[BidClub_]
Lex Fridman Podcast · · 193 min

Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Ukraine, War, Peace, Putin, Trump, NATO, and Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #456

Lex FridmanVolodymyr Zelenskyy

YouTube ↗
TL;DR

  • Zelenskyy’s peace thesis is that a ceasefire must follow, not precede, a stronger Ukrainian deterrent. He proposed NATO protection for Ukrainian-controlled territory, a US-EU arms package held in reserve if the truce works, and continued sanctions: “Don’t rely on his will… pressure him so that he is forced to stop the war.” For investors, that implies durable defense demand and sanction-driven energy realignment even after shooting pauses.

  • His skepticism comes from two failed security architectures: the Budapest Memorandum and the December 2019 Normandy ceasefire. Ukraine surrendered nuclear weapons for “assurances” that produced no consultations after its territory was violated; in 2019, the gas agreement and first prisoner exchange happened, but Zelenskyy said killing resumed within roughly a month. His warning against another “piece of paper” is that an unsupported ceasefire could be followed by renewed attacks within three months.

  • Zelenskyy wants negotiations sequenced as Ukraine and Trump first, Europe second, and Russia only after a common deterrence package is agreed. He believes Putin fears Trump but will exploit the limits of a four-year presidency, potentially rebuilding and returning in year five. Lex Fridman’s pushback remained consistent: even amid hatred, compromise and direct negotiation among Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump are indispensable.

  • The military arithmetic in Zelenskyy’s account argues against Europe assuming Washington’s role quickly. He put Ukraine’s force at 980,000 versus roughly 200,000 for France, cited 12,000 North Koreans deployed with 3,800 killed or wounded, and contrasted Europe’s one million artillery rounds with North Korea’s 3.7 million for Russia. “Without Trump, without the United States of America, there will not be NATO,” he said, linking a weak alliance to wider European and Pacific risks.

  • His proposed funding loop turns frozen Russian capital and displaced energy supply into Western industrial demand. Zelenskyy suggested using $300 billion in frozen Russian assets for Ukrainian production and US weapons purchases—“We don’t need gifts”—while restricting Russian energy and replacing it with American oil and gas. The tradeable chain runs through defense manufacturing, hydrocarbons, air defense, infrastructure, and eventual reconstruction.

  • Aid-accounting and corruption are both political risk factors, but Zelenskyy disputed the premise that Ukraine received the headline appropriations as cash. He said roughly $177 billion had been authorized while Ukraine received less than half, mostly as weapons, and questioned costs retained by American transport and suppliers; domestically, he cited independent anti-corruption bodies, “99%” of required reforms, imprisoned oligarchs, and aggressive enforcement. The core risk is trust: “You lose trust, and with it, you lose support.”

  • Postwar Ukraine’s growth pitch combines digital government, tax reform, returning labor, and resource-backed foreign investment. Zelenskyy highlighted Diia, prospective deregulation, Black Sea oil, gas, solar power, gold, and what he called Europe’s largest uranium reserves, inviting US companies to invest rather than governments simply providing aid. The labor constraint is explicit—8.5 million Ukrainians were abroad—and peace is the gating event for both elections and rebuilding.

Digest · the substance, structured for research

1. Language itself has become part of Ukraine’s sovereignty

  • Zelenskyy declined to conduct the interview mainly in Russian after 73 missile attacks and more than 100 drones struck that day. The attackers, he said, spoke the language they once claimed to be defending while killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians: “We are not one nation… We’re different countries.”

  • Fridman’s case for Russian was practical and emotional: it was their only shared fluent language, while interpretation inserted a two-to-three-second delay that obscured Zelenskyy’s humor, anger, and humanity. He also hoped Russians, Putin, Trump, and Americans would hear the exchange directly.

  • Zelenskyy rejected the claim that Russian is banned—he was speaking it during the interview—but said Ukrainians now disrespect it “because of Russians.” He chose Ukrainian symbolically while remaining willing to move among Ukrainian, Russian, and English when clarity required it.

  • Fridman later described the production burden: three languages created six translation directions, sometimes changing sentence by sentence or word by word. Noisy, incomplete live interpretation was followed by a rapid AI-and-human dubbing workflow; his conclusion was that translation is an art whose lost timing can change the perceived person.

2. Inherited war memory informs Zelenskyy’s threat model

  • Zelenskyy’s grandfather graduated from a military academy, entered World War II from its beginning, fought in the infantry through the entire war, suffered multiple wounds, and returned with more than 30 medals. He would not boast about killing; his lesson to his grandson was that war was “a great tragedy” for everyone.

  • The family cost was devastating: the grandfather’s four brothers died in the war, while relatives in occupied Ukraine were shot or buried alive. He returned alone and met Zelenskyy’s grandmother while she managed an orphanage for traumatized “difficult” children who had watched their parents die.

  • Zelenskyy grew up with parents and two widowed grandmothers in one apartment and inherited neither property nor money. “Our real inheritance is here in our minds and in our hearts,” he said, grounding leadership less in heroic mythology than in family, education, and respect.

  • His historical analogy emphasized gradual permission, not merely the dates 1939 or 1941: fascism advanced amid divided states, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and reassurances that Hitler could be negotiated with. In Zelenskyy’s telling, wars begin “with the weaknesses of the world” long before the decisive invasion.

3. Deterrence failed before the first missiles landed

  • Before February 24, Zelenskyy said he asked the United States for two things: weapons, or preferably preventive sanctions strong enough to frighten Putin away. Promising sanctions only after borders were crossed and people killed was, in his words, “complete bullshit.”

  • The strikes began around 3:40 or 3:45 a.m. Zelenskyy looked at his sleeping children and awake wife, told her to prepare them for movement to his office, and left: “At this moment, you’re no longer a father.” His constitutional role displaced his role inside his own family.

  • On the second or third day, Zelenskyy said Lukashenko telephoned to apologize for missiles launched from Belarus, insisting Putin was responsible and “I am not in charge.” Zelenskyy called him “a murderer too”; Lukashenko then suggested retaliating against the refinery Zelenskyy recalled as Mozyr.

  • The episode reinforced Zelenskyy’s central deterrence argument: verbal forecasts did not substitute for capabilities or pre-invasion economic pressure. “If we assume that words are help,” he said, Ukraine had received plenty—but not the help that might have prevented war.

4. Digital continuity became an instrument of national defense

  • As supreme commander, Zelenskyy rapidly assembled military, energy, and other essential leadership into a wartime headquarters. His immediate decisions ranged from supplying food to blocked cities to distributing rifles from trucks to ordinary residents preparing to defend Kyiv.

  • Ukraine’s prewar digitalization kept banking, internet access, television, and communications functioning even around encircled cities. That infrastructure let the state remain present when physical institutions were cut off and gave Zelenskyy a channel to counter Russian claims that the government had fled.

  • Zelenskyy addressed the public three to five times daily and helped build the shared news platform called “Marathon.” He deliberately filmed outdoors and touched physical objects to demonstrate that he was in a real place rather than appearing through a green screen or digital manipulation.

  • He also gathered foreign journalists and appealed in Russian to Russians, while seeking their contacts among Belarusians and Kazakhs: “You must stop Putin.” Fridman still believed the message could penetrate Russia; Zelenskyy’s answer was that a person unwilling to listen remains deaf in every language.

5. Fridman and Zelenskyy disagreed over whether dialogue creates peace

  • Fridman repeatedly argued that Putin must be treated as a serious leader with whom a deal remains possible. His “naive dream” was a room containing Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump, using both carrots and sticks to negotiate a ceasefire and lasting peace.

  • Zelenskyy portrayed Putin as “a mammoth” and mocked interviews in which he expounded on tribal history while innovators discuss rockets, Mars, and artificial intelligence. Putin’s rockets, he said, are launched not to save costs but “to kill people”; giving Putin a platform, in Zelenskyy’s view, subjectivizes him rather than changing his conduct.

  • Still, Zelenskyy did not reject dialogue categorically. His formula was “peace through strength”: talks are useful when Ukraine is strong enough to make the other party seek an end, not when conversation merely brings an isolated ruler “out into the light.”

  • The distinction he wanted Fridman to retain was between desire and compulsion. Zelenskyy said Putin does not want to stop, but Trump has enough power to force him: “Don’t rely on his will, Putin’s will to stop. You won’t see it.”

6. The 2019 ceasefire is Zelenskyy’s case against trusting intent

  • At the December 2019 Normandy meeting in Paris, Zelenskyy negotiated with Putin alongside Macron and Merkel; the United States’ absence was, in his view, a structural weakness. The package covered gas transit, an all-for-all prisoner exchange, troop disengagement, and a ceasefire.

  • Zelenskyy calculated that Russia’s proposed withdrawal process would take 20 years across the contact line and persuaded Putin it was unworkable. He also concluded Putin was poorly briefed on the operational details—evidence, to Zelenskyy, that “he wasn’t going to do any of this.”

  • The gas contract was signed because Russia wanted the money; an initial exchange occurred because Zelenskyy prioritized people. But he said Ukrainians began dying again about a month after the ceasefire, turning what leaders had signed into something little better than “a piece of toilet paper.”

  • Zelenskyy said he called Putin two or three times, requested another Normandy meeting, and eventually received no answer. He alleged Russia continued sending snipers trained on Ukrainian targets before operating in Syria and Africa, while international attention to Crimea and eastern Ukraine remained minimal.

7. A fast ceasefire could strand millions under occupation

  • Zelenskyy challenged the ceasefire-first framing with Mariupol. He said journalists who escaped the city told him that 20,000 to 30,000 civilians were tortured and buried there, then asked what Kyiv should tell millions of children and other residents left in occupied territory.

  • He said people of drafting age in Donetsk, Crimea, Melitopol, and Berdyansk were being compelled to fight, with refusal potentially fatal. Freezing the line without a longer plan would therefore stabilize not only territory but coercion inside it.

  • His minimum first step was a credible guarantee for the part of Ukraine under Kyiv’s control so Russia could not return. Prisoner exchanges and diplomatic recovery of territory could follow, but a truce by itself would amount to telling occupied citizens, “See ya.”

  • Zelenskyy also framed durability as Trump’s reputational problem: if Trump brokered a ceasefire and Putin attacked three months later, Trump, Ukraine, and everyone else would look bad. Putin’s strategy, he argued, was to split Trump from Zelenskyy and exploit a deal lacking enforcement.

8. Zelenskyy’s security package links NATO, weapons, assets, and energy

  • His fastest proposed guarantee was a form of NATO membership under which the invitation legally covers Ukraine, including occupied regions, while alliance protection initially operates only where Kyiv has control. Zelenskyy conceded this “would not be a great success,” but called it one diplomatic route out of war.

  • The second component was a written but undisclosed US-EU arms package. If the ceasefire held, Ukraine would not use it; its value was having weapons before a renewed attack rather than waiting for partners to debate deliveries after Russia had already advanced.

  • Zelenskyy proposed taking $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to fund domestic defense production and purchases from American manufacturers: “We don’t need gifts from the United States.” Russian money would finance Ukrainian deterrence while becoming revenue for US industry.

  • Sanctions completed the package. He advocated restricting Russian energy and the shadow fleet, replacing supply with cheaper American oil and gas, and depriving Putin of war revenue; Fridman’s pushback was that NATO admission, arms, and continuing sanctions left little visible compromise for Moscow.

9. NATO would restrain Ukrainian retaliation as well as Russia

  • When Fridman asked about guaranteeing Russia’s security—or even admitting both countries to NATO—Zelenskyy insisted the starting point could not be halfway between them. The war was taking place on Ukrainian territory after one country’s army crossed into another.

  • Yet Zelenskyy did offer a Russian-security mechanism: “NATO is stopping us too.” A defensive alliance would constrain Ukrainians who lost children, received no justice, and might otherwise cross into Russia seeking personal revenge after outside powers froze the conflict.

  • His argument was psychological rather than institutional alone. A parent whose child was killed will not accept sanctions disappearing and perpetrators going free; without accountability, “hate” returns. NATO membership would therefore be both deterrence and a compromise that could restrain future Ukrainian military action.

  • Zelenskyy pointed to the defense of Israel by American, British, French, and regional systems as a guarantee that functioned without the NATO label. If comparable protection could intercept thousands of missiles, he suggested, perhaps Putin’s objection was partly to the word rather than the mechanism.

10. Trump comes before Europe and Russia in Zelenskyy’s negotiating order

  • Zelenskyy rejected an immediate three-leader summit. Ukraine should first agree with Trump on how to stop the war and secure the country; Europe must then have a voice because Ukraine is geographically, geopolitically, and eventually institutionally part of Europe.

  • Only after that alignment should Russia enter negotiations. Zelenskyy said European leaders routinely asked what happened after his calls or meetings with Trump, revealing an influence he had not experienced with previous US presidents and reinforcing his belief that Trump could pressure Putin.

  • Fridman jokingly proposed January 25, Zelenskyy’s birthday, for the agreement. Zelenskyy accepted the symbolism but stressed substance: even if Trump secured four years without a war, Putin could spend that period rearming and return in the fifth.

  • Zelenskyy attributed Trump’s 2024 victory to appearing intellectually and physically stronger than Biden and Kamala Harris, sustaining an extraordinary rally schedule, and answering voters on prices, immigration, and domestic concerns. Internationally, Ukraine’s expectation centers on his promise to finish the war.

11. Ukraine’s previous guarantees became a train of waste paper

  • Zelenskyy described Ukraine’s former nuclear weapons as its actual security guarantee. Under pressure from the United States and Russia, Ukraine relinquished them for the Budapest Memorandum’s weaker “assurances” from the US, Russia, and Britain, later joined by France and China.

  • After territory was taken beginning in 2014, Ukraine repeatedly invoked the memorandum’s consultation mechanism. Zelenskyy said none of the guarantors attended or meaningfully answered, including after another request in February 2022: “None of them gave a damn.”

  • His metaphor was a train carrying “waste paper” as security guarantees. Budapest was one carriage; the Minsk agreements and Normandy process were another, with hundreds of meetings but no mechanism capable of stopping escalation.

  • Zelenskyy traced another missed branch to the 2008 Bucharest summit: President Bush supported inviting Ukraine into NATO, while Merkel blocked the step. In 2019, Zelenskyy nevertheless used a 70% electoral mandate to pursue peace despite society being divided roughly in half over whether Russia could be trusted.

12. The force balance makes US withdrawal a global risk

  • Zelenskyy called a US departure “the death of NATO.” Whatever its bureaucracy or spending disputes, his empirical test was simple: member countries do not fight wars on their own territory, so the alliance “works,” while Europe lacks the scale to replace the United States rapidly.

  • He put Ukraine’s army at 980,000 and France’s at approximately 200,000, calling the latter Europe’s next-largest force. Europe, he argued, neither could nor would assemble an army of two or three million people to confront Russia and its partners.

  • North Korea illustrated the asymmetry: Zelenskyy cited 12,000 personnel deployed and 3,800 killed or wounded, with another 30,000–40,000 potentially available. He contrasted Europe’s delivery of one million artillery rounds with 3.7 million supplied by North Korea, concluding that Russia needed time to address its deficit.

  • The spillover was broader than Europe. Zelenskyy warned that North Korea was learning drones, missiles, cyberwar, and large-scale technological warfare, then would bring those skills home—raising risks for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and eventually the United States.

13. Zelenskyy sees Ukraine as the barrier to restored Russian influence

  • His forecast extended beyond Ukraine: frozen conflict had left Georgia’s Abkhazia undeveloped and obstructed Georgian movement toward the EU and NATO. He predicted Russia would next contest Moldova’s parliamentary direction and work against its pro-European president.

  • The mechanism was consistent in his telling: preserve or manufacture conflicts, block Western institutional entry, drain young people, and remove citizens capable of sustaining an independent public sphere. Ukraine is “a large wall” preventing that model from moving farther into Europe.

  • Zelenskyy said Putin’s preferred combination is a NATO weakened by America’s departure and a Ukraine too weak to survive or build a durable relationship with Trump. Together, those conditions could enable a much larger war across territories once held within the Soviet sphere.

  • This was also why he resisted treating the war as a distant regional dispute. Russian cooperation with North Korea connects European battlefield learning to Asian security, while the same technologies and production networks can be scaled elsewhere.

14. Fridman and Zelenskyy clashed over whether Putin loves Russia

  • Fridman argued that negotiation requires viewing Putin as a serious person who loves his country and people, even while conducting destructive war. He noted that American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan allegedly cost $9 trillion and killed more than one million people without proving US leaders hated America.

