Volodymyr Zelenskyy：乌克兰、战争、和平、Putin、Trump、NATO与自由｜Lex Fridman Podcast #456
Zelenskyy 的和平逻辑是，停火必须建立在乌克兰更强的威慑能力之上，而不能反过来。 他提议让NATO保护乌克兰控制的领土；如果停火有效，再启用由美国和欧盟提供、预先保留的武器包，并继续实施制裁：“不要寄希望于他的意愿……要施压，让他被迫停止战争。” 对投资者而言，这意味着即便枪声暂歇，国防需求仍将持续，能源供应也会因制裁而重构。
他的怀疑来自两套失败的安全架构：布达佩斯备忘录，以及2019年12月的诺曼底停火协议。 乌克兰放弃核武器，换来的只是“保证”；领土遭到侵犯后，没有任何磋商。2019年，天然气协议和首次换俘确实落地，但Zelenskyy称，大约1个月后杀戮就重新开始。他反对再签一张“纸”，因为缺乏支持的停火可能在3个月内迎来新一轮攻击。
Zelenskyy希望谈判按乌克兰与Trump先行、欧洲第二、俄罗斯最后的顺序推进，前提是先达成共同的威慑方案。 他认为Putin害怕Trump，但会利用美国总统只有4年任期的限制，先重建力量，再于第5年卷土重来。Lex Fridman的反驳始终一致：即便彼此充满仇恨，Zelenskyy、Putin和Trump之间的妥协与直接谈判仍不可或缺。
Zelenskyy给出的军力算术表明，欧洲无法迅速接替华盛顿的角色。 他称乌克兰军队有98万人，而法国约20万人；他还提到，12,000名朝鲜士兵已部署，其中3,800人死伤，并将欧洲提供的100万发炮弹与朝鲜向俄罗斯提供的370万发进行对比。“没有Trump、没有美利坚合众国，就不会有NATO，”他说，并将联盟的脆弱与欧洲及太平洋地区更广泛的风险联系起来。
他提出的资金循环，是把被冻结的俄罗斯资本和被切断的能源供应转化为西方工业需求。 Zelenskyy建议使用3000亿美元被冻结的俄罗斯资产，为乌克兰生产和采购美国武器提供资金——“我们不需要礼物”——同时限制俄罗斯能源，以美国石油和天然气替代。可交易的产业链将贯穿国防制造、碳氢能源、防空、基础设施以及最终的战后重建。
援助核算和腐败都是政治风险，但Zelenskyy反驳了乌克兰以现金收到 headline appropriations 的前提。 他说美国已授权约1770亿美元，但乌克兰实际收到的不到一半，主要形式是武器；他还质疑美国运输和供应商留存的成本。在国内，他则强调独立反腐机构、已完成“99%”的必要改革、被关押的寡头以及强力执法。核心风险在于信任：“失去信任，也就失去支持。”
战后乌克兰的增长叙事，结合了数字政府、税制改革、劳动力回流和资源支持的外商投资。 Zelenskyy重点介绍Diia、潜在的放松管制、黑海石油、天然气、太阳能、黄金，以及他所称的欧洲最大铀储量，邀请美国企业投资，而不是让政府只是提供援助。劳动力约束非常明确：850万乌克兰人在海外；和平则是选举和重建启动的共同前提。
1. 语言本身已成为乌克兰主权的一部分
在当天遭到73次导弹袭击、超过100架无人机攻击后，Zelenskyy拒绝主要用俄语接受采访。他说，发动攻击的人讲着他们曾声称要捍卫的语言，却在杀害讲俄语的乌克兰人：“我们不是一个民族……我们是不同的国家。”
Fridman支持使用俄语，理由既务实又带有情感：这是两人唯一共同熟练掌握的语言，而口译会带来2至3秒的延迟，掩盖Zelenskyy的幽默、愤怒和人性。他也希望俄罗斯人、Putin、Trump以及美国人能直接听到这场对话。
Zelenskyy否认俄语被禁止——采访期间他本人就在使用俄语——但表示，乌克兰人如今“因为俄罗斯人”而不再尊重这门语言。他选择使用乌克兰语是出于象征意义，但在需要确保清晰时，仍愿意在乌克兰语、俄语和英语之间切换。
Fridman后来描述了制作上的负担：3种语言意味着6个翻译方向，有时每句话甚至每个词都要切换。嘈杂且不完整的现场口译之后，是一套快速的AI与人工配音流程；他的结论是，翻译是一门艺术，丢失的时间差会改变观众感知到的那个人。
2. 继承而来的战争记忆塑造了Zelenskyy的威胁模型
Zelenskyy的祖父毕业于军事学院，从二战爆发之初就参战，在步兵部队中打完整场战争，身负多处伤口，回国时获得30多枚勋章。他从不夸耀杀戮；他留给孙子的教训是，战争对所有人而言都是“一场巨大悲剧”。
家庭付出的代价极其惨重：祖父的4个兄弟都死于战争，留在被占领乌克兰的亲属则遭枪杀或活埋。他独自归来，遇到了Zelenskyy的祖母；当时她正在管理一所孤儿院，收容那些目睹父母死亡、受到创伤的“难管”孩子。
