ll see that the Western countries
are weakened. So, what did they do? They created the energy deficit — chaos
made out of an artificial shortage of energy resources so, accordingly, people
thought about their domestic policy and Ukraine was on the back burner.
The topic
of Ukraine moved further and further down [on the agenda]. And over the years,
the topic of Crimea has also moved further and further down on the agenda
because of various challenges. We raised the topic of Crimea … we began to take
steps to update some things. And then we immediately saw a tough reaction from
the Russians. We understood what was going on. So, the question was only when
will this happen. And I believe the problem is that Ukraine has not been given
certainty. And I think that only recently, when Ukraine was given a candidate
status for the European Union, the country was only then given more or less
clear certainty. So, it was very recent. Everything else was just words. I do
not want to reproach anyone for anything, but the most important thing for
Ukraine and the Ukrainian society is certainty. Where do we stand now and
[where] we do we stand in the future? Will you be there, will they find you a
place among equals?
And from
the point of view of security guarantees, which we constantly appealed for, we
said that the [Membership Action Plan] in NATO is not NATO membership. What are
you afraid of? But that would have also been a signal of certainty. And, of
course, we did not receive anything from the point of view of security guarantees.
Security guarantees are provided not only by Ukraine’s membership in NATO. It’s
not just about safety, although I believe that the [Membership Action Plan] in
NATO would have been [one of] those exact preventive sanctions that I
constantly talked about at all meetings. Preventive sanctions mean to do
something to make the Russians afraid to attack — because they will attack, so
do something about it. But this did not happen, unfortunately.
I’m not
complaining. We’ve already passed the stage of complaints in our lives. This is
not necessary. We’re stronger now than we were before the invasion. We are just
stronger. Our position is more correct, and I believe that this is the most
important thing, because only an internally strong country can somehow resist.
Partners can only help us de-occupy territories, but only the people of Ukraine
can stand up and persevere.
These
security guarantees, which I constantly mentioned to all leaders, they provide
you with access. I am grateful to the partners for the weapons we are receiving
now, but if you’re not a NATO member, you can’t get them. Let’s be honest. You
can say a million times, “Listen, there may be an invasion.” Okay, there may be
an invasion — will you give us planes? Will you give us air defenses? “Well,
you’re not a member of NATO.” Oh, okay, then what are we talking about?
Now I am
really grateful to many partners who, despite the fact that we are not NATO
members, understood what is happening and that Ukraine is the first step on
Russia’s bloody path, and that this is not going to end just like that. The
fact that we are being given these weapons, let’s be honest, this is not only
for us, it is also for them. After all, they have already understood that the
Russian troops will not stop, they will move on. Therefore, here on our
territory, Europe and the West are protecting themselves, too. I speak quite
diplomatically as in it’s not just about them, but they are protecting
themselves, too. Although everyone has their own price. And so, access to these
weapons, NATO’s [Membership Action Plan], these NATO programs, the accession of
Ukraine to NATO, all this would make it possible for us to upgrade ourselves.
Q: But for
you personally, what was Feb. 24 like? What memory of that day stuck with you
the most?
A: Well,
we understood that this day would happen. The missile strikes were terrible.
The cruise missile strikes on Ukraine from the territory of Belarus were a
massive mistake. And then [the strikes] from Russia’s side. Historically, this
is a point of no return for the Russian Federation. This is an irreversible
process, and [Putin] has crossed this line himself. He wiped all the lines, he
wiped away the opportunity for this war to end in dialogue.
What I
understood in that moment when I was getting dressed, I thought about the
rockets flying over my children, over all of our children. This means that
there will be a huge number of deaths. It was clear. But he and the Russian
military brought this hopelessness through these missiles. This suggests that they
were looking for a way to abandon a diplomatic solution to the issue. All they
are saying now is just chatter. It’s just chatter, it’s not even interesting to
me. It’s not even, as they say, grandmothers and pensioners talking on the
bench near their house to discuss something. This is just below any level of
dignity, what they have done.