  • Zelenskyy’s answer was categorical: Putin loves his inner circle, not his people. He invoked deployments to Chechnya, Syria, Africa, Georgia, and Ukraine, the sending of 18-year-olds to die abroad, and what he stated were 780,000–788,000 Russian soldiers killed or wounded.

  • Their leadership test was physical presence. Zelenskyy contrasted his own front-line visits and Trump’s appearances after domestic emergencies with Putin’s absence from Kursk during four months of fighting; Fridman praised Zelenskyy for staying in Kyiv but retained his broader distinction between terrible war and national loyalty.

  • On eventual reconciliation, Zelenskyy pointed to Germany’s recognition, education, punishment, reparations, apology, and security guarantees after World War II. Relations may return only after comparable acknowledgment: Russia “will have to apologize,” and silence, in his view, also carries responsibility.

15. Martial law limits freedom because war already removed choices

  • Zelenskyy defined freedom concretely: home, children, parents, work, movement, and the opportunity to choose. War destroys those opportunities first; martial law then follows armed aggression under pre-existing constitutional rules—“This is not Pinochet”—rather than originating in a leader’s discretionary wish.

  • Ukraine tried to preserve business activity but added a military tax and could not use partner funding to cover salaries for its million-strong army. Those costs came from money accumulated by the Ukrainian state and public, limiting the tax relief Zelenskyy otherwise wanted.

  • He deferred comprehensive tax reform and deregulation until after the war but cited wartime progress on EU-mandated anti-corruption, banking, land, and judicial reforms, alongside large-scale privatization. The war slowed those programs without stopping them.

16. Credible elections require enfranchising a displaced wartime nation

  • Zelenskyy corrected the premise that elections had been repeatedly delayed: the presidential vote due in spring 2024 and parliamentary vote due that fall did not occur because the Constitution bars them under martial law. Holding them earlier would require parliament to rewrite legislation against substantial public opposition.

  • The logistics are formidable: 8.5 million citizens were abroad, millions remained in occupied territories, and roughly one million service members needed an equal vote. Online voting might help, but Zelenskyy acknowledged widespread fear of cyberattacks and manipulation.

  • His legal baseline was elections immediately after martial law ends, potentially within about 90 days of parliament authorizing them. He said ending the war in 2025 might be possible and expected voting in the same year as the war’s conclusion.

  • Asked whether he would run, Zelenskyy answered, “Even I don’t know.” The result of the war, public demand, and his family would decide; Poroshenko, Zaluzhny, Arestovich, Budanov, Klitschko, and others could participate, but campaigning during war would divide the country when the central “debate” remained how to end it.

17. Corruption risk sits across the full aid supply chain

  • Zelenskyy called Ukraine’s anti-corruption architecture Europe’s most sophisticated and said “99%” of required reforms had been implemented, while conceding corruption and judicial defects remain. His evidence included independent bodies, Ihor Kolomoyskyi’s imprisonment, sanctions on oligarchs, and Medvedchuk’s exchange for Ukrainian soldiers.

  • He disputed treating roughly $177 billion authorized by the United States as money delivered to Kyiv: Ukraine, he said, received less than half and usually received weapons rather than cash. Fridman responded, “If you find the second half, you will find corruption.”

  • One example was airlift: Zelenskyy offered Ukraine’s relocated Antonov cargo fleet to transport weapons but said American aircraft were used instead at greater cost. He asked whether supplier influence should be called corruption or lobbying, while stressing that profiteering opportunities exist at every link, not only inside Ukraine.

  • Zelenskyy said anyone caught diverting weapons faced a severe crackdown, quoting the front’s likely reaction in deliberately brutal terms: “Our soldiers would kill such people with their own hands.” His larger concern was misinformation converting suspicion into lost trust and then lost support; he said only laws could control him, while only his son could influence him.

18. Starlink and digital government preview the postwar investment case

  • Zelenskyy respected Musk as a “self-made man” whose results are usable rather than rhetorical. Starlink maintained connections at the front and after energy strikes, but also served schools, kindergartens, and civilian infrastructure; Zelenskyy invited Musk to visit and wanted him “on our side as much as possible.”

  • Reopening Kyiv airport would require sustainable peace and durable air defense. Zelenskyy rejected moving protection from a shelled city merely to serve aviation—“People are more important than planes”—but imagined Trump symbolically becoming the first leader to arrive by air after the war.

  • His domestic platform begins with Diia and all-process digitalization, which remove personal contact with officials and therefore opportunities for corruption. Zelenskyy claimed Ukraine leads Europe in this area and said African Union countries had asked to adopt similar services, creating a possible export after the war.

  • The broader pitch was tax reform, deregulation, and private investment in oil, gas, Black Sea reserves, solar power, gold, and what he described as Europe’s largest uranium reserves. Better-paid jobs could draw roughly 8.5 million people home; cultural alignment would remain European, but every reconstruction thesis still begins with the same condition: “First you have to end the war.”

Lex Fridman

I hope the Kyiv airport will open soon. Then it will be easier to fly in.

Speaker 1

Yes, I think that the war will end, and President Trump may be the first leader to travel here by airplane. I think it would be symbolic, by airplane.

Lex Fridman

Again, January 25th, around that date, right? Flying in, meeting Air Force One.

Speaker 1

Oh, that would be cool.

Lex Fridman

There is a perception of corruption. People like Donald Trump and Elon Musk really care about fighting corruption. What can you say to them to gain their trust that the money is going toward this fight for freedom, toward the war effort?

Speaker 1

In most cases, we did not receive money; we received weapons. Where we saw risks that something could be happening with weapons, we cracked down hard on everyone. Believe me, this is not only about Ukraine. Everywhere along the supply chain, there are some people and companies who want to make money. They try to make money on the war.

We did not profit from the war. If we caught someone, believe me, we cracked down hard on them. We did that, and we will continue to do so. To this day, when someone says that Ukraine was selling weapons—and, by the way, Russia was the one pushing this narrative—we always responded: our soldiers would kill such people with their own hands, without any trial.

Do you honestly think anyone could steal weapons by the truckload when we ourselves don’t have enough on the front lines? And yet, we have to provide proof to defend ourselves. When there’s an abundance of such misinformation, distrust starts to grow. And you’re right, people listen to various media outlets, see this, and lose faith in you. In the end, you lose trust, and with it, you lose support.

Therefore, believe me, we are fighting more against disinformation than against particular cases, although I still emphasize once again that, at the everyday level, such things are still important. We catch these people, and we fight them.

Lex Fridman

It’s as if Putin wants to sit down and talk, but Ukraine does not.

Speaker 1

This is not true. I think that, yes, he is in fact ready to talk.

Lex Fridman

Did you talk to him?

Speaker 1

On the phone, or what?

Lex Fridman

How do you normally talk to him?

Speaker 1

I don’t know. Normally, by the sea, the same as with you. He invites you to the sea with me, just the 3 of us.

Lex Fridman

No, no, 1 of us may drown.

Speaker 1

Who?

Lex Fridman

Are you good at swimming?

Speaker 1

Yes, I am a good swimmer.

Lex Fridman

You’re a good swimmer. Well, if you think that the president of a country is completely crazy, it is really hard to come to an agreement with him. You have to look at him as a serious person who loves his country and loves the people in his country. And he conducts, yes, destructive military actions.

Speaker 1

Who are you talking about now? Who loves his country?

Lex Fridman

Putin. Do you think he doesn’t love his country?

Speaker 1

No. What is his country? He happened to consider Ukraine his country. What is his country?

Lex Fridman

When do you think there will be presidential elections in Ukraine?

The following is a conversation with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine. It was an intense, raw, and heartfelt conversation. My goal was to understand and to do all I can to push for peace.

Please allow me to say a few words, first about language, then about the President, and finally about history. We spoke in a mix of languages, continuously switching from Ukrainian to Russian to English, so the interpreter was barely hanging on. It was, indeed, in many ways, a wild ride of a conversation. As the President said, it was the first of many.

Language, like many other things in a time of war, is a big deal. We had a choice: speak in Russian, Ukrainian, or English. The President does speak some English, but he’s far from fluent in it, and I, sadly, don’t speak Ukrainian. Yet. So Russian is the only common language we are both fluent in.

In case you don’t know, Russian is a language that the President speaks fluently and that was his primary language for most of his life. It’s the language I also speak fluently, to the degree I speak any language fluently, as does a large fraction of the Ukrainian population. So the most dynamic and powerful conversation between us would be in Russian, without an interpreter, who in this case added about a 2- to 3-second delay and, frankly, translated partially and poorly, for me at least.

That took away my ability to feel the humor, the wit, the brilliance, the pain, the anger, and the humanity of the person sitting before me. I could clearly feel all of that when he was speaking fluently in the language I understand: Russian. But all that said, war changes everything.

The Ukrainian language has become a symbol of the Ukrainian people’s fight for freedom and independence. So we had a difficult choice of 3 languages and, faced with that choice, we said yes to all 3, to the consternation and dismay of the translators.

We make captions and voice over audio tracks available in English, Ukrainian, and Russian. So you can listen either to a version that is all one language. Or to the original mixed language version with subtitles in your preferred language. The default is English overdub. On YouTube, you can switch between language audio tracks by clicking the settings gear icon. Then clicking audio track. And then selecting the language you prefer. English, Ukrainian, Russian. To listen to the original mixed language version, please select the English UK audio track. Big thank you to Eleven Labs for their help with overdubbing using a mix of AI and humans. We will continue to explore how to break down the barriers that language creates with AI and otherwise. This is a difficult but important endeavor. Language, after all, is much more than a cold sequence of facts and logic statements. There are words, when spoken in the right sequence and at the right time, that can shake the world and turn the tides of history. They can start and end wars. Great leaders can find those words, and great translators can help those words reverberate to the outskirts of a divided civilization.

On another note, let me say that President Zelenskyy is a truly remarkable person and a historic figure. I say this as somebody who deeply understands the geopolitical complexity and history of the region. I am from this region. My parents were both born in Ukraine, in Kyiv and Kharkiv. Both my grandfathers, too.

I was born in Tajikistan and lived for a time there, then in Kyiv, then Moscow, then the United States. And while I have been a proud American for almost 30 years, and will be to the day I die, my family roots grow deep in the soil of the nations that comprised the Soviet Union, including Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Tajikistan.

I’ve gotten to know and have spoken for hours with members of the President’s team and people close to him. I spoke to hundreds of Ukrainians since 2022, including soldiers, civilians, politicians, artists, religious leaders, journalists, economists, historians, and technologists. I’ve listened to hundreds of hours of programs that both support and criticize the President in Ukraine, in Russia, and in the United States.

I’ve read countless books about this war and the long arc of history that led up to it. If forced to recommend 2 at this moment, I would say The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History by Serhii Plokhy and The Showman: Inside the Invasion That Shook the World and Made a Leader of Volodymyr Zelensky by Simon Shuster, which is a good personal, behind-the-scenes biography of the President focused on 2022. But there are many, many more.

This is why I can comfortably say that he is a truly singular and remarkable human being. It was an honor and pleasure to talk with him on and off the mic.

Now, it is true that I plan to travel to Moscow and to speak with President Vladimir Putin. And I hope to be back in Kyiv as well. As President Zelenskyy said, this was our first of many more meetings. In all these cases, I seek to do my small part in pushing for peace.

In doing all this, I’m deeply grateful for the trust people have given me on all sides: the people attacking me, sometimes lying about me, and the critics in the stands, chanting the latest slogans of the mass hysteria machine like sheep in Animal Farm. I love you too.

And I assure you that drawing lines between good and evil on a world map is much easier than seeing that line between good and evil in every human being, including you and me. This is what I try to do. I’m simply a human being who seeks to find and surface the humanity in others.

And, as I’ve said, no amount of money, fame, power, or access can buy my opinion or my integrity.

Now, finally, please allow me to briefly overview some history to give background for several topics that President Zelenskyy references in this conversation. I recommend my conversation with Serhii Plokhy and many others about the history of the region. But here, let me start with 1991, when Ukraine declared its independence and the Soviet Union collapsed.

From this point on, Russia–Ukraine relations were defined in large part by whether Ukraine aligned more with Russia or with the West, meaning Europe, the United States, NATO, and so on. In 2004, with the Orange Revolution, a pro-Western candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, became president. In 2010, it went the other way. A pro-Russia candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, became president.

The internal tensions grew, and in 2013, Euromaidan protests broke out over Yanukovych’s decision to suspend talks with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia. This set forward a chain of important events in 2014.

On the political front, Yanukovych was ousted and fled to Russia, leading to the election of a pro-Western president. Also, in 2014, on the war front, Russia annexed Crimea and war broke out in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, which eventually killed over 14,000 people and continued all the way to 2022, when, on February 24, 2022, Russian forces initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This is when the world started to really pay attention.

Now, some history of peace talks. Volodymyr Zelenskyy won the presidency in 2019, and in this conversation he discusses the ceasefire agreements he made with Vladimir Putin in 2019, which were one of many attempts at peace—from the 2 Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015 to a series of ceasefire agreements in 2018, 2019, and 2020, all of which failed, in part or in whole.

All this shows just how difficult ceasefire and peace negotiations are, but they are not impossible. It is always worth trying, over and over again, to find the path to peace.

I believe that Presidents Zelenskyy, Putin, and Trump should meet soon after January 20 of this year and give everything they have to negotiate a ceasefire and security guarantees that pave the way for a long-lasting peace. We discussed several ideas for this in this conversation. As I said, this was one of my main goals here: to push for peace.

This trip to Kyiv and this conversation were truly special moments for me in my life. It is something I will never forget. To reflect, I say a few more words and answer some questions at the very end, if you'd like to listen. But here, let me say thank you to everyone for your support over the years. It means the world. This is the Lex Fridman Podcast, and now, dear friends, here's the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

If we can explain why the Ukrainian language is very important, our conversation will be most effective and impactful if we speak in Russian.

Speaker 1

I speak Russian perfectly, of course, and I understand everything you are talking about. However, I can't respond in Russian for the entire interview. This is how it is today. I am not making anything up. You can see it all for yourself, and you can feel and hear it.

Today, there were 73 missile attacks against us, and people were killed. There were over 100 drones today. This is a daily occurrence. The people who attack us speak Russian. They attack people who were only recently told that this was actually in defense of Russian-speaking people.

This is why I respect neither the leader or director of today's Russia, nor the people. I just... That's it.

Lex Fridman

I don't think that you can just pretend that nothing is happening and give Putin a pass once again for saying that we are one people, that we speak one language, and so on. They speak the language of weapons. That is a fact. We are peaceful people who want to protect themselves and defend their freedom and their human choice.

Speaker 1

You know, at the beginning of the war, I addressed Russians in Russian. Zero effect. They're mute. They do not listen. They did not listen. Some are afraid, some have other issues, and they have different reasons.

It's like when a person is drowning and people walk by because they can't hear them. Someone walks on by, crying, afraid to save them. It doesn't change anything for the one drowning. They need someone to help them.

This is why I honestly despise these people, as they are deaf. They began the occupation in the supposed defense of the Russian language. With all due respect, I would like to give this interview in Ukrainian. This is very important to me. If there are some points that you want me to explain in Russian, I can certainly do that. I can occasionally speak Russian, but in general, no.

I'm not sure that you'll understand me completely, despite your Ukrainian roots. You are a citizen of the United States, right?

Lex Fridman

Yes.

Speaker 1

That's why I'm surprised that you don't understand—

Lex Fridman

Well, it was a long time ago. I understand that it was a long time ago. Moreover, a lot has changed.

If I may, please allow me to say this in Russian. Yes, many things have changed, but I have hope. I hope that today many Russians will hear this, that Vladimir Putin will hear this, and that the American President, Donald Trump, and the American people will hear this. I hope that everyone will hear this.

Yes, the Ukrainian language is important symbolically, but what is also important is that we understand each other well.

Speaker 1

For Donald Trump? Is it important for Donald Trump whether I speak Russian or not?

Lex Fridman

Yeah. Yes, yes. Because, unfortunately—and it hurts to admit this—but I cannot speak or understand Ukrainian yet. So your wit, dynamism, and humanity will not come through as well or as quickly. I need to wait 2 or 3 seconds to hear it.

You have a great sense of humor and great stories. With an interpreter translating, I simply won't see this. I understand that it's painful. Another reason is that I hoped we could show that even though it is sometimes said that Russian is banned in Ukraine—

Speaker 1

This is not true. I'm speaking Russian now, right? We have people who speak Russian. This is not true, really. It's not. It's really not true.