Zelenskyy与父母及两位守寡的祖母挤在同一套公寓里长大，既没有继承房产，也没有继承金钱。“我们真正的遗产就在这里，在我们的头脑和心里，”他说。他对领导力的理解因此更多建立在家庭、教育和尊重上，而非英雄神话。
他的历史类比强调的是逐步获得许可，而不只是1939年或1941年这两个日期：法西斯主义在国家分裂、《莫洛托夫—里宾特洛甫条约》以及“可以和Hitler谈判”的保证中步步推进。按Zelenskyy的说法，战争早在决定性入侵之前很久，就已经“从世界的软弱开始”。
3. 第一枚导弹落地前，威慑就已失败
Zelenskyy说，2月24日之前，他向美国提出两件事：武器，或者更理想的方案——足以让Putin感到恐惧、从而阻止其发动战争的预防性制裁。承诺等边境被越过、人员被杀后再制裁，在他看来是“彻头彻尾的胡扯”。
袭击大约在凌晨3:40或3:45开始。Zelenskyy看着熟睡的孩子和已经醒来的妻子，告诉她准备带孩子转移到自己的办公室，随后离开：“在这一刻，你已经不再是父亲。”他的宪法职务取代了他在家庭中的角色。
Zelenskyy说，战争第2天或第3天，Lukashenko打来电话道歉，称从白俄罗斯发射的导弹应由Putin负责，并强调“我不当家”。Zelenskyy称他“也是杀人犯”；随后，Lukashenko建议报复Zelenskyy记得的那座炼油厂Mozyr。
这段经历强化了Zelenskyy的核心威慑论点：口头预测不能替代能力，也不能替代入侵前的经济压力。“如果我们假设语言就是帮助，”他说，那么乌克兰已经得到足够多的语言——但没有得到可能阻止战争的那种帮助。
4. 数字连续性成为国家防御工具
作为最高统帅，Zelenskyy迅速将军事、能源及其他关键领域的领导层集中到战时指挥部。他的即时决策包括向被封锁城市供应食物，以及从卡车上分发步枪给准备保卫Kyiv的普通居民。
乌克兰战前的数字化建设让银行、互联网、电视和通信在被包围城市周边仍能运转。这套基础设施使国家在实体机构被切断时仍保持存在，也让Zelenskyy能够反驳俄罗斯关于乌克兰政府已经逃跑的说法。
Zelenskyy每天3至5次向公众讲话，并参与打造名为“Marathon”的联合新闻平台。他刻意在户外拍摄，触摸实体物件，以证明自己身处真实地点，而不是出现在绿幕或数字伪造画面中。
他还召集外国记者，用俄语向俄罗斯人呼吁，并试图通过他们联系白俄罗斯人和哈萨克斯坦人：“你们必须阻止Putin。”Fridman仍相信这条信息可能传入俄罗斯；Zelenskyy的回答是，一个不愿倾听的人，用任何语言都还是聋子。
5. Fridman与Zelenskyy就对话能否带来和平发生分歧
Fridman反复主张，Putin必须被当作一个仍有可能达成协议的严肃领导人来对待。他所谓的“天真梦想”，是让Zelenskyy、Putin和Trump坐进同一个房间，结合胡萝卜与大棒，谈出停火和持久和平。
Zelenskyy把Putin形容为“一头猛犸象”，并嘲讽他在采访中大谈部落历史，而创新者正讨论火箭、火星和人工智能。Putin的火箭不是为了节省成本，而是“为了杀人”发射；在Zelenskyy看来，给Putin提供平台，只是把他主观化、偶像化，并不会改变他的行为。
不过，Zelenskyy并未从根本上拒绝对话。他的公式是“以实力求和平”：当乌克兰强大到足以让对方寻求结束战争时，谈判才有用；如果对话只是把一个孤立的统治者“带到光下”，那就没有意义。
他希望Fridman记住的区别，是愿望与强迫之间的区别。Zelenskyy说，Putin不想停手，但Trump有足够的力量迫使他停手：“不要寄希望于他的意愿，Putin停止战争的意愿。你不会看到它。”
6. 2019年停火是Zelenskyy反对相信意图的依据
在2019年12月于巴黎举行的诺曼底会议上，Zelenskyy与Putin及Macron、Merkel进行谈判；在他看来，美国缺席构成了结构性弱点。方案涵盖天然气过境、全部换全部的战俘交换、部队脱离接触以及停火。
Zelenskyy计算认为，俄罗斯提出的撤军流程要沿接触线推进20年，于是说服Putin该方案不可行。他还判断Putin并未掌握行动细节；对Zelenskyy而言，这说明“他根本没打算做这些事”。
天然气合同之所以签署，是因为俄罗斯想要钱；首次换俘之所以发生，是因为Zelenskyy把人员放在优先位置。但他说，停火大约1个月后，乌克兰人又开始死亡，使领导人签署的文件几乎沦为“一张卫生纸”。
Zelenskyy说，他给Putin打过2到3次电话，请求再次举行诺曼底会议，但最终没有得到回应。他指称，俄罗斯继续派遣那些曾接受针对乌克兰目标训练、后来又在叙利亚和非洲行动的狙击手，而国际社会对Crimea和乌克兰东部的关注始终有限。