The most
important fact is they wanted to cut off the possibility of negotiations. The
most important fact is that they waited for a vulnerability, that spot where the
energy crisis and the coronavirus overlapped. They understood how blocking our
ports would exacerbate the food shortages and so on. That is, they seized the moment,
and they were sure that the West would not unite around Ukraine. They were
absolutely sure of that. Therefore, we heard the three-day plan.
Why did
even some European leaders say, “three days”? Because some Europeans did not
plan to rally around Ukraine. Everyone wanted to just [wipe their hands of
this]. Like, okay, this is Ukraine’s problem. Let’s just turn a blind eye to
this for a few days. In a few days, the Russians, whatever they may be like,
will occupy Ukraine. And then we’ll come to an agreement with them somehow. I
am sure that such thoughts have arisen, because this war in Europe, in the
center of it, does not benefit anyone.
For the
Russian Federation, we were like an appendix that needed to be removed, but
they didn’t understand. They thought we were an appendix, but we turned out to
be the heart of Europe. And we made this heartbeat. These countries have united
around us — thanks not only to us but also because the society in these
countries was not ready to give up the concept of freedom simply because it is
Putin, who is feared and has been demonized in the West. The West itself
demonized him, they painted him to be so very terrible, with a nuclear weapon
in his hands. Do you remember these posters with Saddam Hussein? Sometimes we
too are afraid, but Ukraine showed the devil isn’t as scary as he is made out
to be.
Q: On Feb.
25 — Day 2 of the war — you addressed European leaders and told them, “This
might be the last time you see me alive.” Did you really believe that at the
time?
A: They’re
the ones who called me and told me I needed to evacuate, and this is the
guarantee of your safety . “You must go somewhere, at least to the west of
Ukraine, and then, perhaps, to another country. If you are not alive, this
means there is no president, and if there is no president, then the system
itself, the state of Ukraine, will collapse.”
I told
them that I thought the opposite would happen. That means we will hand over
power without a fight, and I said that this is impossible. I said that I’m not
trying to hold on to power. I don’t cling to power at all. If the issue lies in
me, then let’s do it. If the question is that I leave, and that will stop the
bloodshed, then I am all for it. I will go right now. I didn’t get into
politics for that — and I will go whenever you say, if it will stop the war.
But no, there was a manual written by the Russians — who will get which
position, how to manage the processes, all of that.
The
Western partners wanted to — I’m sure someone was really worried about what
would happen to me and my family. But someone probably wanted to just end
things faster. Of all those who called me, there was no one who believed we
would survive. Not because they didn’t believe in Ukraine, but because of this
demonization of the leader of the Russian Federation — his power, his
philosophy, the way he advertised the might of the Russian army. And so [they
thought], with all due respect to the Ukrainians: They won’t bring it, they’ll
be finished off in two or three days, maybe five, and then it will all end.”
Q: Have
you been told any scenarios about the threat to your life and your family?
A: I was
told before the Russian invasion. I’ve met with leaders of various levels
within various intelligence services who told me that I was the number-one target,
and we need to be thinking about this already. Look, when it comes to these
things, I can approach it that someone already knew that would happen and had
more information than I did. Or you can approach it differently, thinking that
people were really worried about me, my life and really wanted to help. I don’t
know where the truth is, maybe one or the other but maybe in the middle. That’s
why I don’t like to theorize about such things. I can only share facts with you
that I know. I’ve been told about this threat, but I’m a stubborn ram.
Q: What
scenarios did they tell you?
A: Well,
the scenario is clear: A state, when there is no president of any kind — no
matter how that president is viewed — any state without the president falters.
This is understandable. It was clear a few months prior. There were things like
that. Then I saw some information, I listened, they were looking for allies
both within the state, to act through them, and also for external actors they
ordered, who would infiltrate and fulfill their tasks of liquidating or
discrediting. Listen, I am a living person. I don’t want to die, like any other
person. But I definitely know that if I think about that, then I’m already
dead. If I think about how, where, why — there are specially trained people that
the state paid money to so that these guards could repel these attacks. I can’t
tell them how to do their job. If I lock myself in here, well, you can see how
the rockets are coming in. This won’t save you. So, you have to treat this
philosophically. And at some point, you can even enjoy it.
