What Did Zelensky Reveal Off Camera? DEFACTO LOST: What Does the Statement from the Presidential Office Mean? Free Space

[music] Hello friends. My name is Yanina Sokolova and I am now live with you to talk about what concerns us all, what should be understood, and how the dialogue will be built, given the many questions that are currently arising after the meeting between Trump and Zelensky, after the meeting between Trump, Zelensky and European partners, and of course after the first meeting in Alaska between Trump and Putin. You understand what I'm talking about, the issues that will certainly be discussed when Zelensky and Putin meet.

We will definitely talk about them today and what you, as a society, think about it. We are going out on two platforms at once. On my YouTube channel Yanina Sokolova.

Anyone who is not currently watching this live broadcast on my YouTube channel, please subscribe. Be sure to like this video and comment. Those who are watching us now on Pro.Aua.

I will note that this is with our friends. Such a great team of people, including our like-minded people. Free space about media is an opportunity on this platform for various authors, volunteers, military personnel, and journalists to speak and discuss important topics with society.

So suddenly I'm here in this studio now. For those who are probably used to seeing me at home or on another channel. I have guests nearby.

I want today, first of all, we to state the topic in connection with Bankova, what the dialogue between the authorities and society should be. By the way, if you feel like you want to see the dialogue between the authorities and society, you can write about it in the comments.

And we have a survey. The president's position on peace agreements. Is she supported by you, is she not supported by you? I don't know, I don't understand what you're talking about, friends. that Putin is putting forward conditions for the annexation, occupation, well, actually the surrender of territories that he already considers his own.

So they are in his constitution. And as you remember, he claimed five regions there, then he came to his senses a little and decided that he needed two regions and Crimea. And the president said that this is written in our Constitution, it's all ours and we won't give it away.

So what do you think about this? Please write in the comments. Next to me is Anatoliy Yakymenko, blogger, publicist, and politician. Anatoly, I am glad to meet you and to see you.

Dmitry Chikalkin, diplomat. Mr. Dmitry, congratulations. I've already said a lot before I actually introduce you, what we have on the table, well, what options we have for development, or rather, events, or rather, little things from Russia's side on the table. The president records daily videos, well, evening addresses, where he talks about what happened during the day.

There was a press conference, in particular, in Washington, where he talked about what we are coming out of these negotiations with. But, in principle, there are no specifics and no discussion by society of an alternative other than the fact that we will not give anything away.

These territories will in no way be Russian. And none, that is, alternatives, formal, legal, physical statuses, none of this is discussed. Do you think this is normal? This is because the president currently does not have a stable position after his meeting with Putin.

Maybe he will have one and hopes that something will become clear during this conversation and, perhaps, the degree of desire will decrease a little? Or now, in the language of Podalyak, in particular, who made a statement today, they are probing what society thinks. regarding, well, the concessions that Vitkov is talking about, that Trump and Marco Rubio are talking about, that Ukraine should make, giving up 20% of its territory.

Here, Anatoly, my question to you. I would draw a parallel with March 2020, when we unexpectedly learned that the idea of supplying water to Crimea had matured in Bankovo. This was also a kind of probing.

And I remember the level of argumentation. First, that Ukrainians live in Crimea and we will supply water to Ukrainians, and in no case to military units. Then I asked Shmyhal how he would divide the water between the Ukrainian and Russian military.

And then, in my opinion, they moved on to a commercial offer and, in my opinion, I don't remember the exact price per liter of water, but the commercial price there is quite attractive, around 1 UAH per liter. Ugh.

And then they said: "No, no, the commercial offer doesn't work either." I think something similar will happen now, and it will be a cold shower for Ukrainians, because we, our vigilance, she has lulled our vigilance. Well, what a chimera of security guarantees.

Ukrainians, like Volodymyr Zelensky, believe that freebies exist. And this freebie is, well, excuse me for saying it like that, but it's a security guarantee. My point of view, my position, there are no security guarantees, because security guarantees are the ability of a subject, the ability of a jurisdiction, whether Ukrainian, Polish, or German, to wage war with the Russian Federation.

No one has such an ability. Neither in the United States of America, nor in Germany, and so on. But they have weapons. They have weapons, but they don't use them against Russia.

And if we recall Biden there, the key task is to prevent a direct conflict between the United States of America, the US Armed Forces, and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. That is, this is my definition, I do not insist on it.