7. 快速停火可能让数百万人被困在占领区
Zelenskyy以Mariupol反驳“先停火”的框架。他说，从城市逃出的记者告诉他，那里有2万至3万名平民遭受酷刑并被掩埋；随后他反问，Kyiv应该如何向留在被占领土上的数百万儿童和其他居民交代。
他说，Donetsk、Crimea、Melitopol和Berdyansk的适龄男性被强迫参战，拒绝服役可能招致死亡。因此，在没有更长期方案的情况下冻结战线，不仅会稳定领土，也会稳定其中的强制统治。
他的最低要求，是先为乌克兰控制的部分领土提供可信保证，确保俄罗斯无法卷土重来。换俘以及通过外交手段收回领土可以随后进行，但单独停火等于告诉被占领居民：“回头见。”
Zelenskyy还把持久性定义为Trump的声誉问题：如果Trump促成停火，而Putin在3个月后发动攻击，那么Trump、乌克兰和所有人都会显得很难堪。他认为，Putin的策略是分化Trump与Zelenskyy，并利用缺乏执行机制的协议。
8. Zelenskyy的安全方案将NATO、武器、资产和能源绑定在一起
他提出的最快保障方案，是某种形式的NATO成员资格：邀请在法律上覆盖包括被占领地区在内的整个乌克兰，但联盟保护最初只在Kyiv控制的地区生效。Zelenskyy承认，这“不会是一个伟大的成功”，但称其可能是一条摆脱战争的外交路径。
第二部分是一套书面但未公开的美国—欧盟武器方案。如果停火维持，乌克兰就不会动用这批武器；它的价值在于，重新遭到攻击时武器已经在手，而不是等俄罗斯推进后，伙伴们再讨论是否交付。
Zelenskyy提议拿3000亿美元被冻结的俄罗斯资产，为乌克兰国内防务生产和向美国制造商采购武器提供资金：“我们不需要美国的礼物。”俄罗斯的钱将为乌克兰威慑提供融资，同时转化为美国工业的收入。
制裁构成了这套方案的最后一环。他主张限制俄罗斯能源和影子船队，用更便宜的美国石油和天然气替代供应，削弱Putin的战争收入；Fridman的反驳是，加入NATO、获得武器并继续制裁，几乎没有给莫斯科留下可见的妥协空间。
9. NATO既会约束俄罗斯，也会约束乌克兰的报复
当Fridman问到如何保障俄罗斯安全，甚至是否可以让两国同时加入NATO时，Zelenskyy坚持认为，起点不能设在两者之间的中间位置。战争发生在乌克兰领土上，是一个国家的军队越过边界进入另一个国家。
但Zelenskyy确实提出了一个俄罗斯安全机制：“NATO也在阻止我们。”一个防御性联盟可以约束那些失去孩子、得不到正义的人；如果外部力量冻结冲突，他们可能会自行越境进入俄罗斯寻求个人报复。
他的论证不仅是制度性的，也关乎心理。一名孩子被杀的父母不会接受制裁消失、肇事者逍遥法外；没有问责，“仇恨”就会回来。因此，NATO成员资格既是威慑，也是一种能够约束未来乌克兰军事行动的妥协。
Zelenskyy提到，美国、英国、法国及地区防空系统共同保卫Israel，这种保障并不需要NATO的名号。如果类似保护能够拦截数千枚导弹，那么他暗示，Putin反对的部分可能是这个词，而不是这套机制。
10. 在Zelenskyy的谈判顺序中，Trump先于欧洲和俄罗斯
Zelenskyy拒绝立即举行3方领导人峰会。乌克兰应先与Trump就如何停止战争、保障国家安全达成一致；随后欧洲必须参与，因为乌克兰在地理、地缘政治以及最终制度归属上都属于欧洲。
只有在这一步协调完成后，俄罗斯才应进入谈判。Zelenskyy说，欧洲领导人经常问他与Trump通话或会面后发生了什么，这显示出一种他在此前美国总统任内从未感受到的影响力，也强化了他认为Trump能够向Putin施压的判断。
Fridman开玩笑提议将1月25日，也就是Zelenskyy的生日，定为协议签署日。Zelenskyy接受了这一象征意义，但强调实质：即使Trump确保4年没有战争，Putin也可以利用这段时间重新武装，并在第5年卷土重来。
Zelenskyy将Trump在2024年获胜归因于他看起来比Biden和Kamala Harris更有智力与体力优势、维持了非同寻常的竞选集会节奏，以及回应了选民对物价、移民和国内问题的关切。在国际事务上，乌克兰的期待集中于他的承诺：结束战争。
11. 乌克兰此前的安全保证已经变成一列废纸火车
Zelenskyy称，乌克兰过去拥有的核武器才是真正的安全保证。在美国和俄罗斯施压下，乌克兰放弃核武器，换取美国、俄罗斯和英国在《布达佩斯备忘录》中提供的较弱“保证”，后来法国和中国也加入其中。
自2014年开始失去领土后，乌克兰曾多次援引备忘录中的磋商机制。Zelenskyy说，没有任何保证国出席或作出实质回应，包括2022年2月再次提出请求后也是如此：“他们没有一个人在乎。”