We disrespect Russian now because of Russians. That's all. When they were saving Russian speakers, they killed Russian speakers—many people who actually lived in the east. They destroyed their houses and destroyed their lives.

It's not a rhetorical thing. It's not all talk and “blah, blah, blah.” I don't have time for “blah, blah, blah.” This is a very, very important and sensitive moment.

The message is that we are not one nation. We are not the same country. We're different countries. Yes, different countries.

Lex Fridman

I think what is most important is what we're talking about, not how we're speaking about it. This is what I think.

Speaker 1

You're a smart guy, so you have a lot of experience in dialogue of this kind. That's why I think you will understand me.

Lex Fridman

Yeah. Anyway, I think it is far better for Donald Trump to hear my English, not my Russian.

Speaker 1

Your English is much better than my Ukrainian. You're getting better and better every day.

Lex Fridman

That's true. I'm a very honest guy, so I will be very honest with you.

Speaker 1

Okay.

Lex Fridman

Your Ukrainian is not very good, but we will work on it.

Speaker 1

Yes. I have many flaws, and that's one of them.

Lex Fridman

Sometimes I can speak English. Sometimes, as I understand, we can be very flexible, right?

Speaker 1

Very flexible. Spanish, Swahili.

Lex Fridman

Yeah, you see?

Speaker 1

Javier Milei needs to understand this.

Lex Fridman

By the way, Javier understood me without any words.

Speaker 1

The language of love, maybe.

Lex Fridman

Of respect.

Speaker 1

Respect.

Lex Fridman

I respect him.

Speaker 1

Yeah. I had a very good conversation with him. Really brilliant.

Lex Fridman

May I sometimes speak Russian and sometimes English?

Speaker 1

Yeah, yes, you can use any language you like. I think that's a very good rule for this first meeting between us. As you said, maybe we will meet in the future for a second time.

Lex Fridman

Second, third, and fourth.

Speaker 1

Yeah, this is good. You can ask questions in the language you'd like, and I will answer in the language I can.

Lex Fridman

Well, you said you wanted to meet by the sea at some point. So, for our next meeting, let's meet by the sea.

Speaker 1

With pleasure. Next time, it would be much better to meet by our Ukrainian Black Sea or Azov Sea.

Lex Fridman

You know, I have traveled to many cities in Ukraine, but I have never been to Odesa. Everyone tells me that I have to go there, and I don't know why.

Speaker 1

You have to.

Lex Fridman

Can you explain to me why everyone loves Odesa so much? What's there? You know, what's in Odesa? That's how they say it. What's there?

Speaker 1

In Odesa, we've got it all.

Lex Fridman

Okay.

Speaker 1

I love Odesa because of its particular temperament. People have their own accent, and there are many nationalities and a lot of stories. There is authentic Odesa cuisine. The cuisine is very different from others. The dishes are not like any other, and everything is very tasty.

There are also beautiful people. Today, you understand people very well, especially after the attacks on Odesa. You understand what the people are like, just how Ukrainian Odesa residents are. That's very cool. I love Odesa.

I go there several times a year now because of the strengthening of air-defense systems, the grain corridor, and so on. I go there more often. They have the sun there. They have the sea. It's Ukraine, and it's very cool there.

Lex Fridman

Well, when you come and visit me in Texas as a guest for the third time—

Speaker 1

With pleasure.

Lex Fridman

Let's do this. How about you, my friend Joe Rogan, and I go get some Texas barbecue together?

Speaker 1

Who will pay?

Lex Fridman

That's a good question.

Speaker 1

Putin. Putin has to pay for everything.

Lex Fridman

Well, yes, we'll invite him too.

Speaker 1

No, no, no.

Lex Fridman

Okay.

Speaker 1

Without him.

Lex Fridman

Okay, I get it. Understood.

Speaker 1

But if the Rome Statute is accepted by your government before that moment—

Lex Fridman

By the way, I don't know if you know this, but Joe has a great comedy club in Austin.

Speaker 1

Joe Rogan?

Lex Fridman

Joe Rogan, yes. As a person who respects comedy and stand-up comedy, I think it would be interesting for you to have a look at it.

Speaker 1

No, I know him, and I've seen a lot of different videos. He's a very talented person, so it would be a pleasure if you invite me and I'm able to do it. I'm a little bit busy, but if I'll be in the United States, I hope that I will have a conversation and a meeting with President Trump. During my visit, if I have the time, it would be a pleasure. If you'll invite me, with pleasure.

Lex Fridman

You know what? I will pay.

Speaker 1

Good.

Lex Fridman

Yeah. You know, I had to think about it, but you are the president.

Speaker 1

Yes, with you, with pleasure.

Lex Fridman

When the war is over, please come.

Speaker 1

Thanks so much.

Lex Fridman

And when you're less busy.

Speaker 1

Thanks so much.

Lex Fridman

If we can go back many years, to World War II, tell me the story of your grandfather, who fought in the Second World War.

Speaker 1

My grandfather graduated from the military academy, and from the very beginning of the war, he went to fight. He was in the infantry, and he fought through the entire war. He had many wounds. As they used to say back then, “His chest is covered in medals.” It's true—he had more than 30.

He was a serious man. I loved him very much, and we had a very close relationship. He didn't like to tell details about the war. He never boasted. Although I asked him, as a boy would, “How many fascists did you kill?” he never talked about it.

#456

He believed that the war was a great tragedy—a great tragedy for everyone. Ukraine was occupied, and it was a tragedy for Ukraine, a tragedy for Europe, and a tragedy for the Jewish people. His own brothers, his entire family, were executed. They were tortured by fascists who had occupied Ukraine and their village.

His father was the head of the village. He was killed—they were shot. It was a mass grave, a communal burial. Some of them were killed outright, and others were buried alive.

His 4 brothers all went to war as soon as the war began. He was the only one who had a military education. They all died in the war. He was the only one who came back. He had nobody, and he came back and found my grandmother, his future wife.

She managed—what was it called then? I don't know; they don't have them anymore. It was a childcare facility, an orphanage, so to speak—a place where orphans lived. Children who didn't have parents, children of war. She managed this childcare facility with “difficult” children, as they used to call them—children who had gone through the war and seen their parents killed.

This is how they met, because these “difficult” children sometimes behaved differently. They could steal something or do something bad. There were many, many children in the orphanage. That's how she met my grandfather. I loved him very much.

I think my grandfather, frankly, would never have believed that this war was possible. He would never have believed it. After the war, he worked in the police. He was a colonel and worked in criminal investigation all his life, so he fought with bandits all his life after the Second World War. But I also believe that he fought for justice all his life.

We all lived in one apartment. Even after his death, I lived with both of my grandmothers and my parents—2 grandmothers who had both lost their husbands. Both of their husbands had died. It was an ordinary family, an ordinary family that lived like everyone lived back then, in the Soviet Union and even after the Soviet era, in the 1990s. We lived in 1 apartment, all together.

What else is there to say? I think the most important things were values and respect. My parents gave me an education. No one left me money or apartments, so I didn't inherit anything material. But I believe that our real inheritance is here, in our minds and in our hearts. I believe that.

Lex Fridman

It's a 1-second delay.

#456

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Lex Fridman

So, if I—I'm sorry, if you—

#456

It's fine.

Lex Fridman

—tell a joke, I will laugh about 1, 2, or 3 seconds later. There's a delay.

So, an ordinary family, but not an ordinary time: World War II. Speaking of mass graves, I was at Babyn Yar yesterday. A large part of my family died there. In moments like this, such a place serves as a stark reminder of the profound historical gravity of the Second World War.

I remember this song from my youth: “On June 22, at 4:00, Kyiv was bombed and the war began.” I always wondered how it would feel to live in a moment when everything changed, when the path of humanity completely shifted in a single moment, just like that. What do you think about that moment in 1941? Now, after the 2022 invasion, how do you perceive the Second World War after witnessing all of it?

#456

Well, firstly, the war actually started earlier. It started here, in Ukraine. Kyiv was bombed, as you quoted, but the war had already begun before that. I think I perceived it as the start of the full-scale invasion.

I think it's hard to understand why nobody wants to listen to, look at, and analyze history. War, the rise of fascism and Nazism, the emergence of Hitler, Goebbels, and their entire team—at the time, this wasn't just about 1 party or even 1 country. It was, essentially, a wave: a wave of hatred, a wave of “1 race above the rest.”

They were, in fact, constructing and ultimately implementing a theory around this idea, later seizing Europe. They created a theory of 1 nation, 1 race, 1 world—their world. Of course, this idea is absolutely senseless, but it became radicalized over the years and even gained support. A vision of “1 world.”

In principle, the so-called Russian World—the ideology Putin promotes and imposes—wasn't originally like that. He was a different person back then, or maybe he was always like this, but his rhetoric was different. At the beginning, remember, he talked about the EU and even about Russia's future being tied to NATO. There were even talks of joining the European Union and NATO. He spoke about shared values with the West. That's how it all sounded back then.

We must also look at Hitler. Before he developed the radical idea of taking over the whole world, he actually took certain steps, and everyone believed he was helping the economy. To be fair, he did take some steps in that direction. But he was a terrifying person. None of those actions justify him, nor do they excuse his actions.

That's why we cannot look at the Second World War as if it started in 1939. It didn't begin in 1941 either. We need to draw conclusions. When did it start? It started with the weaknesses of the world, the division of European states, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. All of this happened before 1941.

People who were more informed, those who dug deeper—whether they were politicians or not, whether they were from different walks of life, including business, which was different back then—were speaking about all of this. They said, “Hitler won't stop. There'll be a world war. Hitler will destroy nations.”

Someone looked the other way. That's what I told you about. Europe was sinking then. I gave you an example of it. But the whole world looked the other way and didn't pay attention. They said, “No, we can negotiate with him. I'm telling you, he is okay. We can negotiate with him. He's just more right-leaning.”

Or it didn't matter what they said: “He's just very pro-nationalist.” This is all nonsense, and this is not the first time. Hitler isn't the first such case in history. We're dealing with a person who is allowed to stick to this desire to destroy. He was consumed by it and enjoyed it.

And what happened to Hitler? Now, what about Putin? This invasion was also at 4:00 in the morning, around 4:00 in the morning. There were missile strikes on Ukraine. This is the same. I believe that the intentions are also the same, but more on that later.

By the way, you tell me if this is too long. You can stop me.

Lex Fridman

Never long enough. It's beautiful.

#456

Okay. It happened here around 4:00 in the morning. Before this, I must honestly say that everyone said something, predicted something, and so on. But I asked for only 1 thing, primarily from the United States: if you are sure, if you have the evidence, if you talk to him and he tells you that there'll be an invasion, if all this scares you, I asked for only 2 things—send us weapons, or better yet, strengthen us with preventive measures so there would be no war.

It wasn't the weapons that I was asking for. I asked for sanctions. Intimidate him. Please don't say that if he comes, if he crosses borders, if he kills, we're imposing sanctions. This is complete bullshit. Sorry, but really.

Lex Fridman

Oh, I understand this!

#456

Oh, wonderful! Yes.

Lex Fridman

I understood 1 word.

#456

Yeah.

Lex Fridman

So they did not help—

#456

I believe that no, and this is a fact. We didn't receive help. If we assume that words are help, then yes, we received a lot of it, because there were plenty of words. Even more than plenty.

At 4:00 in the morning, there were strikes. Morally, is it possible to prepare for war? No. It doesn't happen like you read in books, see in movies, and so on. I was just looking at my wife and children. My children were asleep, but my wife was awake. There were missile strikes; we heard them.

As a living person, how can this be? You just can't fully believe it. You just don't understand why now, given everything that happened in World War II, when millions of people died. None of it mattered. Still, at 4:00 in the morning.

Lex Fridman

Around 4:00—3:40, 3:45, remember?

#456

Around this time, yes, there were missile strikes. Later, by the way, a few days after the first days of the war, I spoke with Lukashenko on the phone. He apologized. He said that it wasn't him: missiles were launched from his territory, and Putin was the one launching them. These are his words. I have witnesses.

“And I apologize,” he said. “But believe me”—that's what he told me—“Volodya, this is not me. I am not in charge,” he told me. “I am not in charge. These are just missiles. This is Putin.”

I told him, “Don't do that.” He replied, “This was done without me.” I remember this conversation. I told him, “You are a murderer too—I'm just saying.” He told me, “You must understand, you can't fight the Russians.”

I told him that we had never fought them. I said, “It's war. The missiles came from your land, from Belarus. How did you allow this?” Then he replied, “All right, retaliate then.” I still remember him telling me, “Hit the refinery. You know how much I care about it.”

Lex Fridman

Mozyr Oil Refinery, is that it? I can't recall.

#456

Mozyr Oil Refinery. I told him, “What are you on about? What retaliation?” He said, “Forgive me, Volodya.”

Lex Fridman

Yes, yes. Was this at 5:00 in the morning?

#456

No, no, no. This was during the second or third day of the war, yes.

Lex Fridman

Oh, I see.

#456

Well, after that I went back home. I was home with my children and my wife. I had just gone to my wife very quickly that night, at 4:00, and told her, “Get the children. Get ready. You'll probably need to go to my office very soon,” and I left. That's it.

At this moment, you're no longer a father. What happened to me, unfortunately, because I believe that this is...

And not only do I believe it, I understand, especially now, that all of this is the most important thing. Because your country is your family. The strength is in your family, and this is the most important thing. I'm the president, and therefore I had to stop being a father in my own family.

My wife had to do everything regarding the children, regarding safety. I had to deal with the state because I'm the president. This is my duty. By the way, I'm taking this very seriously. I went to the office, and here we are now.

Lex Fridman

You're very welcome. Well, at that moment, on February 24, 2022, everything changed again, just like in June 1941. Everything changed. History took a turn. The history of humanity took a turn, and for you, too.

You were the president. You were talking about fighting corruption, about the country's freedom, and about interesting and innovative reforms. But that morning, of February 22nd, everything changed. Could you tell me about that morning, the details of your actions, when you had to quickly make difficult decisions?

What was the process for you? How did you make these decisions? Did you discuss them with people you trust to understand how to respond to this invasion in every technical, political, and military aspect? What was the process for you? How did you make the decision?

#456

According to our legislation, in principle, I'm the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, so I had to give the corresponding orders. I had a military office, and later there was a military headquarters where all the key people gathered. This isn't only about the military; it's about energy, et cetera—all the key things.

At that moment, I made the decisions quickly and without a doubt. I cannot say that I'm just that kind of person. I'm a living person who believed that if help was needed right then, we had to help evacuate people and help with children. Several cities were blocked. I was only thinking about how to deliver food there within a day.

We did a lot of things, although we understood that they had, in fact, occupied a part of our state. We distributed weapons to people. That's how it was. Trucks came and simply distributed weapons to people so that they could defend the capital—to ordinary people, just on the street, to ordinary people who understood that if the Russians entered the city, we would have the same thing happening in other cities, according to the information we received.

Thanks to digitalization, by the way. We had very good digitalization before this, and we preserved a lot. Even when they were surrounding certain cities, a lot of things still worked: the banking system, the internet, and television. Thanks to this, I made several decisions to ensure that people were united and had all the information.

Russia is very good at spreading large-scale disinformation. Fortunately, I have 2 decades of experience managing a production studio, TV channels, and large media resources. I understood that we needed to build an information network very quickly. Thanks to this, I began to address the people constantly. This happened 3 to 5 times a day.

In fact, I became that information source for people who were in cities that were cut off from other information. It was very important for me to keep everything digital—to keep the internet and stay in touch with everyone, with all the people. Initially, that's the contact we had. Then we also built a media platform where we had all the news agencies of Ukraine. This network was called “Marathon.”

It was also very important for people to trust us and receive information. Why? There were waves of Russian disinformation on the first day saying, “He ran away.” I had to go out into the street. I left the office and went outside. I had to do this because I was showing that this was not a green screen, to show that it was the street, not some digital manipulation.

I did these things. Then I touched various objects. Now people might think that these are small things, but I was actually showing that I was in a real place. All of this had an impact. I was absolutely sure of my actions. I had several contacts.

Then I spoke to the Russians. I addressed Russians. I really did. Only after that did I gather everyone. It was the first day when I invited all the journalists here, wasn't it? That was on the first day, I think—not here, here, but at the press center in this building.

I talked to journalists and asked them not to leave, because we needed weapons. At that moment, they were handing out rifles to people. For me, journalists and media platforms were essential voices. There were various journalists from different countries here, and they were essentially stuck.