I believe there should be some articulation. And this articulation is this definition, this definition, that security guarantees are the country's ability to wage war with the Russian Federation. And what, in your opinion, Anatoly, could be an option in the form of a security guarantee? Well, they talked about an alternative without joining NATO, but NATO's fifth article, when the states that exist in this alliance and sign an agreement with Ukraine, guarantees security.

But in fact, this is what Budapest Memorandum 2 turns out to be. Do I understand correctly? I think it's worse. You understand correctly, but it's worse, because then, as of, well, let's do a retrospective and go back to 1994.

Back then, a signature, an agreement, and a reputation still meant something. And then the signature in Budapest, it still had weight. He was trustworthy.

What is happening now is impossible to believe, because we can take the latest blogs of Portnikov or Yuri Borisovich Shvydets and so on, these are, well, on the one hand, throw-ins, on the other hand, this is already public information in time, that is, models that are being considered, but they necessarily require approval from Putin. If Putin doesn't agree to patrols, what does he disagree with? This means that he views the patrolling of Ukrainian airspace as a direct military conflict with the Russian Federation.

This is a war with Russia. This is important to understand. And it is the position of everyone, from Merz, Macron, and Trump, to never enter into conflict with Russia. And security guarantees come only when peace is established.

This is important to understand when peace is established. But if peace is established, the question arises for me: why is everyone else here? What if we already have peace? And in principle, if I may allow myself a little irony, I think that this idea with personnel, a contingent from France, and so on, I think it would make more sense. Well, you know, often on both sides of pedestrian crossings there are these little plastic men who inform drivers that this is a pedestrian crossing.

If we print plastic soldiers like this on a 3D printer somewhere, they definitely won't run away at the first MLRS attack from the Russian Federation. The enemy will spend at least some of the ammunition.

Because all these people, by the way, where they are going to be located, this is almost official information through the Times. Lviv region.

Ugh. That this is not a collision zone, it is not in any case. And I guarantee you that if there is an air raid warning, the speed of movement of the French and British will be much faster than that of a ballistic missile. They will already be somewhere in Poland, yes, that's for sure.

Well, that's how I see the situation. I remembered Podalyak's statement today, but I didn't voice it. I hope you all read it.

However, I will voice it. Ukraine agrees to freeze the war behind the current front line and recognize the occupied territories as de facto lost. This is the official advisor to Podoliak.

In the future, Ukraine will try to return the occupied territories through diplomatic or economic means. Dmytro, is this diplomacy to create a discourse, to discuss, is it really possible? This doesn't surprise me at all, because one of the reasons for the Russian Federation's unconditional support for Zelensky as a candidate in the election was his lengthy speech with Gordon, where he said that we were ready to meet in the middle.

The main thing is to stop shooting. I think you said that Putin insisted on four or five. In his 14th year, he spoke very specifically about the nine regions of Novorossia, where he said in his speech and later in his conversations with journalists that these were all territories that Ukraine received absolutely as a gift and that they should be returned to Russia. Therefore, when Zelensky said that he was ready to meet in the middle, well, they calculated that Zelensky would be ready to give them 4 regions.

And therefore, for me, there is absolutely nothing surprising in today's statements. Indeed, they did what Zelensky promised to do, and that's how it happened. Well, he said that a long time ago.

Since then, his rhetoric has already changed. Let's be objective and not mention 2019 and the election program. Yes, we will definitely remember it, but I'm talking about what he's saying now.

Yes, that is, now he says the opposite categorically. And he said it in Washington, and he says it in Kyiv. that the constitution does not allow us to do this.

Ukrainians then have a question: how will we negotiate then? That is, time will pass, they will meet, Trump will understand that Putin does not want to go for those options, perhaps those that they discussed with the Europeans. I'm sure that this meeting, by the way, with the Europeans had a very cool effect on Trump.

Very. We'll talk about that a little bit too. Well, and then Trump will say: "Okay, then sanctions, aid to Ukraine." Well, what next? And then there will be a protracted war. Yes.

Well, let's see, this question is a very convenient point to raise the issue on the agenda of the conversation in Washington that took place recently. That is, it was logical in Washington to talk about war because Trump failed to fulfill his task in Alaska.

He did not negotiate peace. And it is logical that he called President Zelensky and said: "Volodymyr Oleksandrovych, we could not agree on peace, so we need to fight. Are you ready to fight? That is logical, I think." But the second meeting, again talks about peace.