他的比喻是，一列火车载着“废纸”，却被当作安全保证。布达佩斯备忘录是一节车厢；《明斯克协议》和诺曼底进程是另一节，数百次会议却没有任何足以阻止升级的机制。
Zelenskyy把另一条错失的路径追溯到2008年的布加勒斯特峰会：总统Bush支持邀请乌克兰加入NATO，而Merkel阻止了这一步。但在2019年，Zelenskyy仍凭借70%的选举授权推动和平，尽管社会对是否能够信任俄罗斯大致五五分裂。
12. 军力平衡使美国退出成为全球风险
Zelenskyy称美国退出将是“NATO的死亡”。不论联盟存在何种官僚问题或支出争议，他的经验判断都很简单：成员国不会在本国领土上相互开战，因此联盟“有效”；而欧洲缺乏迅速替代美国的规模。
他称乌克兰军队有98万人，法国约20万人，并将法国称为欧洲规模第二大的军队。他认为，欧洲既无法、也不愿组建一支200万或300万人的军队，去对抗俄罗斯及其伙伴。
朝鲜展现了这种不对称：Zelenskyy称已有12,000人部署，其中3,800人死伤，另有3万至4万人可能投入战场。他将欧洲交付的100万发炮弹与朝鲜供应的370万发进行对比，并据此判断，俄罗斯需要时间来弥补自身缺口。
外溢风险并不止于欧洲。Zelenskyy警告，朝鲜正在学习无人机、导弹、网络战和大规模技术战争，随后会把这些技能带回本国——这将提高日本、韩国、Taiwan以及最终美国面临的风险。
13. Zelenskyy认为，乌克兰是阻止俄罗斯恢复影响力的屏障
他的预测超越了乌克兰：冻结冲突让Georgia的Abkhazia陷入不发展，也阻碍Georgia向欧盟和NATO靠拢。他预计，俄罗斯下一步会争夺Moldova的议会方向，并打压其亲欧洲总统。
按他的说法，机制始终一致：保留或制造冲突，阻止加入西方制度，耗尽年轻人，并清除能够维持独立公共空间的公民。乌克兰是一堵“大墙”，阻止这种模式进一步进入欧洲。
Zelenskyy说，Putin希望看到的组合，是一个因美国退出而削弱的NATO，以及一个无力生存、也无力与Trump建立持久关系的乌克兰。两者叠加，可能引发一场波及苏联势力范围内各片土地的更大规模战争。
这也是他拒绝将战争视作遥远地区争端的原因。俄罗斯与朝鲜的合作，把欧洲战场上的技术学习连接到亚洲安全，而同样的技术和生产网络可以在其他地方扩张。
14. Fridman与Zelenskyy就Putin是否爱俄罗斯发生冲突
Fridman认为，谈判要求人们把Putin视为一个爱自己的国家和人民、即便发动了破坏性战争的严肃人物。他指出，美国在伊拉克和阿富汗的战争据称耗费9万亿美元、造成超过100万人死亡，但这并不能证明美国领导人憎恨美国。
Zelenskyy的回答是绝对的：Putin爱的是自己的核心圈子，而不是人民。他提到在Chechnya、叙利亚、非洲、Georgia和乌克兰的军事行动，以及把18岁的年轻人送到海外送死；他称有780,000至788,000名俄罗斯士兵死伤。
两人的领导力标准都落在亲临现场。Zelenskyy将自己访问前线，以及Trump在国内紧急事件后的现身，与Putin在Kursk经历4个月战斗期间从未出现进行对比；Fridman称赞Zelenskyy留在Kyiv，但仍坚持区分糟糕的战争与对国家的忠诚。
说到最终和解，Zelenskyy提到二战后德国的承认、教育、惩罚、赔偿、道歉和安全保证。只有在俄罗斯作出类似承认后，关系才可能恢复：“俄罗斯必须道歉。”在他看来，沉默本身也意味着责任。
15. 戒严限制自由，因为战争本身已经剥夺了选择
Zelenskyy对自由的定义非常具体：家、孩子、父母、工作、行动以及选择的机会。战争首先摧毁这些机会；戒严则是在既有宪法规则下，对武装侵略作出的回应——“这不是Pinochet”——而不是源自领导人的任性决定。
乌克兰试图维持商业活动，但增加了军事税，也无法使用伙伴提供的资金支付100万人的军队薪资。这些成本必须由乌克兰国家和公众积累的资金承担，限制了Zelenskyy原本希望推出的减税空间。
他将全面税改和放松管制推迟到战后，但强调，战时已经推进了欧盟要求的反腐、银行、土地和司法改革，同时进行了大规模私有化。战争拖慢了这些项目，却没有让它们停止。
16. 可信选举需要让整个流离失所的战时国家参与投票
Zelenskyy纠正了“选举一再被推迟”的前提：原定于2024年春季举行的总统选举和当年秋季举行的议会选举没有举行，是因为宪法禁止在戒严期间进行选举。若要提前举行，就必须让议会修改法律，而这遭到相当大的民意反对。
组织投票的难度极高：850万公民身在海外，数百万人仍处于被占领地区，约100万名军人也必须拥有平等的投票权。线上投票或许有所帮助，但Zelenskyy承认，公众普遍担心网络攻击和操纵。