I asked them for contacts—those who had access to Russians, Belarusians, and Kazakhs who understood everything and had the same information. I spoke to them in Russian. I told them, “You must stop Putin. This is terrible. This is horror. This is war. You must stop him. If you stand up now, if you speak out, and if you go out into the streets…”

This was very important. I spoke to them in Russian to show them that there was no problem and that all of these pretexts were made up. This is why it's so painful to talk about the Russian language, too, because, look, if a person does not want to listen, they will not listen no matter what language we speak.

Lex Fridman

I disagree with you here. I think and hope that many people in Russia will hear us today.

#456

They blocked YouTube recently. Are you aware of this? In their country.

Lex Fridman

I know. I simply guarantee that this conversation will travel fast on the internet. Everyone will hear you, including the president of Russia. This is why I have hope.

#456

He is actually deaf. Even if he speaks to you, he is deaf by his very nature. Do you understand the difference? For instance, when you talk to Musk, you're talking to an innovator, a scientist, about rockets, how to save on costs, and how they land.

On the other hand, Putin doesn't launch rockets to save money but to kill people. Do you think you can talk to Putin about technology? Your guys were interviewing him, and he told them about tribal history. Do you understand? Imagine a Russian man in his country listening to him.

You know what Musk is about: technology, Mars, artificial intelligence. And this guy, Putin, is standing there bare-assed, pontificating about tribes. You've got to understand: you think that when you do interviews, like Mr. Carlson, who did an interview there, you're about to “make them friends.” How could you? What does this have to do with friends? He's different. He is simply different.

Lex Fridman

But it's still necessary.

#456

A mammoth stands before you.

Lex Fridman

By the way, I must say that when you said “bare-assed,” it was not translated. Could the interpreter please translate?

#456

This is so that you can understand.

Lex Fridman

Thank you. Now he explained everything to me; I understand.

#456

Yeah? That's great.

Lex Fridman

Now I fully understand.

#456

That's great.

Lex Fridman

Anyway, we still need to talk.

#456

One should always speak with someone who listens. You must speak when you know that this will benefit you and bring peace and calm to the world, not the other way around. I love President Trump's message when he speaks. I think that we share a position on peace through strength. That is very important.

It means that if you are strong, you can speak. We need to be strong, and Ukraine has to be strong—strong enough. Otherwise, what for? So, he—you know who, like Voldemort, who must not be named—is like Voldemort. He thrives, subsists, and lives on being subjectivized.

Instead of isolation, he is offered a chance to step out into the light. He's darkness personified, and you offer him, as it were, to be subjectivized. Why? There's only one reason: fear. And you say we need to talk.

Listen, we need to be in a strong position—not talk, but end the war. Yes, it is possible through dialogue. We're not opposed to it. You just need to be in a strong position to make the other person want it. Do you think he wants to end the war? That's what you suggested.

I think this is naive. I'm sorry. With all due respect, it's naive to think he wants to finish the war.

Lex Fridman

Tell you what: under the circumstances—

#456

Sorry for interrupting. There's something we need. I think that President Trump not only has the will. He has all these possibilities, and it's not just talk. I really count on him, and I think that our people really count on him.

He has enough power to pressure him—to pressure Putin—not into wanting to stop it. No, he will not want to. To pressure him to actually stop it. That is the difference. Don't rely on Putin's will to stop. You won't see it. That's what I think. Sorry.

Lex Fridman

No, sorry, I interrupted you first. But what I would want—I do have what some might call a naive dream of you sitting down with Putin and Trump and negotiating a deal about a ceasefire, and together finding a path to long-term peace.

I think this requires strength, requires negotiations. There are a lot of carrots and sticks here that can be used to make a real deal. Trump is very keen on making a deal and ready to negotiate.

#456

Can I ask you a question?

Lex Fridman

Yeah?

#456

I just really want you and me to be on the same page. It's very important to be in the same information space. Extremely important. Let's talk a bit about the ceasefire. Let me describe the situation to you.

In December 2019, in Normandy, in Paris, at the Élysée Palace, Macron, Merkel, Putin, and I agreed on the ceasefire. The US wasn't there, and this, by the way, was a weak point of the meeting. If you'd like, we can later discuss why they weren't there. It's a security guarantee thing in general, it's Germany's position, et cetera.

We agreed on an exchange of hostages, an all-for-all exchange. We made a deal to exchange everyone for everyone. I think you know that. There was also a meeting that lasted many hours, where we made a deal with him. Everyone was tired; it was just the 2 of us in the end, and I proposed a ceasefire.

By the way, no one in Ukraine believed in the ceasefire; few believed in it. He wanted a troop withdrawal. I calculated that if there were a withdrawal of troops from the line of contact the way the Russians proposed, it would take 20 years. I proved it to him just in terms of time: square kilometers, namely the length of the line of contact, or delimitation line.

We agreed on what I told him: it would not work out. But I had many points because I was deeply involved in the issue. I was involved very deeply. It's my thing in general. If I start doing something, I can't stand there like that guy I spoke about, with my ass out, you know? I must be dressed, I must be prepared. I must be prepared better than anyone in front of me.

You do sports, right?

Lex Fridman

Mhm.

#456

I practiced for many years. We know what fights are like, what boxing is, what Thai boxing is. This is what I did, and I loved it very much. When you step into the ring, you understand everything, pretty much.

Lex Fridman

Mhm.

#456

And so I stepped into it, and I was definitely well prepared. But he wasn't. He was not deeply involved in the process. What border? Where is it? How long will it take to disengage troops?

And why wasn't he involved? You want to know? Because he wasn't going to do any of this. This is what confused me. If you are not deeply involved in the issue, well, then it's as if you don't really need the result. That's what I think.

So what happened? We agreed that there would be gas transit. In 2019, we agreed with him. This was security for Europe. Merkel asked me for it, and this was extremely important for Germany. We agreed with him.

Secondly, we agreed on an exchange. For him, it was just money. For me, this was the most important thing. For them, gas was important; for me, it was the people. This is a fact, because I wanted to have a humanitarian advantage, so that there would be further meetings that would lead to sustained peace.

And third: the ceasefire. The ceasefire you spoke about. What happened? The gas contract was signed because he needed it. By the way, he knew everything about it. As for the exchange, we took the first step and exchanged the people.

Regarding the ceasefire, they started killing us in about a month. So I called him, and I told him, “We agreed on a ceasefire, didn’t we? Well, it wasn't a piece of toilet paper, was it? This is serious business, or so it seemed. It really was serious. Merkel, Macron, you and I, we all agreed on this together.”

“A ceasefire is important, isn't it? Not for New Year's, because everyone was celebrating New Year's. And now they're offering us a Christmas ceasefire. It's all the same: a ceasefire for 2 or 3 days, just to get some praise. But this isn't a performance, this isn't some kind of theater. No, this is about people's lives.”

After that, I called him a few more times. I think I only had 2 or 3 calls with him in total. I asked him for a ceasefire. He told me, “It couldn't be. We will figure it out now.”

People from the occupied territory—Russians and separatists—were all there together. They continued to shoot and kill our people. Yes, the front lines were quiet, but they killed people. They were killing people, and I kept calling him. I called again and again, but there was nothing.

After a few months, the Russians stopped answering the phone. We did not have any contact after that. I wanted another meeting, like we had in Normandy. I wanted the next meeting to find a solution. But the Russians refused.

We tried to make it happen through various European countries, and not only European countries, but the Russians refused. They passed along some kind of bullshit and made excuses—they didn't want it. Meanwhile, they were sending their snipers.

We had evidence—living proof, even video evidence—because some of them were captured back then. Those were snipers in training. They were training them. Later, those snipers operated in Syria and Africa. These snipers were training in our country, in the east.

Ukrainians were living targets. They were shooting from the other side, killing people, women, and children. They were shooting. It was a hunt. By the way, it was in the Russian-speaking region, in the east, where according to him everyone speaks Russian. That's where they were shooting, where the situation is currently the most tense. They killed people.

We sent this information and pictures to the UN and everywhere. We worked very hard, very persistently. I met with everyone, but who thought of Ukraine back then? They didn't notice it much. They didn't pay much attention to Crimea being illegally occupied either, and, to be honest, neither did the United States of America. Everyone was somewhat silent about this issue.

That's how it was before a full-scale war. I want to ask you a question about the ceasefire. For example, in Mariupol today, there are American and Ukrainian journalists. Everyone who had contact with Mariupol, or has contact with Mariupol now, will tell you who fled from there in the last minutes just before the occupation, or who was able to leave and escape after the occupation.

Mstyslav Chernov, who won an Oscar, was among them. The journalists who left Mariupol are here. By the way, we had a conversation. They will tell you that 20,000 or 30,000 civilians were tortured and buried there. We do not know the number of victims: people who didn't want to work with them, who refused to cooperate with them, people who went on strikes to protest, and people who did not want to work with the Russians who occupied Mariupol.

And this is just 1 example, with this city. I have a question for you: What about the millions of children? I will ask you in Russian so that you hear this without delay. What about the millions of children over there?

What if we just arranged a ceasefire without understanding what would happen next, without understanding what would happen to Ukraine's security guarantees? What about the millions of children in the occupied territories? What should I tell them? What am I to tell them? What is it I should tell them? What? Whatever? “Hey, all of you over there—see ya.”

And those tens of thousands of people buried there—is that what we want? Are we ready to forgive them for this? We must at least take the first step. If this is a ceasefire, we must know that there is a security guarantee for the part of Ukraine under our control. We need it so that he will not come back. This is very important.

And what do we say to the people who live in those territories? These are millions of people. Did you know that since 2014, in Donetsk and Crimea—and this is happening in Melitopol and Berdyansk now—they have been making all these kids of draft age go and fight? If they don't go, they will be killed. Do you understand what's happening?

That is why a ceasefire—everything I said. What I wish for, and what I believe in, is President Trump's power to use all of this information to come up with a way to make Ukraine strong and be strong. Why am I saying that? I will give you an example.

President Trump will be in the same situation as I was in 2019, precisely the same situation. I want to end the war. We want a lasting peace for Ukraine. We must do this: the ceasefire, exchange people, and then diplomatically return all territories. We will do this through diplomacy.

What will happen next with President Trump? If the ceasefire happens without security guarantees, at least for the territory we control, what does he get? If he manages to make a ceasefire deal and 3 months later Putin launches a new wave of attacks, what will Trump look like? What will Ukraine look like? What will everyone look like?

Putin will just do it. And why would Putin do it? Because today he is afraid of Trump. But once Trump manages, for example, to make a ceasefire deal without serious security guarantees for Ukraine, he will give Putin a pass. Not that he wants to. No, he does not want that. I believe in what he says. But he will give Putin an opportunity, because in Putin's head, he wants me to fight with Trump.

Putin's plan is to end the occupation of our territory. This is in his sick head, and I am absolutely sure of this. That is why I told you: Don't wait for Putin to want to stop the war. Pressure him so that he is forced to stop the war. That's important.

Lex Fridman

It's important to say that what you said about the children is a tragedy. War is hell. But let me say again: We must find a path to peace.

#456

There is one.

Lex Fridman

What is it?

#456

There is one. Before a ceasefire: strong Ukraine. A strong Ukrainian position. We can speak about it with Trump. For me, we can speak about security guarantees. But a quick step—a quick step—is NATO, partial membership in NATO.

Lex Fridman

Yes, I understand. I understand Trump's feelings about NATO. I heard him. He's thinking through all of it, of course.

#456

But anyway, yes, NATO is a strong security guarantee for all the people, for us. It's part of the security guarantees. The second part is the arms aid package, which we will not use if a ceasefire works. Nobody will use the weapons. For what? But it has to stay.

With all due respect to the United States and to the administration, not like before. I don't want the same situation as we had with Biden. I ask for sanctions now, please, and weapons now. Then we will see.

If they start it again, of course we'll be happy if you'll give us more and stand with us shoulder to shoulder. Of course, that is right. But it's different when you have weapons. Putin wouldn't have been able to occupy so much territory.

It was very difficult for us to push him out. But we didn't have weapons before, and that can be the same situation again. I'm just sharing this with you. Like I said at the very beginning, I want to be very honest with you and with your audience: If we do not have security guarantees, Putin will come again.

Lex Fridman

To make it clear, let's describe the idea that you are speaking about. I would like to offer you other ideas too, but right now, your idea is that NATO accepts Ukraine minus the 5 regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and Crimea.

#456

Just so you understand the situation, the invitation to NATO is legally issued to Ukraine. So, to us, all those territories are still Ukraine. But NATO, so far, can only act in the part that is under Ukrainian control. This can be negotiated, I am sure about that. Yes, this would not be a great success for us, but if we see a diplomatic way to end the war, this is one of the ways.

So, sorry, that is a start. Secondly, weapons: an arms aid package. I am not ready to discuss this publicly right now. It's all written down, and President Trump might have seen it or not. But we've got no secrets from him.

Lex Fridman

Yes.

#456

Mostly, it depends on the willingness of the United States, because some of it will come from the EU and some from the United States, of course, together. So, not just from the United States.

Lex Fridman

No, no, no. We need unity with this package.

#456

So, the package and sanctions.

Lex Fridman

Yes, sanctions.

#456

But I think it's in the interest of all the smart people not to have Russian energy on the market in general. He has to stop it. That's all. American oil and American gas are okay. Why not? And it's cheaper, so it will be cheaper for the whole world. The money will go to the United States, and I think he will be happy. The president and your people will be happy. But it's your decision. I'm just sharing.

Lex Fridman

Yes, and cheap oil.

#456

So Putin won't have so much money for the war. And that's it.

Lex Fridman

But this is difficult because it's a lot. You're saying to continue the sanctions on Russia and to accept Ukraine into NATO. I need to ask you some difficult questions about this.

#456

Yes, go on.

Lex Fridman

I trust and respect your words today. Many people respect and love you in America. Trump respects you.

#456

Loves me?

Lex Fridman

Oh, come on now. Remember, last time you corrected me when I said that you love Javier Milei. You said, “No, no, no. I respect him.” So let's not talk about love today. But could we talk seriously about guaranteeing Russia's security?

#456

Okay, can I interview you a little? The question is: What land is the war happening on, and where did it start? On our soil, on our territory. International law was violated, the sovereignty of our country was violated, civilians were killed, and tens of thousands of our people were taken hostage. Everyone will tell you this happened. This is what happened.

When I speak with the Global South, which is trying to balance the 2 sides because of history, because of their roots, and because of their shared economic interests with Russia in the past—and now, of course, when you talk to them—they are speaking a little bit like you. They're balancing a little bit.

Lex Fridman

Yeah, a little bit in between.

#456

But we will work on it.

Lex Fridman

Yeah.

#456

It's our first meeting. During the second one, you will be more on our side.

Lex Fridman

Yeah.

#456

But it's just—

Lex Fridman

You're very convincing.

#456

We will see.

Lex Fridman

Very charismatic.

#456

Yeah, thank you. But when I speak with them, it's very important. Even with their balancing attitude toward the war, they all recognize that this is a war. This is not just an internal conflict. This is a full-scale war that Putin began.

All of them, if you talk to them, say, “Mm-hmm.” But then they all recognize that it's his own big mistake—Putin's mistake—and that he's not right. That's why I said, “No, no, he's not right.” You have to begin from this.

If you begin in the middle between Ukraine and Russia, of course we can speak like this. You are in the middle and say, “Okay, what's going on? There is a fight.” Where is the fight? It's not a fight like in Europe when Napoleon is fighting against somebody in the middle of Europe. No, this is not in the middle of somewhere on the planet. It's concretely on our land. One country, with one army, one person, came to another. That's it. It's very clear.

Lex Fridman

Again, I would like us to find a path to peace. So let us nevertheless try to start in the middle. What other ideas do you think might— You are a very intelligent person, and—

#456

Your Russian isn't that good either! And I told you—

Lex Fridman

Yes.

#456

—that this is only our first meeting.

Lex Fridman

My English is not very good either.

#456

Your English is very good.

Lex Fridman

Thank you. To be honest, I'm terrible at speaking in every language. Well, there are other ideas. For instance—sorry to say this, it sounds crazy, but—

#456

Please.

Lex Fridman

What if both Ukraine and Russia are accepted into NATO?

#456

Putin himself spoke about Russia, maybe about NATO. What you just said is very correct. What are the guarantees for Russia? It's not like I'm even interested in what happens to them. To be honest, I don't care what will happen to them in the future after the war ends. But these are our borders, and we must understand what is going on there.