The official press said that a meeting would take place at the White House, uh, where Volodymyr Zelensky would discuss ways to peacefully resolve the Russian-Ukrainian war. I have a question.

I have a simple question. Does Volodymyr Oleksandrovych possess the tools of peace in this situation? The option of peace belongs to Putin. Putin can actually stop at the contact line if the goal is simply peace.

But Zelensky does not have such an option, unfortunately. He does not depend on him. And to me, there was absolutely no point in talking about peace in Washington. But this conversation was held because, in my opinion, from the first day of the war, Zelenskyy always gave signals and always informed our Western partners that he wanted and really wanted to talk about peace.

That is, he demonstrates dual political behavior. From the outside, he says that we will fight abroad in 1991. From the outside, he looks like a war hawk, but to our partners behind the scenes, he looks like a dove of peace.

And that's why they make such offers to him. No one is actually bringing us to the negotiating table. Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy has wanted to sit at the negotiating table since the first day of the war.

Just looking for something convenient. I disagree with you. I don't think that anyone is bringing us to the negotiating table. I think we are being arrested.

I believe that the discourse and, in principle, the actions that arise after this discourse, and they are absent, but they are putting us in, well, I believe that it is not for the illusion that the actions they are taking are completely disproportionate and do not correspond to the situation in which it is clear that Putin recognizes and will hear the position of the forces. Tonight, yes, negotiations took place.

What happened tonight? They destroyed an American enterprise in Mukachevo. They bombarded Lviv and others, the Poltava region, and many cities with rockets. That is, before that they worked as shaheeds.

Lightning, there are front-line zones. Today they are defiant. I don't see Donald Trump's reaction. Okay, let him say: "This is war, missiles are flying." I don't see Donald Trump's reaction to the destruction of American enterprise.

But, friends, I want to share one quote with you. Just before I went on air, a Trump quote appeared. Ee says: "It is very difficult, if not impossible, to win a war without striking the aggressor's country." Trump now imagines: " There is no chance of winning." Similarly, with Ukraine and Russia, the corrupt, extremely incompetent Joseph Biden did not allow Ukraine to fight, but only to defend itself.

How did it work? There will be interesting times ahead. That is, he says that it is difficult to win a war without striking the aggressor's country, hinting that such strikes may occur. Will they change the situation? Well, the first question was about security guarantees.

These are our security guarantees - these are our missile weapons. I once had the opportunity to accompany the first persons of Ukrainian rocketry, the chief designers of the same Yuzhmash, 30 years ago, who were greeted with standing ovations at international conferences, because at that time Ukraine was the center of all world rocketry. And the fact that we, unfortunately, after this Omani trip, by the way, such an interesting detail, was literally told to me by our American colleagues the day before yesterday.

Let me remind you that Patrushev's plane was the one that later took Zelenskyy from Oman. Radio Liberty reported this. But the journalists didn't tell everything.

In fact, as I was informed yesterday, this plane did not fly from Muscat to Kyiv. He first landed in Moscow, and then from Moscow he landed in Minsk. And only after that he returned to Kyiv.

Mr. Dmytro, I have great respect for you, but both during my last broadcast with you and during this broadcast, you always give the impression that you come here to, well, discuss the negative moments that existed, highlighting them as if this is our reality today. The moment had already come when he went to the house.

So much time has passed. His position on peace agreements during the confusion is different now. We are talking about now. Mr.

Dmytro, we have Fisenko. Let's talk. Vladimir, congratulations. Can you hear us? Good evening. Yes, I hear you. And, Mr.

Volodymyr, we are now talking about the president's position on peace agreements and how society should understand it. You are the articulation that comes from the mouths of both the president and the representatives of the office.

Oh, you understand? That is, you can tell us what is currently on the table. For Ukrainians, according to our constitution, power belongs to the people. So it's up to him to decide.

Is there anything to decide? How are you scanning now? Look at the constitution right away. Yes, power belongs to the people, but the people delegate this power to the president and parliament in elections. And, for example, in terms of foreign policy, let me remind you that according to the norms of the Constitution, the president is the leader of Ukraine's foreign policy.

So here the balance is written out. It is not the people who carry out foreign policy. The people elect the president to implement foreign policy. If you don't like it, re-elect.

These are the norms of democracy. regarding whether it is known or understood. Yes, I understand. Let me remind you, well, at least since Trump came to power, well, taking into account the current military situation, the international situation, first of all the position of the Trump administration, Ukraine has been adhering to this model of ending the war. agreement on a ceasefire along the front line.