他的法律底线是，戒严结束后立即举行选举，议会授权后可能在约90天内完成。他说，2025年结束战争是可能的，并预计选举会在战争结束的同一年举行。
当被问及是否会参选时，Zelenskyy回答：“连我自己都不知道。”战争结果、公众需求和家庭将共同决定；Poroshenko、Zaluzhny、Arestovich、Budanov、Klitschko等人都可以参选，但战时竞选会撕裂国家，而核心“辩论”仍然是如何结束战争。
17. 腐败风险贯穿整个援助供应链
Zelenskyy称，乌克兰的反腐架构是欧洲最完善的，并表示必要改革已经完成“99%”，同时承认腐败和司法缺陷依然存在。他列举的证据包括独立机构、Ihor Kolomoyskyi入狱、对寡头实施制裁，以及用Medvedchuk交换乌克兰士兵。
他反对把美国授权的约1770亿美元直接视为已经交付Kyiv的资金：按他的说法，乌克兰收到的不到一半，而且通常收到的是武器而非现金。Fridman回应：“如果你找到另一半，你就会找到腐败。”
一个例子是空运：Zelenskyy提出可以使用乌克兰搬迁后的Antonov货运机队运输武器，但称最终使用的是成本更高的美国飞机。他问，供应商影响究竟应被称为腐败还是游说，同时强调，牟利机会存在于每个环节，而不仅在乌克兰内部。
Zelenskyy说，任何被抓到挪用武器的人都会遭到严厉打击，并用极其残酷的话描述前线可能的反应：“我们的士兵会亲手杀了这种人。”他更大的担忧，是错误信息把怀疑转化为失去信任，继而转化为失去支持；他说，只有法律能约束他，而只有儿子能影响他。
18. Starlink与数字政府预示战后投资逻辑
Zelenskyy尊重Musk，称他是一个“白手起家的人”，其成果可以使用，而不是只有口头表达。Starlink在前线及能源遭袭后维持了连接，也服务于学校、幼儿园和民用基础设施；Zelenskyy邀请Musk到访，并希望他“尽可能站在我们这边”。
重新开放Kyiv机场需要可持续的和平和持久的防空体系。Zelenskyy拒绝为了服务航空业，把防护从遭受炮击的城市转移出去——“人比飞机更重要”——但他设想Trump在战后乘飞机抵达，成为第一位以这种方式到访的领导人。
他的国内平台从Diia和全流程数字化开始，通过减少与官员的直接接触，压缩腐败机会。Zelenskyy称乌克兰在这一领域领先欧洲，并表示非洲联盟国家已询问能否采用类似服务，这可能成为战后的出口业务。
更大的投资叙事包括税制改革、放松管制，以及对石油、天然气、黑海储量、太阳能、黄金和他所称欧洲最大铀储量的私人投资。更高薪的工作可能吸引约850万人回国；文化取向仍将保持欧洲属性，但所有重建逻辑都始于同一个条件：“首先必须结束战争。”
I hope the Kyiv airport will open soon. Then it will be easier to fly in.
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.
Again, January 25th, around that date, right? Flying in, meeting Air Force One.
Oh, that would be cool.
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. 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.
It’s as if Putin wants to sit down and talk, but Ukraine does not.
This is not true. I think that, yes, he is in fact ready to talk.
Did you talk to him?
On the phone, or what?
How do you normally talk to him?
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.
No, no, 1 of us may drown.
Who?
Are you good at swimming?
Yes, I am a good swimmer.
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.
Who are you talking about now? Who loves his country?