The NATO guarantees for Ukraine are actually also a security guarantee for the Russians. Frankly, I talked about this many times before. Sorry, I'm speaking figuratively, but as an example, if you were a father who lost his children—a grown man, an adult—and the war has ended, and he never got justice, for real.

For example, somebody decides to freeze support: “We won't give you anything. You can't fight. You can't continue.” So we stop when we stop, without any guarantees, without any support, without financing, without—

Lex Fridman

Okay.

#456

—and nobody is held accountable. But the man lost his children. He will not get anything. None of the killers will be in prison. All the sanctions will be removed, and he lost his children.

Why do you think they will not go to Russia? They will find a way and will kill the Russian soldiers there, or somebody there. Why wouldn't they? It's human nature. It's not about us. It's everyone.

Read American writers. Always after any war, if there is no justice for people, there must be punishment for the crime. It is only justice. How come my child was taken away? The war took him. This is very scary.

And even whether it was my son who was fulfilling his constitutional duty or simply a missile that struck a civilian child, if there is no justice and the killers are not punished, why wouldn't these people come back with hate? They will definitely come back.

So when we talk about NATO, NATO is not only stopping Russia. Do not forget, NATO is stopping us too, because there will not be justice for everyone. We know that NATO does not have the right to solve certain issues with war. NATO is a security alliance. It is protection, not brainwashing.

What Putin claims—that this is offensive—is not true. NATO is a defensive alliance, a security alliance, and it is security for Russia.

Lex Fridman

But unfortunately, there are many options for peace that don't involve NATO inviting Ukraine as a member. Can you imagine security guarantees without NATO membership? For example, if America simply leaves NATO? I believe there is a high likelihood that Donald Trump would do such a thing.

#456

I think it's very bad for NATO. That's the end. That is the death of NATO. It is a pity, because I think that it's a very good alliance. Maybe not everything is good there—the bureaucracy or money, et cetera—but countries that are in NATO don't fight. There is no war on the land of any of these NATO countries. I think that is the answer. It works, or it doesn't. It works politically or militarily. I don't know, but it works.

Without Trump, without the United States of America, there will not be NATO. That is the first. So, you say, can we imagine that—what?

Lex Fridman

That there could be security guarantees without—

#456

No, we don't need guarantees without the United States. That's it, because the United States is a very strong, powerful country. The United States puts the point.

Of course, Putin said that it's just the Soviet Union, where, by the way, Ukraine was the second-strongest republic militarily. Yes, by the way, but he, of course, always forgets about it.

During World War II, without the help of the United States, the support of your troops, the support of your industry—industrially, militarily—without your money and without your people, Hitler could have won. The United States helped Europe, the USSR, and everybody a lot. Of course, everybody fought and everybody did a lot, but without the United States, it couldn't have been such—I don't use the word “success,” because I think that there is no war which ends successfully. This was a war, with 7-figure losses, heavy losses in World War II, and millions of people. That's why, without the United States, security guarantees are not possible—security guarantees that can prevent Russian aggression.

Of course, we have security guarantees bilaterally with some countries: financing, support of our internal military, defense, humanitarian issues, and demining, which is very important. We have help for our children in the school networks, by the way. This is a very sensitive point. How many bomb shelters have we built with our partners for the children?

It's a pity that they are underground, but can you imagine their eyes when they came back after COVID? You understand what COVID means, but they had COVID and the war, and together they didn't see each other for so many years. When they saw each other, even underground, they were very happy and smiling.

So we have such security guarantees, but it's not enough to prevent aggression. Yes, preventive measures also work.

To prevent Putin’s aggression. To stop it.

Lex Fridman

Your English is better than my Russian. This is wonderful.

#456

I’m not sure.

Lex Fridman

I’m just giving you a compliment.

#456

Thank you. No, no, thank you.

Lex Fridman

You’re supposed to do that kind of thing to a president.

#456

Thank you so much.

Lex Fridman

Okay. Once again: without NATO guarantees, I have a dream that, let’s say, on January 25—or sometime at the end of January this year—you will sit down with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and together negotiate a ceasefire with strict security guarantees. An agreement will be signed. What will this look like without NATO?

#456

I will make it clear. First of all, I think January 25—or some other day. You just call it January 25, and I don’t mind; it’s my birthday. We sit down, first of all, with Trump. We agree with him on how we can stop the war and stop Putin.

It is important for us to sit down with him. Secondly, it is very important for us that Europe, which is very important for us because we are part of Europe—not only geographically and geopolitically, but also in the European Union, where we will be—also has a voice. It’s the second thing.

It won’t take long, because Europe will be looking at us and will be looking at Trump. By the way, I now see that when I talk about something with Donald Trump, whether we meet in person or simply have a call, all the European leaders always ask, “How was it?” This shows the influence of Donald Trump, and this has never happened before with an American president, I tell you from my experience.

This also gives you confidence that he can stop this war. That is why Trump and I come first, and Europe will support Ukraine’s position because they understand that Ukraine has every right to have its voice heard in this, because we are at war.

Trump and I will come to an agreement, and then, if—I am sure that he can offer strong security guarantees together with Europe—then we can talk to the Russians. That’s right. It’s not just the 3 of us sitting down at once.

Lex Fridman

You still talk to me as if Putin wants to sit down and talk, but Ukraine does not.

#456

This is not true.

Lex Fridman

I think that, yes, he is in fact ready to talk.

#456

Did you talk to him?

Lex Fridman

On the phone or what?

#456

How do you normally talk to him?

Lex Fridman

I don’t know, normally by the sea, the same as with you.

#456

He invites you to the sea with me, just the 3 of us.

Lex Fridman

No, no. One of us may drown.

#456

Who? Are you good at swimming?

Lex Fridman

Yes, I’m a good swimmer.

#456

You’re a good swimmer? Well…

Lex Fridman

I would like to add that if you have any contact with him, I just want to hear what happens then.

#456

I have never talked to Vladimir Putin. But I have a feeling that he is ready because Donald Trump is ready. I hope you’re ready. And this is not just a feeling, but a dream.

I have a dream that the 3 of you will get together in a room, make peace, and I will understand what it looks like—what security guarantees look like that would satisfy Ukraine and Russia.

Lex Fridman

Ukraine needs security guarantees, first and foremost.

#456

We are in danger. That is why they are called security guarantees. This is no joke to me.

Let’s take a few steps back. Why are security guarantees, a strong position for Ukraine, strong weapons, and so on, so important? I will give you a little history lesson, although I think you have prepared yourself and know everything perfectly. You can correct me on that.

Ukraine had security guarantees: the Budapest Memorandum. Nuclear weapons were the security guarantees that Ukraine had. Ukraine had nuclear weapons. I do not want to characterize it as good or bad. Today, the fact that we do not have them is bad. Why? Because this is war.

Today we are at war because you have unleashed the hands of a nuclear power. A nuclear power is fighting against us, against Ukraine, and doing what it wants.

By the way, even you are now talking about a ceasefire—just a ceasefire. Maybe give flowers to Putin, maybe say, “Thank you so much for these years. That was a great part of my life.” No, we are not ready for this.

Why? The Budapest Memorandum. Nuclear weapons. This is what we had. Ukraine used them for protection. This does not mean that someone attacked us or that we would have used them. We had that opportunity. These were our security guarantees.

Why am I talking about this in detail? Because if you take the Budapest Memorandum, by the way, I discussed this with President Trump. We have not finished this conversation yet; we will continue it.

The Budapest Memorandum included security guarantees for Ukraine. At first, there were 3—the 3 most important security guarantors for Ukraine: 3 strategic friends and partners of Ukraine. This was in the agreement: the United States of America, Russia, and Britain. France and China joined. There were 5 states.

These are not even security guarantees. We now understand that this is not a guarantee of security. Because, on the one hand, these are called security guarantees, but there was an English word, as far as I understand: “assurance.”

Lex Fridman

It is translated as “assurance,” right?

#456

And in Russian it will be…

Lex Fridman

Assurance.

#456

That is, give up nuclear weapons because you were under pressure from the United States and Russia to give them up. These 2 powers were exerting pressure. These 2 states negotiated to ensure that Ukraine did not have nuclear weapons. Ukraine agreed.

These are the largest states. This is the nuclear 5 that does not even provide security guarantees. Now we just need to find these people and put in jail all of those who, frankly, invented all this.

So, confidence? Assurance. Assurance that Ukraine would be territorially integral and retain its sovereignty. It was a piece of paper.

If you are curious, after occupying part of our Donbas and Crimea, Ukraine sent diplomats 3 times—I don’t think I remember exactly, but 3 times within a few years. We sent letters to all the security guarantors, to all the members of the Budapest Memorandum.

What did they send? What was written on the piece of paper: consultations. Ukraine holds consultations if its territorial integrity is violated, and everyone should be in consultation. Everyone must come. Everyone must meet urgently: the United States, Britain, Russia, France, and China.

Did anyone come, you ask? No. Did anyone reply to these official letters? They are all recorded by diplomats. Did anyone conduct consultations? No. And why not? They didn’t give a damn.

This is understandable in Russian, right? Russia didn’t give a damn, and neither did all the other security guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum. None of them gave a damn about this country, these people, these security guarantees, and so on.

This is the Budapest Memorandum. The last time I talked about it—imagine how many years ago—was in February 2022. In February 2022, the war began—a full-scale war. Letters requesting consultations had been sent. No one answered.

Lex Fridman

The question is simple about the Budapest Memorandum: can we trust this?

#456

No. Whichever country out of these 5 sat at the negotiating table, it was just a piece of paper. Believe me, we will say no.

Another: this is a train, a train with waste paper—with security guarantees—which Ukraine has been riding for many years. The second car on this train is the Minsk agreements.

The Normandy format and the Minsk agreements: the United States of America was no longer there. I understand that Obama was president at the time. As far as I know, they were simply not interested in what happened to Ukraine, where it was in general, or where it was located. Well, somewhere there. Part of something. People—well, people—and let it be. Let it be with these people.

The United States simply did not participate in the Minsk agreements. There are no claims against the United States because they were not guarantors. Where is the claim?

A step back: 2008, Bucharest. Everyone had already learned from the Budapest Memorandum. Bucharest, 2008. George W. Bush, President of the United States, says that Ukraine should be in NATO. This is the voice of the Republicans. Check it out: Ukraine should be in NATO.

Everybody is looking at the United States. Always. All in favor. Who is against? Merkel. So she opposed it. She forced everyone not to give Ukraine an invitation to join NATO because that would be a step.

Seriously, the Republicans were in favor. The United States was in favor because the Republicans and Bush were not afraid of anyone. They were not afraid of anyone, and they knew that Ukraine rightly wanted to join NATO. It chooses for itself. And what is the question? People made their choice.

Well? The Russians would not look at it that way. That was not the case then. Why? Because the Russians were different.

Next: Minsk. We didn’t succeed. After the Minsk agreements, as I told you, hundreds of meetings were held. I have had hundreds of meetings since 2019. We could not agree on a ceasefire.

A ceasefire was our offer. This was not somebody else’s suggestion. This was mine. I wanted it.

In Ukraine, society was divided. Not everyone wanted it. Half were against it; half were in favor. Some shouted, “Do not believe it.” Some shouted, “Believe it.”

I am the president of Ukraine. I was given a mandate of trust by 70% of the population to take appropriate steps, and I took them. This is not a joke. We cannot simply sit down, the 3 of us.

I am simply telling you what is. These meetings must be serious and prepared with those who want peace. Ukraine wants peace. The United States wants peace. We have to sit down with Trump, and that is 100%, first and foremost.

Moreover, he told me on the phone that he is waiting for us to meet, and there will be an official visit. My visit would be the first, or one of the first, to him.

And for him, this topic is very important. I know that he has his own matters and American issues; I understand. I heard his election program, but regarding international affairs, I think our issue is one of the most pressing issues for President Trump. Therefore, I trust his words very much, and I hope we will meet again.

We need to prepare. We have many plans to build on, and they exist and are supported by many countries, but we need his vision. He needs to look at all these details, but his vision, please. Because he can stop Putin, because Putin is afraid of him. That’s a fact.

But Trump is the president of a democratic country, and he does not come for life. He is not Putin. He will not come for 25 years; he will come for his term. Please tell me, for example, he came for 4 years, and in the 5th year Putin came with a war. Will it make Trump feel better that there was no war during his time and that Ukraine was destroyed after him?

Why would it be destroyed? Putin is many things—a killer, whatever—but he is not a fool. He will be prepared. He knows all the mistakes. He understands how we defeated his army after the invasion began. He realized that this was not a Soviet war and that this would not happen with us. He will prepare. He will put everything into arms production. He will have lots of weapons, and there will be a very large army.

Do you think that after such humiliation—4 years without a war, when he did not finish us—he will return and fight only against Ukraine? He will destroy everything around him. And if you say that there is a risk that President Trump will withdraw from NATO, for example, this is a decision of the United States. I am simply saying that if it does, Putin will destroy Europe.

Calculate the size of the army in Europe. I’m saying this for a reason. Do the calculation. Why did Hitler conquer almost all of Europe? Just count—remember his armies of millions. Calculate what Europe has. What are the largest armies? We have the largest army. The Ukrainian army is the largest in Europe. The army in second place is 4 times smaller than ours.

Lex Fridman

France?

#456

Yes, 200,000. I think the French have about 200,000. We have 980,000.

Lex Fridman

So this powerful coalition of European nations—

#456

That will not be enough.

Lex Fridman

Yes, it’s not going to be enough, but you’re a smart man with a lot of ideas. Partnerships with the Global South, India, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia—economic partnerships, political partnerships. It all protects you.

#456

First of all, look at one example: North Korea. Just look at this example. 12,000 have arrived. Today, 3,800 are killed or wounded. They can bring another 30,000 or 40,000, or maybe 500,000. They can bring many people. Why? Because they have order, autocracy, and everything.

Can Europe bring people together? No. Will Europe be able to build an army consisting of 2 or 3 million people? No. Europe will not want to do this. And for what purpose? We definitely don’t want a world war with you. There is no such purpose. We want to stop the Russians.

And they invited North Korean soldiers. Their faces are burned. They burn their own faces so that they are not recognizable—those who cannot escape, whether injured or killed. There is a video. Everything I am telling you has evidence of this.

What does it mean? It is outside the values that Europe shares. Europe counts. It means those guys don’t count. “Rakhuyut.” It means “count,” yes? They don’t count the number of people. That is the answer. Can they move more? Yes. Can they move tens of thousands? Yes, because we see what they have.

Last year, for example, Europe gave us 1 million artillery rounds. We produced a lot ourselves, but they gave us ammunition. It was ammunition—1 million artillery rounds of 155 and so on. We produced more. But North Korea gave Putin 3.7 million. They just gave them to him. So he also has a deficit today. This means he needs what? He needs time.

Lex Fridman

But the number of soldiers—

#456

Yes.

Lex Fridman

And the number of artillery rounds is not everything. As you said, let’s say Trump guarantees security for 4 years. You can form partnerships with India and Saudi Arabia that enforce punishment—the stick—on oil prices, for example, if any aggressive action is taken.

You can actually build great companies. I’ve met a lot of incredible Ukrainian tech people, IT people. You can build great companies that form partnerships with the United States and with China. And that is significant leverage against aggression, regardless of how many million artillery rounds there are. You don’t need a sheet of paper for protection.

#456

Ah, that’s—

Lex Fridman

In English.

#456

In English, yeah. You don’t even need answers because when you were talking, you already answered all the questions.

The first one is that during this time, you need cooperation and a lot of money for the military industry—in Ukraine or in Europe, with India, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. You need a lot of money. So the question is, where will you get it?

My answer to Trump was: This is one of the security guarantees. Take $300 billion of frozen Russian assets. We will take it. Take the money we need for our domestic production, and we will buy all the weapons from the United States.

We don’t need gifts from the United States. It will be very good for your industry, for the United States. We will put money there—Russian money, not Ukrainian, not European. Russian money. Russian assets. They have to pay for this. We will put it there and make it happen. Is this one of the security guarantees? Yes, of course, because this is a military guarantee. Yes.

Then the second thing you said was that energy prices and many sanctions on products, the Russian shadow fleet, and so on—that is the second answer we spoke about before. Yes, put more sanctions on them. More sanctions. It’s okay—but do not lift sanctions.

Lex Fridman

It’s okay.

#456

It’s okay with you, but it’s not going to be okay with the president of Russia.

Lex Fridman

Yes, but I’m not thinking about how it will be very good for him. He’s still a killer.