This position is agreed with our American partners. Let me remind you of the declaration that was signed in Jeddah on March 11 of this year. I haven't seen any significant changes since then.

This position is maintained. First the ceasefire, and then everything else. At the same time, the president certainly didn't think about it, especially yesterday. Well, I remind you of this periodically.

Ukraine is not going to recognize any of the occupied territories as Russian. De facto, yes, by the very fact of the ceasefire on the front line, we understand and recognize that part of Ukrainian territory will be under Russian occupation for an indefinite period. Well, Crimea has been under Russian occupation since 1914, essentially, as has part of Donbas.

Oh, and, unfortunately, we currently do not have sufficient forces and resources to change this situation, but we are not going to recognize the occupied territories as Russian. Another red line that is declared to both presidents and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sibiga, the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, has repeatedly said this: we will not make concessions that limit our foreign and domestic political sovereignty.

We are talking about norms that relate to our foreign policy choices. This is European Euro-Atlantic integration. And what defines our internal structure, our key state norms.

In particular, this means that we are not going to comply with Russian whims regarding the status of, uh, language, state language, well, the status of the Russian language, because they are talking about the Russian language, and also regarding the Russian church. These, in general, are the key positions that relate to the current situation with the war and the negotiation process.

Thank you. Thank you, Vladimir. Volodymyr Fesenko, a political scientist, was with us online. There was a closed meeting with journalists. Traditionally, uh, they don't call me and our team there.

Well, for certain, uh, reasons, uh, subjective ones. You know about them very well, but the president held an OFREC, where he spoke in detail about the results of his negotiations at the White House. That's interesting about the withdrawal from Donbas.

Do you know whether to quote this story? Quote. The issue of Donetsk region, says Zelensky. It was Ofrek. That is, well, an ofrek, friends, is when the president gathers everyone behind closed doors and it is not broadcast anywhere.

The issue of leaving Donbas, Donetsk region. I explained at our meeting that since the start of the full-scale war, Russia has occupied not 69, but about a third, because the Russian Federation occupied all of Crimea and a third of the Donetsk region without a full-scale war. After the start of the full-scale war, they occupied about a third more.

Now they hold a total of about 67-69%. That is, we are saying that in almost four years of full-scale war, they occupied a third of the Donetsk region. Regarding the exchange of territory, if we are talking about Sumy or Kharkiv regions, the Russians will not receive them.

To be honest, Sumy region will not be able to get the areas near the border where they are now. In today's realities, it is a matter of time. There will be no Russians in Sumy region for a few months.

I also believe that in the long term, we don't want a military perspective, but they are not getting the Kharkiv region. And talking about the Mykolaiv region, that they are ready to give us the Kinbur Spit, they only need it to block the sea.

For us, the issue of territory is an issue of a person who wants to occupy our territories, a person who, with his army and people, defends his territories. "That is, this is Putin's and mine," says Zelensky.

They maintain our presence in the Kursk region. This is about what is currently happening in the Kursk region. We talk about it so little, so that you know that we maintain our presence there.

Regarding the meeting with Putin. If ending the war requires a meeting with the Russians and then a trilateral meeting, we are ready. We have taken a step towards a meeting and they must do something to demonstrate that they want to end the war.

Well, a few words about security guarantees. The USA, America, was not in the security guarantees before our meeting in Washington. There was none.

And now we've heard about their willingness to get involved. This is very important for Ukraine, because without coordination of security guarantees, there was some uncertainty among European colleagues, but now it is gone. Did you, gentlemen, hear any specifics from what I said, other than the fact that we will most likely not be in Sumy and Kharkiv regions? I have a small dose of specificity, but I would point out falsehood and insincerity.

I want to emphasize the Washington meeting, where it was clearly stated that territorial claims and exchanges of territories are being taken beyond the Washington meeting and are being taken outside the brackets of the official and public, but this does not mean that the exchange of territories is being removed from the agenda and postponed to the meeting with Putin. That is, a meeting with Putin is planned, and the agenda of the meeting with Putin will include a mandatory discussion of the two, one-on-one, Zelensky and Putin.

I have a question, what will they talk about? Let's take a trip to February 24, 2022. The first negotiations in the swamps of Belarus. We learn about what they said, including in Istanbul on March 29 due to the downpours, via the Wall Street Journal.

