Ну так трошки like a punk

3:45 What's the fun of psychology, right? There, the external habitus, the external appearance always shows, in fact, who you are from the point of view of internal experiences.

19:31 I emphasise again, everything is fragile. No, about the murderer, I am not a supporter of such methods at all, yes. I believe that, in principle, adults should be able to assess the risks that exist. I'm talking about Lukashenko now, yes, and accordingly, try not to add fuel to the fire, yes, that is, not even add gasoline to the fire, that is, don't act as if you're the one in charge here, yes, without you, of course, they won't figure it out. That is, you'll be issuing ultimatums to someone.

24:39 What will happen to Russia next? I don't see any prospects for this country. Well, I don't see any. It is uncompetitive, it is pointless. Well, look, people are discussing seriously how they can only develop through wars with their neighbours. That is, by grabbing and robbing, by destroying someone. That is, they don't say: "There isn't a single concept in Russia today that envisions technological breakthroughs, improving the quality of life, and open borders, yes, well, that's what the world lives by."

Well, that is, it turns out that it's no longer even a question of territories, a question of cohabitation, it's a question of different civilisational visions, or rather, different visions of the civilisational future. That is, European civilisation, you and I, yes, are thinking about how to improve the quality of life, technological breakthroughs, biotechnology, well, everything there is, I won't list it, you know all this very well.

But Russia says that we need to come, rob, kill, slaughter, seize territories, burn territories. You see, in the 21st century, this no longer exists. This is the concept of the obscurantists of the 17th century. They understand that they can only live if they return, I was talking about this, by the way, a year or two ago. Well, I said it back then, now they've adopted it as their national doctrine.

And so, I have a question for you, Europeans: how do you imagine living together with such a neighbour? That is, they're saying outright: "There will be no peace for neighbours; we'll always attack everyone." Expansion is the only way to survive. That's all. And accordingly, now, returning to what will happen. Well, historically, this is an impossible concept, right? That is, such a civilisation cannot exist, right? Such an idea of civilisation: we cut, kill, blow up and so on. This was, well, when there were resource shortages. Now they work with resources a little differently.

2:22 That is, this [Russia] is an archaic civilisation that remained in the middle of not even the 20th, but 19th century. They think in such categories because today there are no categories like land, joining someone, and so on. Today, the categories are a little different: technological flourishing, the rejection of borders as such, and, let's say, completely different management principles.

That's all Russia is doing, annexing Donbas. And what's the point? Well, what is that supposed to mean? What does annexing Donbas mean? Well, if you have a huge pile of land that is undeveloped and will belong to someone else tomorrow, yes, I'm talking about the Far East, for example, then what's the difference if you have Donbas or don't have Donbas?

The world is open borders, the world is technological exchange. The world is a completely different place with completely different discussions and topics, except for countries like, well, backward ones like North Korea, because they still dream about killing South Korea and taking over this land. And why? Are you generating anything?

14:40 And in the finale even they will continue to sit so-so, yes, everything aroud is already burning and so on. They will continue to sit and talk about how they will rule the world. Do you know what this reminds you of?

A textbook, for them it is known textbook, I have repeatedly said it, because it is a Soviet textbook on psychiatry. Now there are much better ones out there, but they simply do not know anything else. Under the editorship of Кірпіченкo, where it is precisely written down what it means when you behave like that, as if nothing changes, although the world around you has already completely changed.

10:18 In general, we need to think about independence in the defence industry. This conceptual decision was very strange. I won't say who exactly took it there 20-25 years ago, I think, when they gradually began to abandon their own military production, their own engineering and design bureaus in favour of American dominance. Yes, well, this story is strange, yes, for me.

It's one thing when you have a consolidated NATO budget, it's one thing when you have common continget decisions, everything is clear here, this is correct, uh, and so on. It's a different matter when you shut down a competitive production facility, especially since there are good analogues, good aviation analogues, and the same anti-missile systems. And we now see that Italy and France have a good air defence system.

20:22 Europe doesn't want to become subjective. They go to China and say: "Is it possible to influence Putin?" The word "may" is missing in the lexicon of subjective alliances or countries. There is the word: "It is important to us that you do this. Then we will do that." That's a different conversation.

But when you come, giggle and stand there, huddle there, squeezing, ah, they gave us a good concert here. We had good cuisine here, not Michelin, true, but Chinese cuisine. But nevertheless. You see, this is how people perceive it. Differently. And China feels it. It's symbolism. Everything is symbolism.

And when you refuse the role of subjectivity, you still think, I'm talking about Europe now, not about you and me, yes, but about Europe, you still think that there is some kind of 9th wave going on here, some kind of war there in Ukraine. And [to Russia:] can you shoot at Ukrainians, but not let it fly into our territory? You can't. There's war. Everywhere, in its various manifestations.

And you sit behind a rock: "Well, we have a big rock here, 2 metres, there's a 9th wave there, they say." They say: "The 9th wave is coming, 9th wave, 2 metres, it doesn't decide anything." -- "No, so what? Well, well, 2 metres, look, a rock!" And that's it. There are no arguments. Total infantilism. Or weakness, right? That is, you're weak-willed. Well, you're not ready. You're not ready to take on responsibility.