I understand, but unfortunately, the reality is that a compromise is needed in order to reach an agreement.

#456

So, in your understanding, the fact that he is not jailed after all the murders—and no one in the world is able to put him in his place, to send him to prison—do you think this is a small compromise?

Lex Fridman

This is not a small compromise. And to forgive him will not be a small compromise.

#456

To forgive him? No one will forgive him. This is absolutely impossible. We cannot get into the head and soul of a person who lost their family. Nobody will ever accept this. It is absolutely impossible.

I don’t know, do you have children?

Lex Fridman

No, not yet.

#456

Okay.

Lex Fridman

But I would like to.

#456

Yes. God bless. And this is the most important thing in life. They simply took away the most precious thing from you.

Will you ask who ruined your life before going to rip their head off? I’m just curious. They took your child away. Are you going to ask who did this? And they will answer, “That dude did this.” You will say, “Oh, well, then there are no questions.”

No. No, you will go—fucking hell—and bite their head off. And it will be fair. Can murderers be forgiven? That’s why you make security guarantees for those who are here, as I told you, for what we control, and to ensure that it will not happen.

And those who were lost, we will never forget. It’s a matter of time. But when you give us NATO, I’m just saying that this means that, after a while, Ukraine will not go against Russia, and Russia will not go against Ukraine because you are in NATO. I’m just saying, isn’t that a compromise?

So NATO is a compromise, in my opinion. This is not just a security guarantee.

Look, when rockets were attacking Israel, Israel was not in NATO. NATO countries’ aircraft were deployed. Air defense worked, operated by different Middle Eastern countries. These are also security guarantees.

And, by the way, Israel has nuclear weapons. So why do they need NATO when, in fact, they have more than NATO has?

Lex Fridman

The American, British, and French aviation stepped in. There was air defense—I don’t remember—from Jordan. Listen, thousands of missiles were shot down that way.

#456

What is this? This is a guarantee of safety. It’s just that it’s not called NATO. Is some Uncle Vova irritated by the word NATO? Is there a problem with the word? I think he is simply irritated by people who are alive and living here.

Lex Fridman

If you believe this, it will be very difficult to negotiate. If you think that the president of a country is completely crazy, it is really hard to come to an agreement with him. You have to look at him as a serious person who loves his country and loves the people in his country. And he conducts, yes, destructive military actions.

#456

Who are you talking about now? Who loves his country?

Lex Fridman

Putin. Do you think he doesn’t love his country?

#456

No. What is his country? He happened to consider Ukraine his country. What is his country? Explain it. Tomorrow he will say that it's America.

No pity for the Chechens? Do they look like Russians? Do they speak Russian? Of course, they learn in schools, like anywhere there has been Russification. Who are the Chechens? A different people. Another faith. Other people. Another language. A million eliminated.

And eliminated how? How did he kill them? With love? I know—by hugging, of course. In Ukrainian, as we say: strangling by hugging. “I love you so, so much. I love you so much that I want to kill you.” That’s his love. And that’s not love. You’re mistaken.

He does not love his people. He loves his inner circle. It’s only a small part of the people. He doesn’t love them. Why? I’ll explain. You cannot send your people to another land to die, knowing that they will die.

Children. My daughter is 20 years old. For me, this is a child. She is already an adult, of course, but she is a child.

The boys he sends are 18 years old. They are children. He sends them. It's not that fascists came to his land and he needs to defend it. He came to ours and sent them.

Chechnya—he sent them. Syria—he sent them. Africa—he sent them. Georgia—he sent them. Moldova, Transnistria—that was before him. Fine, we can leave that aside; he has enough sins of his own.

And then there's Ukraine, the largest part: 780,000—788,000 killed or wounded Russians. He calls them all Russians, even those on the territory of Russia who don't know how to speak Russian. Everything they've enslaved. Yes. Proud Varangians.

So I wonder, is that love? What love is this, and for what? Does he love his people? No. Does he love his land? His country is bigger than America. How much land do you need? America is huge. America is simply an outstanding country. Russia is bigger. Well, just bigger.

So ask yourself: Does he love them? What is he doing, and what does he love? Do you think he's been everywhere in his Russia? It's impossible to get around it. He hasn't been everywhere. He just hasn't.

Lex Fridman

Well, I believe that Donald Trump loves America, and I don't think he has been to every single American city.

#456

I'm sure.

Lex Fridman

No, no, no—I saw his rallies. So many rallies.

#456

Yes, yes. No, no, let's be honest. Let's be honest. He had it, and I saw it, and it's very difficult. He's not 18, yes, but he's strong, and this is his will. Wherever there is war, I'm sure. I pray to God it never will be on your land, and I'm sure that it will not be, but I'm sure that if you have problems in some region—an earthquake, a hurricane—you have it all—I'm sure that President Trump would be there after 1 day, 2 or 3 days. I don't know the security of all these things, but he will be. Otherwise, how will people look at him? Yes, of course, he will. Of course.

The same about me. I'm not comparing myself with him. I'm just saying that where it is difficult for people, I have to come. The next question is very simple: the Kursk region, the operation there. Was Putin in Kursk during the 4 months?

Lex Fridman

Listen, I have tremendous respect for you and admiration for many reasons, one of which is that you stayed in Kyiv. Another is that you visit the front, talk to the soldiers on the front, and talk to people all across Ukraine. I have absolutely tremendous respect for that.

#456

Thank you so much.

Lex Fridman

Not enough people say that. I had a conversation with Tucker Carlson, for example, and I said that you're a hero for staying in Kyiv. He said, “Well, he just did the thing that every leader should do.” But I think not enough leaders do the thing that every leader should do. So, tremendous respect.

#456

Thank you so much.

Lex Fridman

And I agree with you totally. Yes, a leader should go to the front of a war. That said, America has waged wars all across the world. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost $9 trillion and killed over 1 million people. War is hell. Just because war is waged in terrible ways does not mean the leader does not love their country. But I take your point.

I once again have a dream that even if there's hate, you sit down with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and find a way to peace. Let me ask you a question. What do you think? Will there ever be a day when the Ukrainian people forgive the Russian people, and both peoples travel back and forth again, marry each other, rekindle relationships, and form friendships? Will there be such a time in the future?

#456

I think history has long answered this question. I don't know how it will be for us; it will be in the future. Without a doubt, history has shown this time and again after every devastating war. One generation, one country recognizes that it was an aggressor, and it comes to realize that this is impossible to forgive.

This is precisely the kind of education they've had in Germany for many years, even though these children had nothing to do with it. It was their grandfathers who participated, and not all of them were participants in Nazi Germany's war against, essentially, the world. Yes, and against life.

And therefore, they're still apologizing. Apologizing is not easy. They know that they were the aggressors; they were guilty. They do not look for compromise in history. Compromise, in itself, buys time. And they understand this.

There are convicted murderers, condemned both historically and by their own people. Reparations have been paid, and security guarantees have been established. By the way, all this is done. And when all this is done and recognized, people develop relations with each other. That's clear, but it can only happen the way it always has in history.

Russia will have to apologize. It will. This will happen because they are guilty. They are guilty. And as I told you, the guilty are different: both those who participated and those who remained silent. Because silence is also about participating, in my opinion.

Lex Fridman

Can I ask about Donald Trump? We've already mentioned him a lot, but let's focus there. What do you admire and respect about Donald Trump? And also, why do you think he won the 2024 election so overwhelmingly? Why did the American people choose him?

#456

He was stronger. He was much stronger than Kamala Harris, with Biden first and then Kamala Harris. He showed that he can be strong intellectually and physically. It was an important point to show that if you want to have a strong country, you have to be strong. And he was strong.

This number of rallies, as I said, is not a simple thing. He showed that he can. He is strong. So he doesn't have any questions with his age, et cetera. Nothing. He is young. He is young here, and his brains work. So I think it's important, very important.

And, of course, there were a lot of domestic questions. I understand the prices and so on—economic questions and questions of...

Lex Fridman

Immigration, yeah.

#456

A lot of things. I understand. So maybe he answered those questions that people had.

Lex Fridman

One of the questions...

#456

That he will finish the war.

Lex Fridman

Yeah, for me, this is the main question.

#456

But I said that for him, he's the President of the United States. For him, his priority is his questions in the United States, and I understand and respect it. But the second thing is that he was speaking about the world. He said that he will finish the war, and I hope very much.

Because I think that our people really support his idea. That's why I said it is very, very important for me to have enough people around him who have connections with him and will tell him the right things. For me, the truth is the right thing. What's really going on on the battlefield? What's really going on with Putin and Russia? What does he really want? We need him to know everything from us, from you, from people in Ukraine, and from people around us who are really afraid that Putin doesn't want to stop the war, afraid that he will come back with his aggression.

Lex Fridman

But you said that there are some things about the war that maybe Americans don't understand. We talked about Putin. We talked about the security guarantees, but the reality of war—what's happening on the ground—what do you think people should understand?

#456

First of all, they have to understand the idea of Putin's war. It is very important for him not to give Ukraine independence, to prevent Ukraine from developing as an independent country. For him, influence over Ukraine cannot be lost. For him, this is such a goal in the last mile of his political life, and I think that this is the goal for him.

The second story: I do not want to talk about these banalities—that he wants to return all the territories of the Soviet Union and influence over them. He does this little by little. I just don't want to say that. People need to know the details.

For example, Georgia, which was headed toward the EU and NATO, has completely turned toward Russia, regardless of the fact that they have frozen conflicts. They have Abkhazia, what we have with Donbas, which is controlled by militant rebels. Abkhazia is not developing; it's just a part, a very beautiful part of Georgia, that has died.

If you have the opportunity, go there someday; you will understand. It simply died because Putin wanted it that way. He wanted not to allow them to develop, because a frozen conflict means that you will not be accepted into the EU and certainly will not be accepted into NATO. Right now, they do not take you because of a frozen conflict. And this is what Putin did.

It's very important for him not to lose this influence. He turned Georgia back. Young people, students—everyone leaves, and this is a fact. Georgia is quite small, and they will leave. They want to live in Europe; they want to develop. Somebody goes to the United States, somebody to Europe, somebody to the EU, somebody to Britain.

He will now fight for the Moldovan parliament. This is his second step. You will see in April what happens. You will see—he will start turning Moldova away from Europe. Although they want to go there, he does not care.

There will be a pro-Russian party, and they will do something with the current president because she has won the elections and she is pro-European. But he will turn this back. The next steps are completely clear. He will do everything wherever he has lost influence, where there was influence of the Soviet Union. He’ll turn it back as much as possible.

And we understand at what price. You have seen Syria. You saw these tortures, what we saw in Bucha, what we saw everywhere we came and where our territories were occupied. In Syria, the same happened. There were a thousand people there. And you have seen it: scientists were found, doctors were found.

It is clear that any people who are capable of generating their own opinion, showing their skills, and developing society—everyone who can express an opinion, everyone who can shape the independence and maturity of society—such people are not needed. And he wants this in Ukraine. Therefore, everyone should understand that Ukraine is like a large wall for Europe.

And if, God willing, President Trump does not withdraw from NATO—because, again, I believe that this is the biggest risk—I think there are 2 steps that Putin would like to see: a weak NATO, and this without America, and a weak Ukraine, which cannot survive on the battlefield, simply cannot survive and prevent me from building a strong relationship with Trump.

I think these 2 steps—leaving NATO and Ukraine’s weakness—will lead to a large-scale war, which Putin will wage on all the territories of post-Soviet Europe in order to completely control everything there. This is what he will do. And besides this, this will happen in any case, even if the US is thinking about leaving NATO.

This war will affect the United States because North Korea is the first sign. North Korean skills, North Korean knowledge, which they are now gaining from this war—these include mastering new technologies, large-scale drones, missiles, how it works, the kind of technological war we have today, cyberwar, and so on. All these skills North Korea will bring home and scale up in that region, and this will be a risk for the Pacific region, first and foremost for the security of Japan and South Korea.

They will face these risks 100%, and it will be clear that Taiwan will also have to face them. Without this, it is impossible. This is already happening. Therefore, I think that President Trump has all the power to stop Putin and give Ukraine strong security guarantees.

Lex Fridman

We’ve been talking for 2 hours. Let us pause. Do you want to take a break?

#456

Yeah, we will make a pause.

Lex Fridman

We can have coffee, right? Coffee?

#456

Let’s do it.

Lex Fridman

Yeah.

#456

And give the interpreter—he is struggling.

Lex Fridman

Yeah. Some water. Some water.

#456

We keep switching languages.

Lex Fridman

Like a dragon, you know? 3 heads, 3 translators.

One of the difficult decisions you had to make when the war began was to enact martial law. When you won the presidency, you were the warrior for freedom. In fact, this war is for freedom—for freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom. But a lot of freedoms had to be curtailed, sacrificed in this fight because there’s so much focus on the war. Do you see the tension, do you feel the tension, of that sacrifice that had to be made in democracy and freedom in fighting this war?

#456

In any case, this war is for our freedom. Generally speaking, to be honest, over time, when the war passes, you understand that your main values are at home. This is your home, your children, your love, God willing, your parents are alive, and if they’re not alive, then their memory, visiting their grave.

Choosing how to work, how much to work, preferably choosing where to work—all this is freedom. Freedoms are not just a desire; they are an opportunity. In any case, you are right because war is a limitation of opportunities. In any case, you fight for these opportunities.

Your parents and God gave you life, right? You fight for your life. But we need to understand that first there is a war, and then martial law is introduced. Martial law is not introduced because someone wanted to. You see, this is not Pinochet. This is not Pinochet and so on. This is a completely different story.

An aggressor came, and according to your legislation, if the border is violated, if there is armed aggression, you have all this written down, long ago written out in legislation: you introduce martial law. And the introduction of martial law everywhere, at all times, means in any case a restriction of opportunities. If opportunities are limited, rights and freedoms are restricted. Therefore, the war itself restricts rights and freedoms. You can’t do anything about it.

We try, honestly, to balance as much as possible. I believe that the business sector works despite the difficulties of the war, and we do everything to reduce some of the load. Unfortunately, we cannot reduce taxes. On the contrary, a military tax is used for the war; you need to take money somewhere.

This, by the way, is about the fact that the US gave us a lot, and Europe too. But compared to how much we needed for the war, this is not all. As for military salaries, you know that we could not pay the salaries of a million-strong army using money from our partners. These are all expenses, this is all the money that the country and people have accumulated. You can’t do anything.

I really want to reduce taxes. I will tell you frankly, I really want to. I think that the whole new tax system, new deregulation, new steps, and new reforms—all this will be after the war. Although there is something to brag about. This is proof, and this is a document, because if you want to get candidacy for the European Union, you must implement the appropriate number of reforms.

We do everything. During the war, we voted for many reforms, including anti-corruption, banking reforms, land reforms, and major reforms. We started a large privatization, and the war did not stop us. Yes, it slowed us down, but we went through a lot.

Lex Fridman

When do you think you will hold elections? For people who don’t know, as part of martial law, elections were suspended, and they were delayed and delayed and delayed. I think the next sort of plan is in February of 2025. When do you think there will be presidential elections in Ukraine?

#456

Elections were postponed once. They were not delayed, to be clear. Elections did not take place in 2024. First of all, we need to understand the Constitution. They were scheduled to be held in the spring of 2024. Due to martial law, under the Constitution, you cannot do this. These are presidential elections.

The parliamentary elections did not take place in the fall of 2024, according to the Constitution. Yes, there are security issues, and there is the Constitution, but there are also security issues. Everyone in Ukraine understands that this cannot be done until the war is over, or legislation needs to be changed.

I believe that elections will take place immediately after the end of martial law. This is according to the law. Or members of parliament need to get together and change the legislation, which will be very difficult to do because society is against it.

Why is society against it? It is understandable why: we want elections that we can trust. 8.5 million people went abroad. The infrastructure needs to be created for these millions of people to vote. There are millions of people in the occupied territories. I am not even talking about the occupation of 2014. I am talking about the occupation right now. What do you do with these people? This is a difficult question.

And one of the most unfair questions is how to vote without having a million soldiers vote. That is, it is impossible. We need to think about how to change the system if the elections are held in times of war, and change the legislation, which should include changes to the voting system.

We need to think about online voting. Everyone is afraid because of certain attacks, like cyberattacks and so on, but we need to think about it. I really think that it’s possible, that we can end the war in 2025.

Lex Fridman

In January. We’ve already agreed on it.

#456

I would very much like to. I would very much like to.

Lex Fridman

After the war?