We will find out that we should have, I'm just giving arbitrary numbers, 352 tanks, 342 shells for these tanks. I want to ask, is this communication, is this dialogue with society in general? And how to evaluate? Who gave the directives? I want to ask a simple question.

Who set the directives? Who authorized these people, led by Ansanovich Chaly? Arahamia and everyone else. They showed us about hawthorn, jokes, and so on.

But why do we learn about what they said through the Wall Street Journal a year after this topic was supposedly closed, that is, around 2023. Now we are getting close to such things.

And I give you a guarantee that if we only, my point of view, this is my point of view, that if only a meeting between Zelensky and Putin is announced and agreed upon, the first item on the agenda will be the so-called so- called exchange of territories. They just won't meet.

Putin is not the kind of person who fires blank shots and so on. This is being hidden from us, in my opinion. This is being hidden from us.

And everything you have just read can indeed be considered specific, but it is a deception and a lie. My point of view is this.

Dmytro, how do you assess the issue of exchanging territories at all, or, I don't know, actually, not actually, today for the first time Podoliak said that, well, I quoted you, yes, that formally they will remain occupied. No one had commented on it in any way before.

That is, there was no conversation, I mean from the office, from the office side. What can Zelensky offer Putin at this table so that Putin will consider it and perhaps agree under pressure from the US and its European partners? I don't know what the final configuration will be there. What can we offer them? Well, the main obstacle to our peaceful settlement of some kind is that Putin deliberately introduced these five regions into the Russian constitution.

Well, it would be boyish for him to back down from this major achievement. He believes that this is a historical achievement. He is returning what he believes are Russia's historical lands there.

Therefore, any swarm, any conversation for him, must begin with us giving up some territories. He is really ready there, as I said at the beginning, to bargain, yes, they said to meet halfway and okay, let's give us half. That is, he, well, I don't believe at all that he will meet with Zelensky.

For him, it's a lowering of his status. He just doesn't want to offend Trump. Therefore, the art of Western diplomats and Western politicians is to bring Trump to this very thought. What you see, Putin is deceiving you, he supposedly makes you promises, and then breaks them.

There are a lot of questions here, and we, well, now online, uh, subscribers are asking. By the way, friends, ask questions, I see everything. That is, the question that now appears before my eyes and several times is: "What is Zelensky's position?" And Zelensky has a position.

What is Zelensky's plan? So, what's our plan? I don't believe at all that he has any plan today. Their plan is to stay in power. And for them, in fact, there are some elections coming up and winning these elections is much more important, because it will preserve their freedom, much more important than Ukraine's victory in the war with Russia.

And I would call this position reactive. It exists, but it is reactive. Look, we never heard about the constitution at all, about the fact that we cannot trade territories and references to the Constitution until the issue of surrendering Kramatorsk and Sloviansk appeared in the public space. If you are, well, that's about what I'm saying.

That is, this position is reactive. And so as not to be forgotten, with your permission, I will respond to the words of Volodymyr Fesenko. There is one trap, very unpleasant and insincere, in my opinion, because we are being lulled and reassured that we will not recognize these territories de jure, but only de facto.

But for some reason, no one wants to say that a peaceful settlement involves a face-to-face meeting and mandatory signatures by the parties. I want to ask a simple question.

How to achieve de facto recognition, not jurisprudence, by signing? Well, I think I'm a contradiction and a disingenuous person. That is, if we meet here, sign something, it will already be a recognition of de jure.

This is what we are also raised on. And this is a shaky society. They said, we're such good guys, de facto we're just admitting, well, what can we do, we're not ready right now, but for some reason they're planning a meeting and signing. I want to ask how to solve this equation with three unknowns, how to reconcile it all? Well, I don't think Putin will agree to a de facto in principle, that he will agree to anything.

Look, they will tell us correctly, and the very process of the meeting, and even more so the signatures, already speaks of the recognition of the deyura. This is important to understand.

This is a fraudulent scheme. I can't really call it anything else. I am adding this to the chimera of security guarantees that, in principle, do not exist. Here's a question from Iryna: where will people who left the occupied territories live if all of this is given back? Well, regarding the Donetsk region, I don't know, you've probably seen a survey of Kramatorsk residents, who were told that Putin's wishes are on the agenda here now.

They all absolutely said in Ukrainian that this is our land. We are not going, we don't want to go to Russia, we want to live here. And there's no need to give us away or exchange us for anything.