Q: We
heard you reacted quite negatively to the offer from American and European
officials to evacuate you. Why?
A: I was
on the phone every 10 to 20 minutes, discussing various things that we needed
first. The first question from them was how to get me out. So, I, like any
other person, was just bored with it. I was tired of this. These proposals were
flying in from all sides. On the one hand, this is nice. But on the other hand,
what do they think of you? And it was just getting boring. Look, I love classic
movies, like “The Taming of the Shrew” and so on. But I can’t watch it every
two hours. And here is the same thing. I love and respect the support shown to
us very much, but if it starts every 20 minutes with the same words, excuse me,
it’s just poor manners.
Q: When
CIA Director William J. Burns met with you here in Kyiv in January, one of the
things he told you was that the Russians would attempt a landing at the airport
in Hostomel. What was your reaction when that actually happened on Feb. 24?
Should there have been more Ukrainian forces already there?
A:
Regarding the airport, some six months prior to all of this, and perhaps even
earlier, if you remember, there was a gathering of troops on the territory of
Belarus and so on. We appealed to all our partners, telling them that we
believed this is how they would act. They were training there — and it was well
known — to capture or bomb key infrastructure points. They had been training,
they had plans to capture Boryspil airport and so on. I don’t know how old
these plans are.
They used
maps, and the way they were capturing things, some of their paths were the same
as those of the Nazis during World War II. So, to say they had something unique
planned here, it is impossible. Everything we had, it was there.
I’m not
ready to talk about everything Burns talked about, but his main signals were
about threats to my life. And those were not the first signals — they came from
everywhere, from our intelligence services, from foreign colleagues and so on.
Look, as
soon as the full-scale invasion began, from that moment on, our economy was
losing $5 billion to $7 billion a month. This is wages. And you know the money
our partners give us, we cannot spend the money on military salaries. There is
some kind of global paradox in all this. I need money so I don’t lose my
country. But I can’t spend this money on military salaries. Therefore,
simultaneously with the explosions and the shelling, I had a very problematic
story. I have to pay salaries to people who go there and die. And you’re
hopeless. I don’t have time for reasoning, warnings, commitments — I just have
a task to do. I must not allow them to occupy our land, and I have to pay
people who die. That’s exactly what it sounds like. There are no sentiments.
You have to do this every month.
When it
comes to all warnings or signals from certain partners, here is what I
explained to them: If we don’t have enough weapons, it will be difficult for us
to fight. We will fight them, that’s for sure. And they don’t want to talk.
[Russian President Vladimir Putin] hasn’t been willing to communicate for three
years. So, I don’t want to listen to this nonsense that Russians are ready to
talk, this is nonsense. I clearly explained that. Everything we need is
weapons, and if you have the opportunity, force him to sit down at the
negotiating table with me. I’d been talking about this specifically, because we
believed there will be an invasion.
You can’t
simply say to me, “Listen, you should start to prepare people now and tell them
they need to put away money, they need to store up food.” If we had
communicated that — and that is what some people wanted, who I will not name —
then I would have been losing $7 billion a month since last October, and at the
moment when the Russians did attack, they would have taken us in three days.
I’m not saying whose idea it was, but generally, our inner sense was right: If
we sow chaos among people before the invasion, the Russians will devour us.
Because during chaos, people flee the country.
And that’s
what happened when the invasion started — we were as strong as we could be.
Some of our people left, but most of them stayed here, they fought for their
homes. And as cynical as it may sound, those are the people who stopped
everything. If that were to happen, in October — God forbid, during the heating
season — there would be nothing left. Our government wouldn’t exist, that’s 100
percent sure. Well, forget about us. There would be a political war inside the country,
because we would not have held on to $5 billion to $7 billion per month. We did
not have serious financial programs. There was a shortage of energy resources
in the market created by the Russians. We did not have enough energy resources.