Putin. Do you think he doesn’t love his country?
No. What is his country? He happened to consider Ukraine his country. What is his country?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yes.
That's why I'm surprised that you don't understand—
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.
For Donald Trump? Is it important for Donald Trump whether I speak Russian or not?
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—
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.
I think what is most important is what we're talking about, not how we're speaking about it. This is what I think.
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.
Yeah. Anyway, I think it is far better for Donald Trump to hear my English, not my Russian.
Your English is much better than my Ukrainian. You're getting better and better every day.
That's true. I'm a very honest guy, so I will be very honest with you.
Okay.
Your Ukrainian is not very good, but we will work on it.
Yes. I have many flaws, and that's one of them.
Sometimes I can speak English. Sometimes, as I understand, we can be very flexible, right?
Very flexible. Spanish, Swahili.
Yeah, you see?
Javier Milei needs to understand this.
By the way, Javier understood me without any words.
The language of love, maybe.
Of respect.
Respect.
I respect him.
Yeah. I had a very good conversation with him. Really brilliant.
May I sometimes speak Russian and sometimes English?
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.
Second, third, and fourth.
Yeah, this is good. You can ask questions in the language you'd like, and I will answer in the language I can.
Well, you said you wanted to meet by the sea at some point. So, for our next meeting, let's meet by the sea.
With pleasure. Next time, it would be much better to meet by our Ukrainian Black Sea or Azov Sea.
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.
You have to.
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?
In Odesa, we've got it all.
Okay.