Well, society is the same. The figures of society, well, the opinions of society, are in favor of us not giving anything away. And a lot of boys and girls died, well, the best of our country.

Well, yes, including those who were not born and raised there. Well, there's Dmytro Kutsiubaylo, right? Yes, yes. That is, a person who was born in the Ivano-Frankivsk region died in Bakhmut, but defended Donbas all the time.

The base was in Avdiivka, the Wolf's den before the Right Sector. I mean, a lot of soldiers died there just to hold on to this land. And then there is a dead end.

This is sheer madness. So, all these throw-ins and so on, I appreciate them. I, as a person with a medical education, would generally introduce a discipline like political psychiatry. This is not psychology.

Psychiatry is a pathologist, this is not the norm. That is, everything that politicians discuss publicly in Washington, Alaska, and so on, leads to political psychiatry. This is an important thing, because in psychiatry, it is the norm that when a patient is discharged from the hospital, they are asked about their plans for the future.

If a farmer tells you in April that he will plow the garden and plant potatoes when he is discharged after treatment, it is considered that the treatment was successful and correct. If he tells you that he is flying to Mars to plant cucumbers, then you need to go for a second course of treatment.

When I listen to these people who are going to join the alliance, regardless of their status and so on, it reminds me a little of political psychiatry. It's true that there is no such discipline yet, but it would be worth introducing it.

There are comments. Natalya writes: "How can you give up your land? Yanina, you are Zaporizhzhia. Our entire region is occupied. Not all of it, let's not generalize.

70% and my relatives, in particular, are currently staying in Zaporizhzhia, so I know how it hurts. Every millimeter of land hurts for every person who stayed there.

Of course, Natalya, this is our land and we will not give it to anyone. But how, but now it's not about what needs to be given away, but if the question is and how the story should be built diplomatically? Well, probably, Dmytro, I will also ask you about pressure on Trump, because if we continue to fight, and society says that we continue to fight, uh, let's continue to fight, then the question arises about weapons. Well, so we need to work out that Trump pass, which you just quoted, yes, his phrase that Biden did not allow us to hit Russian targets, to attack long-range weapons, and he always blames the previous administration.

So, we have to use this knowledge and play our position, that please then, unlike this blind Joe, yes, this sleeping Joe, give us the opportunity to use, if not our missiles, which, unfortunately, we do not have ready. Although Zelensky called there both this ruta, and Bulava, and hell.

Almost a year ago, he called almost 10 items of Ukrainian weapons. Now flamingo. So, where are these missiles? We still mostly see long-range drones, but not missiles. Well, the missiles showed that a successful test has already taken place and we can produce one missile per day.

Well, this is what I officially tell you today that I heard. But back in 2019, according to, well, the program that was approved back in 2017, we were supposed to have dozens of divisions by the end of 2021. And the Vilkha, and Neptune, and this Thunder.

Thunder2. stopped. Then I will remind you that immediately after the Oman meeting, not only were all missile programs stopped, all key enterprises switched to a one-day work week and performed only for foreign orders. Well, even if you turn this page, how many 10 months ago did Zelensky say that we would have 3,000 missiles ready in a year.

Well, 10 months have already passed. Where are at least 10 missiles? No, I don’t want to talk about 3,000. So, okay, no, well, all this had to be done before the 22nd year.

What can I say? The country was not ready for war. We have not been able to provide our weapons now. Okay, then agree Taurus, agree American missiles, which can be supplied to us in accordance with today’s statement by Trump.

Volodymyr Yelchenko joins us online. Ukrainian diplomat, permanent representative of Ukraine to the UN for 15-19 years, extraordinary plenipotentiary ambassador of Ukraine in the USA 19-21st year. Mr.

Volodymyr, I greet you. Good evening. Mr. Volodymyr, we discussed whether Zelensky has a plan, and I will ask you whether Trump has a plan. Given that at the moment there are statements collected in the form of meetings that have changed frequently, but nevertheless a picture has been formed.

How do you scan whether Trump's position on helping Ukraine has actually changed and how to move forward in relations with it? Here are two questions for you, Volodymyr. You know, I have the impression that Trump has a plan, only he has a new plan every day and every following day this plan changes.

Uh, well, it has been said many times, and not only me, that Trump's mood and theses depend on who he has just talked to. Accordingly, uh, I think that predicting Trump's behavior and, well, what he will do tomorrow, and even more so in a week, a month, six months, is a very thankless task.