We would not have been able to get out of this situation and there would be
chaos in the country.
But it is
one thing when chaos is controlled, and it is during a military time — you run
the state in a different way. You can open the border, close the border,
attack, retreat, defend. You can take control of your infrastructure. And it’s
another situation when you do not have a military situation or emergency regime
in place, and you have a state that is ruled by a huge number of different
officials and institutions. And minus $7 billion a month, even without weapons,
is already a big war for our country.
Q: So, did
you personally believe full-scale war was coming?
A: Look,
how can you believe this? That they will torture people and that this is their
goal? No one believed it would be like this. And no one knew it. And now
everyone says we warned you, but you warned through general phrases. When we
said give us specifics — where will they come from, how many people and so on —
they all had as much information as we did. And when I said, “Okay, if they’re
coming from here and it’s going to be heavy fighting here, can we get weapons
to stop them?” We didn’t get it. Why do I need all these warnings? Why do I
need to make our society go crazy? Since February, even from January as there
was a lot going on in the media, Ukrainians transferred out more money than
Ukrainians abroad received in assistance. Tens of billions of dollars in
deposits have been withdrawn, so Ukrainians spent much more money in Europe
compared with the amount Ukrainians had been given there, with all due respect.
Therefore,
you must understand that this is a hybrid war against our state. There was an
energy blow, there was a political blow — they stirred the pot here, they
wanted a change of power from inside the country, thanks to this party. The
third blow was during autumn and a financial one. They needed the exchange rate
of our currency to be a wartime one so that we did not have gasoline. So, they
did all this: There was no fuel, we did not have gas, they were cutting us out
to ensure that the heating season would lead to destabilization within the
country, and for the people to know there are the risks of currency devaluation
so they would withdraw money. In general, they did this so we would stop being
a country, and by the time of their invasion, we would have been a rag, not a
country. That’s what they were betting on. We did not go for it. Let people
discuss in the future whether it was right or not right. But I definitely know
and intuitively — we discussed this every day at the National Security and
Defense Council, et cetera — I had the feeling that [the Russians] wanted to
prepare us for a soft surrender of the country. And that’s scary.
Q: I
understand concerns about sowing panic and tanking the economy, but what would
you say to those Ukrainians who now say, “I would’ve wanted to evacuate my
family or just be better prepared”?
A: For all
of December, January and February, Ukrainians were withdrawing money out of our
economy. We could have been strict about that, but we weren’t letting either
the National Bank or anyone else limit the people’s ability to take their
money. Although we knew perfectly well that this will affect the country’s
economy. The freedom people have in a democratic country is the freedom our
people had. They had access to all the information that was available. Sorry,
the fact that I wasn’t telling them about the Russians’ plot to do something to
me and everything the intelligence services had been reporting to me: “You have
to take your family away.” I told them, “How do you imagine that? I’ll be
taking my family away, I’ll be doing something, and people will be just staying
here? I can’t do that.” Our land is the only thing we have; we’ll stay here
together. And then what happened, happened.
Q: If the
United States knew for sure that a full-scale invasion was coming, did it give
you enough weapons to defend yourself before Feb. 24?
VIDEO --
Zelensky on getting the right weapons to fight Russia, 3:13, Ukraine's
President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke to The Washington Post on Aug. 8 in Kyiv
about getting high-tech, modern weapons from Europe and the United States.
(Video: Whitney Leaming/The Washington Post)
A: Today,
I can only be grateful to the U.S. for what we’ve got. But we need to have a
clear understanding of the fact that we have always had weapons from the Soviet
times. We never had the NATO weapons. The minimum we had from 2014 was, in my
view, insufficient. The serious forces we needed, like the HIMARS we can all
see now, or, let’s say, the 155-millimeter artillery — I’m not even mentioning
tanks and aircraft — we had none of that and we didn’t have a possibility to
buy it. The only thing we had agreed on was military drones, Bayraktars, et
cetera. But with all due respect, one can’t wage war with drones.