#456

Immediately. Yes, immediately. In the year the war ends, it’s a fact. Why? Because when martial law ends, you can immediately vote in parliament to hold elections. Then everyone will vote because there are no restrictive measures. After they vote, I think elections can be held in 90 days, something like that.

This means that immediately after the end of the war, elections may take place in 90 days.

Lex Fridman

Are you running for reelection?

#456

Even I don’t know, really. I don’t know. I don’t know. It is a very difficult question. It depends on how this war will finish. It depends on what people will want. Mostly, it depends on people, first of all, and of course, my family.

We have had no time to speak about it with my family, and of course we didn’t have a chance because we don’t think about it now. I mean, there are a lot of voices in Ukraine from politicians, the opposition, and so on about this. But we don’t really think seriously—we haven’t thought seriously with my family about it.

This is war. How can you think about what will be after? It’s very difficult, really very difficult.

Lex Fridman

If we look at the field of candidates, maybe you can give your opinion about the set of ideas you see out there, including your own, about the future of Ukraine.

As I understand, the candidates include Poroshenko, Zaluzhny, Arestovich, Budanov, Klitschko, and many others. This is the internet speaking to me, heh. What do you think of the space of ideas that these candidates represent?

#456

You know, I think there can be an even bigger number of candidates. I don't really know what will happen. They have the right to participate if they want to. If they really want to and can, they can go and do what they want, honestly.

The most important thing is what they are doing now. I think that all these people are famous Ukrainian people, and it's important for them to do everything they can today and not begin any election campaign. I think this could divide our people: having elections during the war, making statements, speaking about elections a lot, and making a big mess about it. I think this is not right.

That's why I'm not agreeing with some of these people, but they can, and I think that they can, and maybe some of them will, and it's okay. It's normal. It's very normal. Our system differs from the system in the United States. You have 2 parties, and the parties decide who will be the leader. In Ukraine, everybody can participate. Let them.

Lex Fridman

Do you think you're going to win the debate? You versus Zaluzhny, Poroshenko, Arestovich, if you decide to run. Do you think you're going to win the debate? Or are you again focused on the war?

#456

Oh, I'm really focusing on the war.

Lex Fridman

I understand.

#456

I think the most difficult debate is what will be brought to the table, and we spoke about it. It will be during the war: how to finish the war. I think that is my goal, because it will be one of my most complicated debates, as it would be for any president who is in a war. But I think this is my goal: to win those debates. The other things are not for today.

Lex Fridman

As I said, the dream I have is a historic opportunity to make peace, to make lasting peace, soon. So I'm glad you're focused on that. Let me ask a question that a lot of people in the United States think about, and that I care a lot about: the future of Ukraine and corruption. This is something you have cared a lot about for a long time. You won the presidency in 2019 in large part because of your message of fighting corruption.

But there are a lot of accusations that during war—I mentioned $9 trillion in the United States—war breeds corruption. Can you speak to how you have been fighting corruption? And can you respond to the accusations that there has been corruption in Ukraine?

#456

You know, it's very simple. First of all, we really have a very sophisticated anti-corruption system. Sophisticated not in the sense that it's difficult to understand, but in that it really consists of many elements. It's the most sophisticated in all of Europe. This is another requirement of the European Union. It was a requirement for Ukraine, and for many years Ukraine was not trusted.

I want to tell you that under me, we all voted for bills, all the anti-corruption reforms, and almost all reforms. All anti-corruption bodies today are independent, and they work as requested. I still believe that they are not perfect yet; there are many issues. There is a judicial system, but also a judicial reform that our partners—the United States plus the EU—demanded from us. This is all written out in specific laws, specific decrees, and specific decisions.

We did this. We've done 99% of this. If something has not been done, it means that it is on the way. But, in principle, all this exists, and there is no such system as we have in Europe. To say that we do not have corruption would be lying. We just talk about it openly. We are genuinely fighting against it.

Look, we have Ihor Kolomoyskyi sitting in our prison. He is the most influential Ukrainian oligarch since independence, and no one could do anything about him. The United States of America wanted to have Kolomoyskyi, and they went to great lengths because of money laundering and so on. There are criminal cases in the United States, I think in Delaware, something like that. Neither could Europe do anything about it.

That is, we did a lot with oligarchs. Russian oligarchs had sanctions imposed on them, they were thrown out, and some of them fled the state, but they are all under sanctions. We exchanged some of them for our soldiers, such as Medvedchuk, to whose daughter Putin is godfather. We fought against the strongest and most influential oligarchs who are and were in Ukraine, and we eliminated a lot of corruption.

Of course, corruption exists in everyday life. It exists, but institutionally, I am sure that Ukraine will overcome all this. This takes a little time. I would say honestly, what we call corruption, in some states of the world is called lobbying. But this does not mean that there is no corruption there.

Let's take the aid you mentioned during the war. First of all, we have no money. We have no money except for the war. We received weapons from the United States of America and from Europe. If we take, for example, money from the United States of America, during all this time of the war, around $177 billion have been voted for or decided upon. $177 billion. Let's be honest: we have not received half of this money.

The second point, which is very important, just as an example, is: Is it corruption? The first question is, whose corruption? This is the second. Here is just one small example for you. When the United States began to transfer weapons to us, it was American money, but American weapons—money for these weapons.

As president, I had cargo jets. Not in Ukraine, because of the war, we moved them very quickly to Europe. We had cargo jets. We have a good cargo fleet, very good, because of Antonov. So I asked the American side to grant me the opportunity, because our jets were at another airfield. I asked America to give me the opportunity to use our jets for the transfer, not to pay a lot.

Lex Fridman

To whom?

#456

To your companies. To American companies. No, I didn't get this opportunity. My jets stayed put, and the United States' cargo jets moved these weapons. But everywhere you have to spend money. So we could get more weapons, but we have to pay for this very expensive fleet. My question is: Is this corruption or not? Or lobbying? What is it?

Lex Fridman

You mean corruption on the part of the U.S. companies?

#456

Yes, making such decisions.

Lex Fridman

Yes, I got it.

#456

The lobbying for such decisions involves some companies that make these decisions, but I can't be open about it, and I couldn't speak loudly about it. I didn't want, nor did I intend, to cause any scandals to arise, because otherwise you can freeze the support. And that's it.

Lex Fridman

Yeah. And that's why when we talk about corruption, we must ask who is involved? If we had $177 billion and if we get half, where is the half? If you find the second half, you will find corruption.

#456

There is a perception of corruption. People like Donald Trump and Elon Musk really care about fighting corruption. What can you say to them to gain their trust that the money is going toward this fight for freedom, toward the war effort?

In most cases, we did not receive money; we received weapons. And where we saw risks that something could be happening with weapons, we cracked down hard on everyone. And believe me, this is not only about Ukraine. Everywhere along the supply chain, there are some people or companies who want to make money. They try to make money on the war.

We did not profit from the war. If we caught someone, believe me, we cracked down hard on them, and we did that, and we will continue to do so. Because to this day, when someone says that Ukraine was selling weapons—and, by the way, Russia was the one pushing this narrative—we always responded: Our soldiers would kill such people with their own hands, without any trial.

Do you honestly think anyone could steal weapons by the truckload when we ourselves don't have enough on the front lines? And yet, we have to provide proof to defend ourselves. Because when there's an abundance of such misinformation, distrust starts to grow. And you're right: people listen to various media outlets, see this, and lose faith in you. In the end, you lose trust, and with it, you lose support.

Therefore, believe me, we are fighting more against disinformation than against particular cases, although I still emphasize once again that, at the everyday level, such things are still important. We catch these people, and we fight them.

Lex Fridman

I mentioned Elon Musk. I would be interested to hear what you think of him—why you respect him as a person, as an engineer, as an innovator, and as a businessman. I would just like to hear from you: What do you think about Elon Musk?

#456

First of all, I had a conversation with him at the beginning of the war. I talked with him. I respect him. First and foremost, I respect the self-made man. In English, I love such people. No one and nothing fell into their lap, but the man did something, did it all himself.

I worked myself, created a big production company, and I know what it means to make money, to select talented people, to impart knowledge to them, to invest money, and to create something important for certain people. And I'm not comparing myself to Musk. He is a great leader of innovation in the world, and I believe that such people move the world forward.

Therefore, I respect the result of his work. We see this result. And for me, it has always been important that your result can be used, that these are not words but facts. Let's take the war.

We are very grateful for Starlink. It has helped. We used it after Russian missile attacks on the energy infrastructure. There were problems with the internet and with connection. We used Starlink both at the front and in kindergartens. It was used in schools; it helped children. We used it in various infrastructure.

And it helped us very much. I would very much like Elon to be on our side as much as possible, to support us. And yes, I am grateful to him for Starlink, truly I am. First of all, so that our guys have a connection, and children, too. I am really grateful to him for that. I would like him to come to Ukraine, to talk to people here, and to look around and so on.

Lex Fridman

Has Elon visited Kyiv or Ukraine yet?

#456

No.

Lex Fridman

I hope the Kyiv airport will open soon. Then it will be easier to fly in.

#456

Yes, I am looking forward to it. Maybe we will open it, but only—and you must understand—if the war is over. There must be sustainable peace and air defense systems, to be honest. We must ensure that they are long-lasting and effective.

Let's take the airport, for example, and focus on the airport in Rzeszów, which you know very well, as it is handling important cargo for Ukraine in Poland. There are Patriot systems there, because everyone understands what the risk is. Russia is a risk, and therefore we need air defense systems.

Today, take, for example, the air defense system of one city or another that is being shelled, and move it to the airport. That would be dishonest. People are more important than planes.

But there will be a moment, and Trump, by the way—I think the war will end—and President Trump may be the first leader to travel here by airplane. I think it would be symbolic, by airplane.

Lex Fridman

Again, January 25, around that date, right? Flying in, meeting on Air Force One.

#456

Oh, that would be cool.

Lex Fridman

Elon Musk, I will meet you there for the second time, too, on the plane.

#456

With pleasure.

Lex Fridman

And you, by the way, before I forget, are you coming on January 20 for President Trump's inauguration?

#456

I would like to, of course, but I will be considering what is happening then in the war, because there are moments of difficulty, escalation, many missiles, and so on. But honestly, I can't come, especially during the war, unless President Trump invites me personally.

I'm not sure it's proper to come, because I know that, in general, leaders are, for some reason, not usually invited to the inauguration of the presidents of the United States of America. I know there are leaders who can simply come, want to come, and will come. I know the temperament of some of these people; they can come at their discretion.

This is very difficult for me. I am the kind of person who cannot come without an invitation. This is Putin: We did not invite him, and he came to us, so to say. And me? I can't do that.

Lex Fridman

No, but didn't he publicly say that it would be great if you came to the inauguration? Or do you mean, did he invite you officially?

#456

No, wait, look, look, look. Listen, I am against any bureaucracy. I get rid of it as much as I can, but, you know, there are some complexities involving security.

I decide and I fly. The United States of America officially provides security—not that I need this, mind you. I do not ask for helicopters to fly around and protect me, but they will simply do it themselves. The Secret Service itself. They had to do it.

I don't want it. Sometimes I don't need it, and I'm asking them. It was, for example, before the war. I think it was before the war. I just had a meeting with President Trump. It was in 2019.

I wanted to go for a run early in the morning because I really wanted to exercise. Those tall bodyguards—there were a lot of them—decided to join me. But I couldn't really do it because they were in suits and I was in sportswear. I said, "No, I can't."

It's always funny. I don't want to disturb anybody or cause anyone problems because of me. That's why, if he invites me, I will come.

Lex Fridman

I thought he invited you.

#456

Yeah?

Lex Fridman

Yeah. I thought he publicly invited you, but okay. I hope to see you there.

#456

I think they had to. I mean, to do some of their steps, I don't know, but—

Lex Fridman

The stamp was missing.

#456

Yes, but with pleasure, with my wife, of course. I think it's important.

Lex Fridman

All right, let's get back to a serious question. Sometimes they ask in America who is really in power. So, let me ask: Is someone controlling you? For example, oligarchs, American politicians, Yermak? (Laughs.)

I wanted to bring this up because I have been here in Ukraine twice since the invasion of 2022. One of the things I've learned is that, actually, nobody controls you. This is one of your strengths as president, as a person: Oligarchs and other rich and powerful people like that cannot control you. Can you explain why that is and how you see it?

#456

I think, and it is indeed true, that I am generally difficult to deal with. I am an ambitious person. I can't submit to anyone. I can live by rules, by laws. I believe that this is the only thing that can control any person today: the rules and laws of the society or state where you live. I believe that this is the most important thing.

There is no person who could control me. As I once told President Trump, when we had a meeting, journalists asked if Trump influenced me during the phone call. I told the journalists the truth then: Who can influence me? Only my boy, my son. This is a fact.

When he calls asking for something, then I lift up my arms. I cannot do anything about it, because children are children. I have so little time with them, and therefore, when there are these moments, they are precious and important to me. I am ready to do anything. Also, probably, my parents—they are an authority for me.

Beyond that, I view it more as a system. No one can control the president. Therefore, we have oligarchs who either fled or are in prison, because oligarchs usually control cash flows and people and influence politics.

We have concrete examples with sentences. They are not just under house arrest. It is not just that there are some judgments under which their assets were frozen or sanctions were imposed. There are specific people who are behind bars. I think this is the answer regarding the influence.

Would they like to influence me in the same way as any president of Ukraine? Finance and cash flows always influence politics. At least, they want to do this. This is regarding the influence.

Other people in the vertical perform tasks as my managers. Andrii, you mentioned, is one of those managers. I am glad that I have such people. There is probably nothing else to add here.

Lex Fridman

I will just say that your team that I spoke with is an excellent team, excellent people.

#456

Thank you.

Lex Fridman

Okay, one last question: The future of Ukraine. If you look 5, 10, 20 years into the future, what can help Ukraine flourish economically, culturally, and politically?

#456

Digitalization of all processes. It is very important. We began this work. We have a special Ministry of Digital Transformation.

Lex Fridman

Ah, yeah?

#456

Yeah. We also have Diia. This is the name for all of these services. I think that is the most important thing.

Again, this is not only convenient; it will cancel any possibility of future corruption, because you don't have any personal connections with people in the government or elsewhere. You are just on your phone or any other device. That's it.

I think we are doing very well. We are the best in Europe. All of Europe recognizes it. Some countries of the African Union asked us to provide the same service, and we will do it immediately after the war. I think that we can bring money into Ukraine from this.

I think what we also need is a tax reform. It will be very important for businesses to return. A lot of support will come, I think, from U.S. business investment—not as direct aid to us, but just to the private sector and resources.

I mentioned this to President Trump and to some European leaders who are our key strategic partners: We will be happy, especially with the Americans, to sign these contracts and engage in joint investments in many areas.

I think we can develop oil, gas, and green energy, including solar power. We already have the resources; we can invest money into this. We have oil reserves in the Black Sea that we can exploit. We need your expertise and the investment of your companies.

We have gold and uranium reserves, the largest in Europe, by the way, which is also very important. For example, Russia has pushed France out of Africa. They urgently need uranium, which we have. We are ready to open up for investments.

And this will give us, of course, opportunities, jobs for people, and revenue. I don't want cheap labor, honestly. What I truly want, especially after the war, is to open up opportunities for those people who can really contribute and earn.

Lex Fridman

Yeah, give 8 million people a reason to come back.

#456

Yes, it is so important. They will come, and we will recover and rebuild Ukraine. We will be very open to companies, and, of course, we will welcome our people back. It is so important.

Culturally, I think the most important thing is to remain open and not change our direction. Culturally aligning with Russia is one idea, while aligning with Europe is another. Our people have chosen Europe. It is their choice, it is our choice, the choice of our nation, and I think it is very important.

Lex Fridman

But first you have to end the war.

#456

Yes, you're right, and we will. We want peace, you know. I mean, just to make it clear, we want peace. As I always say, you have to come to Ukraine and see for yourself, and people will tell you: "No, we can't forgive those murderers who took our lives, but we still want to make peace."

And honestly, I think that the highest approval rating of the president of the United States, of Trump, now...

is in Ukraine. People really believe that he can truly help bring peace. Now they have faith that he can make it happen—that he can support Ukraine, stop Putin, and make sure Putin doesn't get everything he wants. This is very important, and it's why we believe that we must not lose this opportunity.

Lex Fridman

I hope you find the path to peace. Thank you.

#456

Thank you so much.

Lex Fridman

Thank you for talking to me.

#456

Thank you for coming.

Lex Fridman

Dyakuyu.