Uh. And that's why I think that we We need to think less about what plans Trump has in mind, and more about how we can finally establish cooperation with our Western European allies and how to finally get them to actually fulfill their own promises. That is, where are those peacekeeping forces that, well, they started talking about after the third round.

It all, uh, started with a statement by French President Macron. If I'm not mistaken, it was, uh, at the beginning of 2024, when he first spoke about some foreign contingents on the territory of Ukraine and the readiness of the French to provide their military forces. Then there was a joint initiative by Macron and Starmer, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

There was also, uh, talk about some joint peacekeeping units. Well, I still don't quite understand what it's about, because it's about, Volodymyr, that when the agreement is signed, peacekeeping units from France and Great Britain will arrive in the Lviv region. We talked about this at the beginning, and they will be here to observe and, if what, react.

Well, so this will never happen. Because, uh, because I find it hard to imagine, uh, that, uh, well, at least these two countries, I'm not talking about, within the framework of the entire North Atlantic Alliance, some decision was made, well, for example, like when there was a coalition, well, it was also called the coalition of the determined, something like that, when they stopped the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait. Something more or less similar was also in Kosovo, but in any case a resolution of the UN Security Council was adopted there, which authorized and gave a mandate for the introduction of such forces or for the start of some military operation against the aggressor.

Imagine the approval of such a resolution when Russia sits in the UN Security Council, as a permanent member with a veto, uh, it is very difficult, if at all possible. It is clear that Russia will veto, block any decision that is not 100% to meet the interests, not even by 50 or even by 1%.

It will simply block all this. Well, but if we are talking about some kind of independent decision of the North Atlantic Alliance or at least some of its members, such as France and Great Britain, then I don't really believe in it yet, because until today these were just words, and these words are not supported by any such real movements or real actions. Nevertheless, we need to put pressure on our European partners.

Their participation in the meeting of the President of Ukraine Zelensky in Washington proved that they really support us. This was such an unprecedented step, when uh, well, practically all of Great Europe, all the great European countries came together with our president, uh, uh, trying to convince Trump that he obviously did not do everything right at the meeting with Putin in Alaska.

And this must be used. Moreover, I will tell you that I have not yet heard any more or less understandable explanations, well, those, if not decisions, At least the understandings that were reached at the already mentioned meeting in Jeanton. That is, uh, regarding Western European michots, regarding security guarantees.

For example, US Secretary of State Rubio has been appointed or authorized to head some kind of working group to develop a security guarantee option. uh, I haven't heard any comments on this matter from the US State Department yet.

uh, the issues have been completely left aside, and there are a dozen of them, if not more. Compensation for Russia for the damage caused to Ukraine, punishment for war crimes. Well, I'm not talking about exchanging territories at all, because, well, for the first time, it is impossible to exchange the territories of one country for the territory of the same country.

Secondly, how to do it? uh, yes, this can be the subject of at least the beginning of some negotiations. uh, I don't reject this, but I can't imagine negotiations on any issue, especially on such a complex one as the exchange there.

Well, exchange - I do n't like that word at all. In general, the issue of territory, so to speak, in general terms. Well, how can you start or conduct such negotiations when there is an active phase of the war? I don't know of any conflict or war in the world when negotiations on a peace agreement began and were held when the war had not yet ended.

Whatever President Trump said, and he told Washington, I don't understand what he meant, that he had already stopped six or seven wars there and all this was due to the signing of peace agreements, when the wars had not yet stopped, but first the agreement was signed, and only then these wars stopped. I don't know what he meant, but in history, at least modern humanity, well, over the last, if we take at least 80 years, while the United Nations has existed, there has not been a single such case, over this period, when a mine agreement was signed, and then for some time there was a month, a year, and the war continued, an agreement, the end of which was signed Toku.

Well, it simply contradicts common sense. Well, the only thing that can be said is some kind of framework agreement. Uh.

And a framework agreement can also be, uh, worked out only, uh, in calm conditions, that is, after the cessation of the active phase of the war. Unfortunately, this is not happening today.

Thank you, Volodymyr. Friends, Volodymyr Yelchenko, Ukrainian diplomat, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine to the United States, 19-21 years old. I see a lot of reactions that are on social networks.

By the way, who is watching us on my YouTube channel right now, friends, you can cross- subscribe to Proua. Proua you can cross-subscribe to Yanina Sokolova's channel.