And so, as
you probably remember, since the full-scale invasion started and until now, all
I’ve been asking is to close the sky, because if the sky was closed, we
wouldn’t have all these deaths. And we were offering an alternative to the
closed sky: a number of aircraft.
And there
was no problem or shortage with that, I think, because we supplied addresses
where all those aircraft were. But we never got that opportunity to close the
sky. Even now, we are talking about what had been before the war, what had been
in 2014, but what’s the point if even today, when this war is on, we haven’t
got a chance to close and secure the sky.
Q: Did you
ever get an explanation for why you weren’t supplied with more weaponry before
Feb. 24 if Washington knew what was coming?
A: I have
no complaints — up to the point when someone starts telling me, “But we were
sending you signals.” Up to that point, I have no complaints. But when one is
claiming they were sending us some signals, I tell them, “Send us weapons.” I
was absolutely right, and I’m sure about it even now.
So as soon
as we received serious weapons — I had told them, “Our country is not going to
run anywhere, we are ready to fight, give us weapons.” And as soon as we got
them, we would fight.
Everyone
was afraid of the war. No one wants to wage war with Russia. Look, no one wants
to wage war with Russia. Everyone wants Ukraine to win, but no one wants to
wage war with Russia. And that’s it. That’s a full stop. And that’s why we had
to decide how to stay strong. If no one wants to wage war with them, everyone
is scared to fight them — excuse me, then we’ll be deciding how to do that,
whether it’s right or wrong. But the war will go farther, deeper into Europe,
so please send us weapons, because we are also defending you. And they started
sending it.
But is it
possible to close the sky now? Just wondering. It’s a rhetorical question.
Q: During
the Battle for Kyiv, what do you remember most about your interactions with
your top military commanders?
A: We
talked all of the time. I talked to them starting from 5 a.m. I spoke to
[Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces Valery] Zaluzhny, [Commander of the
Ukrainian Ground Forces Oleksandr] Syrsky, I talked to the Security Service of
Ukraine and to the Defense Ministry. I had regular meetings about what was
coming from where. But this was not the most important question then. The
question was where and in what area are they breaking through and what can we
do? How can we load Kamaz trucks full of weapons and give them out? We raked up
everything from everywhere. We even made it possible that the military can just
come in some hunting shops and take weapons. We acted quickly, and we did
everything. We made it possible to rent regular cars, we took armored cars from
banks just so people can move.
What was
it like? I haven’t revisited my previous life in a while. I guess it is like
when you are under constant pressure. It’s like you are constantly being tested
and this is one perpetual exam, so you feel like you did when you were young,
when your palms are sweating, and you have to think constantly because after a
while you won’t have time to take this test and you’ve missed it and you can’t
go back. Therefore, it was a state of constant tension at a very high speed.
The day would start at 5 a.m. during these first days and end deep at night. We
slept for a couple of hours in clothes, because honestly, we had to always be
ready. Not because it’s something heroic — it was a psychological state. You
just can’t afford to relax. And when you do not relax, your brain works and can
shoot out some quick decisions. Here you have military, here you have
civilians, there you have territorial defense, and you also need to plan this
and that. …
The
decisions weren’t like, “Okay, it is 6 a.m., let’s write down what we are going
to do today.” It was a constant barrage of problems and decisions — bam, bam,
bam. Suddenly they seized a nuclear power plant, suddenly they are shooting, so
we need to get this on air fast. We did everything, including the information
policy. I asked the military to explain what is going where, and they would
tell me such and such unit captured this. So, I said, “Take out the cameras and
show it.” I called the leaders, asked them to post this video so the world sees
it. Well, frankly speaking, this is called crisis management.
Q: What
was your lowest moment or the one that moved you the most?