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.
Well, when you come and visit me in Texas as a guest for the third time—
With pleasure.
Let's do this. How about you, my friend Joe Rogan, and I go get some Texas barbecue together?
Who will pay?
That's a good question.
Putin. Putin has to pay for everything.
Well, yes, we'll invite him too.
No, no, no.
Okay.
Without him.
Okay, I get it. Understood.
But if the Rome Statute is accepted by your government before that moment—
By the way, I don't know if you know this, but Joe has a great comedy club in Austin.
Joe Rogan?
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.
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.
You know what? I will pay.
Good.
Yeah. You know, I had to think about it, but you are the president.
Yes, with you, with pleasure.
When the war is over, please come.
Thanks so much.
And when you're less busy.
Thanks so much.
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.
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.
It's a 1-second delay.
#456
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, if I—I'm sorry, if you—
#456
It's fine.
—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.
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.
Oh, I understand this!
#456
Oh, wonderful! Yes.
I understood 1 word.
#456
Yeah.
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.
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.”
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But it's still necessary.
#456
A mammoth stands before you.
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.
Thank you. Now he explained everything to me; I understand.
#456
Yeah? That's great.
Now I fully understand.
#456
That's great.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, no, no. We need unity with this package.
#456
So, the package and sanctions.
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.
Yes, and cheap oil.
#456
So Putin won't have so much money for the war. And that's it.
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.
I trust and respect your words today. Many people respect and love you in America. Trump respects you.
#456
Loves me?
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.
Yeah, a little bit in between.
#456
But we will work on it.
Yeah.
#456
It's our first meeting. During the second one, you will be more on our side.
Yeah.
#456
But it's just—
You're very convincing.
#456
We will see.
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.
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—
Yes.
#456
—that this is only our first meeting.
My English is not very good either.
#456
Your English is very good.
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.
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—
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.
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?
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.
Your English is better than my Russian. This is wonderful.
#456
I’m not sure.
I’m just giving you a compliment.
#456
Thank you. No, no, thank you.
You’re supposed to do that kind of thing to a president.
#456
Thank you so much.
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.
You still talk to me as if Putin wants to sit down and talk, but Ukraine does not.
#456
This is not true.
I think that, yes, he is in fact ready to talk.
#456
Did you talk to him?
On the phone or what?
#456
How do you normally talk to him?
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.
No, no. One of us may drown.
#456
Who? Are you good at swimming?
Yes, I’m a good swimmer.
#456
You’re a good swimmer? Well…
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.
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.”
It is translated as “assurance,” right?
#456
And in Russian it will be…
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.
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.
France?
#456
Yes, 200,000. I think the French have about 200,000. We have 980,000.
So this powerful coalition of European nations—
#456
That will not be enough.
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.
But the number of soldiers—
#456
Yes.
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—
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.
It’s okay.
#456
It’s okay with you, but it’s not going to be okay with the president of Russia.
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?
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?
No, not yet.
#456
Okay.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
Immigration, yeah.
#456
A lot of things. I understand. So maybe he answered those questions that people had.
One of the questions...
#456
That he will finish the war.
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.
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.
We’ve been talking for 2 hours. Let us pause. Do you want to take a break?
#456
Yeah, we will make a pause.
We can have coffee, right? Coffee?
#456
Let’s do it.
Yeah.
#456
And give the interpreter—he is struggling.
Yeah. Some water. Some water.
#456
We keep switching languages.
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.
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.
In January. We’ve already agreed on it.
#456
I would very much like to. I would very much like to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You mean corruption on the part of the U.S. companies?
#456
Yes, making such decisions.
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.
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.
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.
Has Elon visited Kyiv or Ukraine yet?
#456
No.
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.
Again, January 25, around that date, right? Flying in, meeting on Air Force One.
#456
Oh, that would be cool.
Elon Musk, I will meet you there for the second time, too, on the plane.
#456
With pleasure.
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.
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.
I thought he invited you.
#456
Yeah?
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—
The stamp was missing.
#456
Yes, but with pleasure, with my wife, of course. I think it's important.
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.
I will just say that your team that I spoke with is an excellent team, excellent people.
#456
Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope you find the path to peace. Thank you.
#456
Thank you so much.
Thank you for talking to me.
#456
Thank you for coming.
Dyakuyu.
#456
Dyakuyu.
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.