#456

Dyakuyu.

Lex Fridman

Yeah, you started. Thank you very much.

Thank you for listening to this conversation with the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And now, let me answer some questions and try to reflect on and articulate some things I've been thinking about. If you would like to submit questions, including in audio and video form, go to lexfridman.com/ama or to contact me for whatever other reason, go to lexfridman.com/contact First, I got a bunch of questions about this, so let me talk about the topic of language and, let's say, the mechanics of multilingual conversation. Perhaps the details are interesting to some people. It also allows me to reflect back on the puzzle of it in this episode and what I can do better next time.

I already explained in the intro the symbolic, historic, and geopolitical complexity of the choice of language in the conversation with President Zelenskyy. As I said, the Russian language is one that the President speaks fluently and was his primary language for most of his life. I speak Russian fluently as well. It's the only common language we are both fluent in.

So any other combination of languages required an interpreter, including when I spoke English. He did need an interpreter when I spoke English, and, just like I was, he was visibly encumbered and annoyed by the process of interpretation. This is why I tried to speak in Russian to the President instead of English, so that he could directly understand me without an interpreter.

I'm willing to take the hit for that, as I am for everything else. I'm not trying to protect myself. I'm trying to do whatever is best for the conversation, for understanding. Though it has been getting harder and harder to stay open, vulnerable, and raw in public, while the swarms of chanting internet mobs stop by with their torches and their color-coded hats, flags, frogs, pronouns, and hashtags.

Anyway, there are a lot of nuanced aspects of conversational language that I would like to explain here. I'll try to be brief. I can recommend a lot of books on this topic of language and communication that reveal just how amazing this technology of language is.

For example, for a good overview, I recommend John McWhorter's books, and especially his lecture series for The Great Courses on language. There are several. In the “The Story of Human Language” series, he gives a great discussion on spoken language versus written language, and how spoken language often relaxes the rules of communication.

It uses shorter packets of words and loads in a bunch of subtle cues and meanings, all of which, as I'm trying to describe, are lost when there's an interpreter in the loop. Let me also describe some relevant characteristics of my “peculiar language abilities.”

I was never good at speaking. I listen, think, and understand better than I speak. For me, this is true for both English and Russian, but it is especially true for Russian. The Russian language allows for much more room for wit, nonstandard turns of phrase, metaphors, humor, rhyme, musicality, and deforming words.

Those create a lot of room for creativity in how meaning and emotion are conveyed. You could do the same in English, but it's harder. I actually find that Brits are sometimes very good at this. One of my favorite humans to talk to is Douglas Murray.

Setting the content of the conversation aside, the sheer linguistic brilliance and wit of dialogue with Douglas is a journey in itself. I think Christopher Hitchens had the same. And many others—especially Brits.

Anyway, I'm able to detect and understand a lot of dynamism and humor in the Russian language, but I'm slow to generate it. In part, that's because I just don't practice. I have very few Russian-speaking friends. Funny enough, most of them are Ukrainian, but they speak with me and each other in Russian.

Of course, as I mentioned, this is slowly changing due to the war. But I tried to speak to the President in Russian so he would avoid needing an interpreter as much as possible. One of the things I want to improve for next time is to make sure I get very good equipment for interpretation and arrange for an interpreter I trust to be exceptionally good for the dynamism and endurance of a 3-hour conversation in the style that I tried to do.

Just to give you some behind-the-scenes details of the experience: equipment-wise, funny enough, it's not actually so trivial to set up wireless connections from us, the 2 people talking, to the interpreter and then back to us in a way that's super robust and has clean audio. The audio I had in my ear from the interpreter had a loud background noise.

The whole time, I'm hearing a “shh” sound with the voice of the interpreter coming in very quietly. What a wonderful experience. This whole life is, frankly. Plus, his translation was often incomplete, at least for me, so I had to put together those puzzle pieces continuously.

But again, it worked out. Hopefully, our constant switching of languages and having a meta-discussion about language provided good insights into the complexity of this fight for a nation's identity and sovereignty that Ukraine is going through.

Behind the scenes, off mic, on a personal level, President Zelenskyy was funny, thoughtful, and just a kind-hearted person. Really, the whole team were just great people. It was an experience I'll never forget.

After the conversation was recorded, the next challenge was to translate all of this, overdub it, and do it super quickly. Like, these words I'm speaking now have to be translated and dubbed into Ukrainian and Russian. Eleven Labs were really helpful here, especially in bringing the President's voice to life in different languages. But even more than that, they're just an amazing team who inspired me and everyone involved. Please go support Eleven Labs. They are a great company and great people. The translation is separate from the text-to-speech and was done in part by AI and a lot by humans. This is where the fact that we had constant switching between 3 languages was a real challenge.

So there are 6 translation mappings that have to be done: English to Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian to English and Russian, and then Russian to English and Ukrainian, continuously—sentence by sentence, sometimes word by word. Each combination of language-to-language translation is best done by a person who specializes in that kind of mapping. So it was all a beautiful mess. All of it.

On top of all that, great translation is super hard. For example, I've read and listened to a lot of Dostoevsky in both English and Russian and studied the process of how these books are translated by various translators. You can spend a week discussing how to translate a single important sentence well.

Obviously, in this situation, we don't have weeks. We have hours for the whole thing. One of the things I regret is not putting enough time into hiring and selecting great translators, especially from Russian and Ukrainian to English. I think translation is an art, so getting a good translator who works well with us is a process that needs more time and effort. I'll be doing that more this month.

By the way, we have a small but amazing team. If you want to join us, go to lexfridman.com/hiring If you're passionate, work hard, and everyone on the team loves working with you, then we'll do some epic stuff together. We'd love to work with you. Like I said about Eleven Labs, there are a few things as awesome in life as being able to work hard with an amazing team towards a mission all of us are passionate about. Anyway, I'll probably be doing a few more interviews in the Russian language. I do have a lingering goal of interviewing the mathematician Grigori Perelman, but there are also others. I will also work on improving my whole pipeline, both equipment-wise and interpreter-wise, for doing these conversations in other languages.

There are many conversations that I would like to do in languages I don't speak at all, like Chinese or Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, Portuguese, French, and German. I see language as both a barrier for communication and a portal into understanding the spirit of a people connected by that language. It's all a weird and beautiful puzzle, and I'm just excited to get the chance to explore it.

All right, I got a question on how I prepare for podcasts. This has evolved and expanded more and more over time. There are some podcasts that I prepare hundreds of hours for. In AI terms, let's say, first, I'm training a solid background model by consuming as much variety on the topic as possible.

A lot of this comes down to picking high-signal sources, whether it's blogs, books, podcasts, YouTube videos, X accounts, and so on. For this conversation with President Zelenskyy, for example, since February 2022, I've spoken with hundreds of people on the ground. I've read about 10 books fully, either on Kindle or as audiobooks, and then skimmed about 20 more.

I don't mean books about Zelenskyy, although he does appear in some of them. I mean books where this conversation was fully in the back of my mind as I'm reading the book. For example, I read Red Famine by Anne Applebaum. It's about the Holodomor. Does it directly relate to Zelenskyy? Not on the surface, no.

But it sort of continues to weave the fabric of my understanding of a people, of a history, of the region. It's really important for me to read books from various perspectives. I'm always trying to calculate the bias under which the author operates and adjust for that in my brain as I integrate the information.

For example, Anne Applebaum's book Gulag is very different from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago. The former is a rigorous, comprehensive historical account. The latter is a literary, psychological, and personal portrait of Soviet society. Both, I think, are extremely valuable.

On the bias front, for example, William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a good example. It is full of bias. But he was there, and to me, he has written probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, books on the Third Reich ever. But, like I said, it has a lot of inaccuracies and biases. You can read about them online if you like.

My job, in this case and in all cases, is to adjust based on my understanding of the author's biases, take the wisdom from the text where it can be found, and put the inaccuracies aside into the proverbial dustbins of history. So, as I'm reading, I'm writing down my thoughts as they come up, always digging for some deeper insight about human nature. If I'm at my computer, I'll write it down in a Google Doc. Sometimes I use Notion or Obsidian. If I'm not on my computer, I'll use Google Keep.

So, for example, if I'm listening to an audiobook and I'm running along the river, if a good idea comes to mind, I'll stop, think for a few seconds, and then do a speech-to-text note in Google Keep. By the way, I listen to audiobooks at 1× speed. Old school. Eventually, I get a gigantic pile of thoughts and notes that I look over to refresh my memory. But for the most part, I just throw them out. It's a background model-building process.

By the way, LLMs are increasingly becoming useful here for organizational purposes, but have not yet been useful, at least for me, for insight extraction or insight-generation purposes, and I do try a lot of them. I should mention that my memory for specific facts, names, dates, and quotes is terrible. What I remember well are high-level ideas. That's just how my brain works, for better or for worse.

I realize that sometimes forgetting all of the details and the words needed to express them makes me sound simplistic and even unprepared. I'm not. But that's life. We have to accept our flaws and roll with them.

Aside from books, I also listen to a lot of podcasts and YouTube videos where people are talking about the topic. So, for the President Zelenskyy episode, I listened to probably hundreds of hours of content from his supporters and from his critics, from all sides. Again, I choose who to listen to based not on their perspective, but on SNR, signal-to-noise ratio. If I'm regularly getting insights from a person, I will continue listening to them, whether I agree or disagree.

In the end, this turns out to be a lot of hours of prep. But to say that it's X hours per episode is not accurate, because a lot of this preparation transfers from one guest to another, even when there's an insane level of variety in the guests. We're all humans, after all. There is a thread that connects all of it together somehow, if you look closely enough.

For more technical guests in STEM fields, I'll read papers. A lot of papers. And also technical blog posts and technical tweet threads. This is a very different process. For AI- or CS-related topics, I will run other people's code. I will write my own and implement stuff from scratch. If it's a software company, I'll use their tools and software if relevant.

But in the actual conversation, I am constantly searching for simple but profound insights at various levels of abstraction. Sometimes this means asking a trivial question in hopes of uncovering the non-trivial, counterintuitive, but fundamental idea that opens the door to a whole new way of looking at the field.

Actually, every guest is their own puzzle. Preparing for Rick Rubin meant listening to hundreds of songs he produced and even learning some of them on guitar, like “Hurt” by Johnny Cash. Preparing for the Cursor team episode meant, obviously, that I had to use Cursor fully for several weeks, with all of its features. So I switched completely from VS Code to Cursor.

For Paul Rosolie, especially round 2, I literally went deep into the jungle with Paul and almost died, fully taking the leap toward adventure with him. When the conversation gets close, I'll start working on the actual interview questions and notes. There, I'm asking myself: What am I personally curious about? I love podcasts. I'm a big fan of many, many podcasts.

And so I ask myself, what would I want this person to explain on a podcast? Maybe what aspect of their thought process or their humanity would I want to surface, or have the chance to surface? In the actual conversation, I always try to put my ego aside completely and do whatever it takes to have a good conversation and serve the listener. This means asking questions simply, trying to define terms and give context if needed, being open-minded, vulnerable, curious, and challenging the guests when needed.

Despite the claims on the internet, I do ask a lot of challenging questions, including follow-ups, but always with empathy. I don't need to be right. I don't need to signal my moral or intellectual superiority to anyone. I try to do the opposite, actually, because I want the guest to open up. And I trust the intelligence of the listener to see for themselves if the guest is full of shit or not—to detect the flaws and the strengths of how the guest thinks or who they are deep down.

A lot of times, when interviewers grill the guest, it doesn't reveal much except give a dopamine hit to the echo chambers that hate the guest. As I said in the intro, I believe the line between good and evil does run through the heart of every man.

The resulting conversations are sometimes a failure. Sometimes because they are too short. Sometimes because the chemistry was just not working. Sometimes because I fucked it up. I try to take risks, give it everything I've got, and enjoy the roller coaster of it all, no matter what. And, as I said, I trust the listener to put it all together. I trust the critic to tear it apart. And I love you all for it.

All right. I got a bit of a fun question. It's a long one. So, Delyan—cool name—wrote and said he spotted me out in the wild and had a question about it. He wrote:

“I saw Lex working at the Detroit airport between flights. I hesitated and ultimately decided not to interrupt since he was in focus mode. True. Lex had his earbuds on, listening to brown noise. Microsoft Surface propped up at eye level. Kinesis Advantage keyboard on the table. The use of Microsoft Windows is surprising, but it has been discussed in the past. True.

“The ergonomics of the setup—Surface at eye level—means that Lex cares about his health. But the anomalously large Kinesis Advantage keyboard seems like such a burden to lug around airports. I cannot help but ask: Why is it that Lex is going through the hassle of bringing this absolutely large keyboard with him as carry-on? It barely fits in a backpack. Carrying it around must be necessary for Lex for some reason. I love the puzzle of this, that you're trying to think through this. The pain of lugging this tool around must be much smaller than the problem it solves for. What problem does this keyboard solve? What makes it necessary at the airport? Productivity? Health? RSI?”

Good questions. Thank you, Delyan. Great question. It made me smile, so I thought I'd answer. I remember that day. There was something else about that day, aside from the keyboard, that I miss. So I am filled with a melancholy feeling that is appropriate for the holiday season.

So let me try to set the melancholy feeling aside and answer a question about my computer setup when I'm traveling. Whether I'm going to SF, Boston, Austin, London, or the front in Ukraine, I am always bringing the Kinesis keyboard. I don't have RSI or any other health issues of that kind that I'm aware of, even though I've been programming, playing guitar, and doing all kinds of combat sports my whole life, all of which put my hands and fingers in a lot of precarious positions and situations.

For that reason, and in general, ergonomics have never been a big concern for me. I can work on a crappy chair and table, sleep on the floor. It's all great. I'm happy with all of it. So why Kinesis? Which, by the way, is right here.

I had to think about it. Your question actually made me reflect, and I was hoping, as I'm answering it, the truth will come out on many levels. It is true that I'm more productive with it. I can type and correct mistakes very fast compared to a regular keyboard, both in natural-language typing and in programming. So fast, I think, that it feels like I can think freely without the physical bottlenecks and constraints of my fingers moving.

The bit rate, in Neuralink parlance, is high enough for me not to feel any cognitive friction. But the real answer may be something deeper, a more honest answer, or something else. I've used the Kinesis keyboard for over 20 years. So maybe it's like one of those love stories where a guy and a girl love each other, and you try to quit because it doesn't quite work.

But every time you leave, you ask yourself why. And then you realize that when you're together, your life is just full of simple joys. So what's the point of leaving? What's the point of life if not to keep close to you the things that bring you joy, Delyan? Like this keyboard. It brings me joy.

It's a bad metaphor. Over-anthropomorphized, perhaps. But I never promised a good one. I'm like a cheap motel on a road trip. Low quality is part of the charm. I do have some good motel stories for another time. This does not feel like the appropriate time.

All that said, to disagree with myself, I did use Emacs for over 20 years. And in a single week recently, I switched to VS Code and then Cursor, and never looked back. So take my romantic nature with a grain of salt. So yes, eventually I'll have to leave.

But for now, you'll keep finding me, on occasion, in a random airport somewhere, listening to brown noise and writing away the hours on this Kinesis keyboard.

If you see me without it, maybe it’ll give you the same strange, melancholy feeling I feel now, looking back to that airport in Detroit. Anyway, more about my travel setup, if anyone is curious. I usually do travel with a Windows laptop, but I’m mostly using Linux on it through WSL, Windows Subsystem for Linux. In some cases, I’m dual-booting Linux and Windows.

I also need to be able to video edit. So, on longer trips, I usually have a bigger laptop with a bigger screen, lots of memory, a good CPU, and a good GPU. All of that helps with video editing on Adobe Premiere. In general, I’m extremely minimalist, except for the few, let’s call them sentimental, things. All my podcast recording equipment fits into a small suitcase. I try to keep it as simple as possible.

Thank you for the question, and see you at the next airport. All right, I think it’s time to bring things to a close. I’d like to give a big thanks to you for giving me your time and your support over the years. It means the world.

If you want to get in touch with me, go to lexfridman.com/contact There, you can get feedback, ask questions, request guests for the podcast, or submit the Coffee with Lex form if you just want to chat with me over a cup of coffee. I’ll be traveling across the world a bunch this year, from Europe to South America and more. So it would be cool to do some small meetups and meet some interesting people. This has been a journey of a lifetime. Thank you for everything. On to the next adventure. I love you all.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Ukraine, War, Peace, Putin, Trump, NATO, and Freedom | Lex Fridman Podcast #456 | BidClub