A: We had
people lying in the corridors — there were people everywhere, snipers,
different people. We basically lived here. We had no electricity, we walked
with flashlights. And with these flashlights, we worked. You can get used to it
all. But what you can’t get used to is when after this storm [of events], when
the shots are all fired and all that is left is the destruction. [Bucha] was
one of the first trips we made. We saw these corpses left on the roads, bombed
houses. And you’re just looking at it and only in that moment, the realization
comes. Before that it was all a battle, but only then that moment of consciousness
comes of what is happening, what they have done, that irreversibility, that it
isn’t possible to go back. All the talk about a peaceful settlement from the
Russian side, that all this is a lie. And, of course, as a civilized person and
an adequate person, you can understand that, well, of course, in the future
these countries will someday agree on something. But you understand that this
is the abyss. And corpses of Ukrainians have fallen into this abyss. And every
time you will want to walk across or jump over this abyss and agree on
something, you’ll be seeing these people who were killed. This is the scary
part behind all this. That one man has made the status of the Russian state in
the history of the world absolutely null and void. It is their choice. I don’t
have to worry about this — I’m only talking about this because they’re our
neighbors and they’re not moving out, so we and our next generations will have
to live with this. I am also talking about this because a huge number of our
people died because of them. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be talking about this at
all. All people all make their own choices and live with it. This is their
future, but their future is the past. That’s what it’s all about.
Q: Do you
remember when this was and where you were?
A: Yes, I
ventured out several times without any photos and cameras — we couldn’t allow
it, our security did not give me the opportunity to. And of course, we did not
take pictures at these checkpoints, because something could have immediately
flown there, and people would die. So, we were very careful about it. It was
Hostomel and Vyshhorod, that was the first city. There was this pit, an abyss,
that was left after a bridge was bombed. The fighting was still ongoing. I
wanted to go and support the guys. And the fighting was ongoing, and I wanted
to see how they were but didn’t want them to know I was coming. This war is
also terrible from the information point of view. There were a lot of things in
the press, that our guys do not have enough bulletproof vests, that our guys
use some kind of stoves at checkpoints. So, I came and there were bulletproof
vests and so on. There were weapons, assault rifles. Of course, there is always
something that they are short of — everywhere they said, “Mr. President, give
us some RPGs, we will fight here.” But all heavy weapons were sent to the front
lines.
Q: But
that worst moment that you mentioned before?
A: That’s
when we went to Bucha, later. Bucha, Irpin, Borodyanka. Those were the scariest
moments. That feeling that this is death — when there is silence and silence,
and there is nothing left living.
Q: And can
you describe your emotions there? Was it fear?
A: I
wasn’t scared. By that time, there were no emotions. I understood how many
people were dying, how were they dying, and that you could die tomorrow, and
someone could come for you. So, by that time, I would say that there already
weren’t any special emotions or sentiments. But that feeling — you’re used to
the sounds, screams, shots, but that was a scary moment because it was quiet.
There were corpses on the street, there were bombed houses. This feeling is
scary. Everything is destroyed and now what? This could be the way it is
everywhere. This is how they work. People, their corpses have been found in basements,
with their hands tied, they were tortured and blindfolded. I saw all of this in
the photos, audios and videos that were given to me — I already understood what
was happening here. It’s just scary that people can do this.
Q: When
was the moment when you were sure the defense of Kyiv would hold?
A: We
didn’t know. We knew we would fight. Why? It was logical. A city of millions is
just a city of millions. If we rally and unite, if people believe me as
president, if the military unites with the people, then it is logical that they
can’t take a city of many millions. They don’t have enough forces, they won’t
be able to take it. Because if 1 million people walk out just with a Molotov
cocktail in their hand, it’s unstoppable. I understood that a city like Kyiv —
simply to take it, it’s impossible. How? It’s very difficult, very difficult,
if they come into the middle of the city. Everyone understands that the minute
they come into the middle, and go into the center of the city onto the Maidan
[Independence Square], and start a war within the government quarter — from
that moment, we are going to burn them. Because a battle inside the city — it
is very difficult, it is very difficult. They needed way more equipment and
people. So, they had a chance either to shoot us, as they did in Mariupol,
where they simply destroyed everything, or they can come into the city — but
they would need tons of forces. Or they can get rid of me so they could come in
and say there’s no one here and let’s undertake a transition.