We discuss, there we tell the truth as it is, and we hear different opinions. There are a few comments, I want to read them. Under Trump, there is no chance of the presence of American troops on the territory of Ukraine.

Europe can ensure the security of Ukraine, when the EU itself needs the presence of American troops on the territory The EU, because they do not have the ability to protect themselves. Europe cannot, you probably meant, provide for itself, because it needs the third.

Europe can provide a lot of money and technology. We will have to do the rest ourselves. That's the story. We have literally a few minutes left.

Let's summarize what society should do after our discussion today. What question do you have for the president? What would you say about this? Well, I have a claim to the society that kept Zelensky in Teplovan all these years, both before the full-scale invasion and after the full-scale invasion. And, unfortunately, this is every point of his rating, it allowed him to feel his irresponsibility, impunity.

And because of that, there are so many new hectares in Ukrainian cemeteries. Therefore, if we had treated ourselves as demandingly at one time as we do today towards the same Wagnergate, the Doman meeting, the e-edition of the Tsemakh, then such irresponsible behavior of the president and his five or six managers would not be responsible. Thank God, for three of them are already on the run, one is already on the other side of the tailors' grass.

How many are left? Two are left there. There is no one left, including the defendant. But the fact that they held practically all the power in Ukraine for so many years is our shortcoming. Of course.

Thank you, Dmytro. Anatoly, and with CYM should demand that Zelensky narrow the corridor. Zelensky is deliberately pursuing a backroom and such a hidden policy in order to remain in a wide corridor for maneuvering, for manipulation. This is important to understand.

This is his conscious action in general. And all these meetings of his are some kind of olfrek, as you said there and so on. behind closed doors.

And why behind closed doors? I will explain to you, so that I can talk to journalists. It is clear that basically loyalists are loyal so that they do not write badly about the president later. The main message that Ukrainians should send or message is that Ukrainians demand respect for themselves.

And within the framework of this respect, Zelensky is obliged to report on his intentions and their actions. This is an important thing.

As with your permission, using the summary, I would like to respond to an important remark publicly made by Trump. What should be the reaction of the official authorities to this is not an official position, this is a public statement that has now been spread through the media.

I would have clenched my teeth at what Trump said now. I simply clenched my teeth. And the first thing I did was confirm that for three years our hands were indeed tied, they did not allow us to wage war on the territory of the Russian Federation. And does this not mean, dear Donald Ivanovich, what is his name, Fredovich by his middle name, yes, that we are now changing the doctrine and concept.

Now we have finally received a label or permission from you, or are you blessing us to wage a full-fledged war with counterattacks, with counterattacks. How is this a full-fledged battle.

As a martial arts person, I will tell you clearly, I have said this from day one, that this is not a deaf battle for deaf defense. When 99% of our experts were talking about air defense and praying for air defense, I said that no one has won air defense yet.

Air defense is deaf defense. That is, what am I leading all this to? Please pay attention to the reaction of official Kyiv or official Bankova Ukraine to this statement. This is not just another such outburst and so on.

If this is an important statement and if there is no reaction to it, then I will just try to play it back a little. Your remark, this says that if there is no reaction, then Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky is not leading, he does not want to wage a war from day one.

If he does not take advantage of this opportunity, he is not going to win, to win the war. We are talking about the deoccupation of Ukrainian territories. I have finished.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming to us today. Thank you. It was nice to see you. Dmytro Chekalkin, Anatoly Yakymenko.

Friends, here are the results of our survey. Let me remind you, We asked the president's position on the peace agreements. I do n't support it.

37% don't support it. I don't know, I don't understand what the position is. 34% and I support 28. Well, you probably mean you support 28 because we won't give up our lands. We heard that.

This is proua, my YouTube channel, friends. Well, I support 35%, I don't know, I don't understand 29%. Well, I don't support 27%.

Slightly different numbers. I thank everyone who was with us today, but let me remind you that we, friends, also discuss everything that is happening here on our airwaves, but we are also collecting money to help the guys buy 10 professional Matrix 4T drones. Well, the QR code on the screens will be there now.

Please show it so that it is there. And if you are watching us on a plasma, you can come in and help the guys keep their eyes in the sky. If you are not watching on plasma, and from the phone, then take it from someone who is near you, click on the QR code and take the opportunity to help.

Thank you all. Don't forget to respond in the comments. It is important to us, you heard that I read everything. Subscribe to the Proua channel, to Yanina Sokolov's channel.