Q:
Regarding Kherson, what can be done to prevent Russia from holding a referendum
there? What are you asking from your Western partners right now to help you
stop it?
A: They
can only take strong and specific steps using sanctions. Because the illegal
referendum and the annexation of Kherson, what the Russians are planning to do,
is a violation of any — well, I don’t want to talk about international law,
they violated it a long time ago. It makes no sense. But countries can do the
same thing because it’s a violation of borders. That is, they can definitely
impose restricting sanctions. For example, a ban on the entry of all citizens
of the Russian Federation to the European Union countries. Good sanctions. I
think they are very good and peaceful.
There is
nothing in these sanctions that takes away property or human life. I said from
the very beginning that I believe that the most important sanctions are to
close the borders, because they are taking away someone else’s territory. Well,
let them live in their own world until they change their philosophy. So,
countries close the borders and put an embargo on energy resources. My personal
opinion is that everything else is weaker. There is no complete embargo on the
energy supplies, and the borders are not shut.
It’s very
simple: Whatever the citizens of the Russian Federation may be — there are
those who support and do not support it — their children are there, studying
abroad, in schools, universities and so on. Let them go to Russia. There’s
nothing scary about that, let them go there. Not forever, please, let them come
back. They’ll just understand then. They say, “Oh, we have nothing to do with
this and all people can’t bear the responsibility.” They can. They elected
these people and now they are not fighting them, they do not argue with them
and don’t shout at them. The Russians who publicly oppose the war are just
isolated cases and these people are in prisons. But let Russians go home, let
everyone go to Russia. You want this isolation, don’t you? You’re telling the
whole world that the whole world will live by your rules. Okay, then go there
and live there.
What does
this give us? This is the only way to influence Putin. Because this person has
no other fear but the fear for his life. And his life depends on whether he is
threatened by his internal population or not. Nothing else is threatening to
him. That’s the way it is. Therefore, when its population puts pressure on his
decisions, then there will be results. And the war will end. These are very
understandable sanctions, they are very simple. It’s not about money, it’s not
about gas or pipes, or that Germans won’t have heat in the winter. Just close
the borders for a year and you’ll see the result.
Q: In the
first days of the war, how serious was the problem with traitors in your ranks
and government? And how much of a problem does that continue to be today?
A: I think
our security service is catching all the traitors, as much as they can. The
question of traitors is very simple. On Feb. 24, the streets of Kyiv and many
political institutions suddenly became empty. It was quite easy to work on Feb.
24, to tell you the truth, in spite of the war — everything was clear. And it
turned out that all those who had been called traitors — the politicians I mean
— they all stayed. And on Feb. 24, they were fighting. They were fighting in
both senses of the word.
Some of
the “traitors” were fighting with machine guns, some of them stayed to work.
And some ran away.
And most
of those who ran away were the ones who had been screaming: “There are some
horrible traitors near me.” This is how life dots the i’s. The main thing is
for people to remember — unfortunately, we don’t have a long memory — is who
was here on Feb. 24. Who has been staying here since Feb. 24 and who has been
working for the state.
They could
have quit their jobs, they could have left — those who have been here all these
days, who have been completing a variety of tasks, carrying out complex
operations, operations where they entered occupied units, with militants in
there, risking their lives, and neutralized the occupant commanders. All of
them. Many of them. They would blow them up. Some hit mines themselves. A great
number of such operations were completed. A huge number, hundreds of such
operations. How were these people acting? They were doing very important
things.
And some
ran away. Some ran away and then came back, saying, “There’s something going
on. We haven’t been here for a while, and it looks like here at the president’s
office there’s something going on again.” See, politics is like that. Even the
war that destroys everything, for some reason, doesn’t destroy such people.
Such is life. But, oh well, that’s fine.
David L.
Stern in Kyiv and Mary Ilyushina in Riga, Latvia, contributed to this report.
END OF
SEPTEMBER 18, SUNDAY
**** ****
**** ****