27:47 And, accordingly, the emergence of a leader. Well, unfortunately, there was a wave of these, unfortunately, why I say this, because there were passionate individuals, this ultra-right wave, yes, but they are essentially liars often, that is, they present non-existent solutions, because when they come, it turns out that these solutions do not exist. But they sell them to the voters.

And here we return to the voter. It's a vicious circle. But the voter does not want a deep understanding of the process. The voter wants: "Look, this is bad, it's bad for you." -- "Yes, it's bad." "Is there a migration problem?" -- "Yes." -- "We will ban migrants."

It doesn't work like that. The courts, there are various discussions, and again, various parties are blocking here. Again, migrants have some rights. Well, in short, this whole story begins. It doesn't work. That's all. Because there are no quick solutions when you don't understand the problems deeply.

42:45 Денис Ковалёв: Kyrylo Budanov, your colleague, one might say--

6:29 You remember, yes, some time ago there was a whole series of provocative drone flights, Russian flights. There they blocked airfields and airports, including civilian ones, and flew over military facilities. Well, at that moment NATO was discussing what the response should be. And in my opinion, there was a phenomenal meme reaction back then. Let us show our determination by not reacting to this in any way. Well, yes, that's true, it's clearly visible, a good male reaction not to react at all, I agree.

11:17 Everyone thinks that the Soviet Union wasn't a prison, right [smiles]? It was sausage, remember, for 2.20, ice cream for 22 kopecks [smiling].

17:57 Who is Shoigu in terms of his psychotype, yes? Well, such elementary mistakes. Well, first- and second-year students who study clinical psychology are taught this profiling of people. But I don't even understand, there is probably a special competition in many international institutions, yes, to select incompetent people, so that they are not competent in important areas.

24:03 Putin is very afraid of everything. Very much. And this is a sign of total weakness.

35:34 One more quick question, and you could even answer it briefly. My last question. Maksym [Mykhailo looks up, amused], uh, I'm now turning to your assistant [Mykhailo is laughing]. Mykhailo came on 5 minutes late, so I have 3 more minutes [Mykhailo is shaking his head, laughing].

And here I allowed myself to make a remark. But noone has cancelled the fact that it is not always symmetrical. It is not always the case that Canada wins, it's a one-sided affair. In general, I think that, in principle, very, very often everything turns out exactly the opposite, when people are so, you know, confident that they will defeat everyone. We saw it in the Middle East and we saw it in Ukraine, yes, and it's the same in sports.

Денис Ковалёв: I just have to say, for those of you watching this on tape, before we hit record, we were discussing the results of the latest, currently ongoing World Hockey Championship, where Latvia is set to play the Norwegians. But then, maybe, they will reach Canada, but we'll see [Latvia lost 0-2 to Norway].

4:50 So I would stop playing this game. Russia makes a statement and we are here, in all seriousness, discussing how credible it is or not. It's all a lie. Everything that Russia explains, everything that it says - it's all a lie. And no reasons are needed.

Now, if someone, for example, in the Baltic countries thinks that some kind of reason for the war will be needed, a casus belli, yes, some kind of, yes, it's all fiction. It will always be possible to find that the Russian-speaking population has suffered in some way, and perhaps the army needs to go there and kill the locals. Well, it's the same as with us.

10:19 It's just that, you know, it's always, it's a literary paradox, a basic plot, yes, when the one who is ready to take responsibility, simply because of resources or is smaller in size, and the one who should take it, uh, according to resources and capabilities, often turns out to be, well, not up to the role he should play. It's just that the dollar is a global currency, so, well, people manage to continue to pretend that they influence everything and influence it correctly [smiles].

31:06 In unelected systems, people turn into kings, yes, or into authoritarians, whatever you want to call them. And, accordingly, the mentality completely breaks down, the ground disappears from under the feet. That is, he already reigns, yes, he already knows everything. And the advisors simply begin to adapt to this and say: "Yes, of course, you are brilliant, there are no words."

33:23 Денис Ковалёв: I really like it when Mykhailo Podolyak remembers his education and sometimes includes it here [Mykhailo is smiling]. These are just the terms. And it's not just me, in fact, it's just a stream of what you think: "Damn, really, really, this is how it looks from the perspective of a professional who once received higher education in the field of psychiatry, if I'm not mistaken.

[Mykhailo nods] Medicine, yes, in general, but psychiatry, including clinical psychology among other things.

44:37 Oh, and by the way, I also recommend watching the film, the marvelous "Minotaur", yes, to understand. These are simply fantastic people.

Денис Ковалёв: Have you seen it yet?

I, already, yes, I watched it in a fast-forward synopsis, yes. Well, because in order to talk about something, you always need to understand a little. Well, let's not talk about it for now, if you want, later separately, beacuse now we'll delve into Russian culture, yes [laughs].

45:54 Who are you dealing with? Isn't it clear? Yes, they have weapons, yes, they have oil, yes, they have money, yes, they have manpower. Well, guys, but first we need to force them, so that they crawled away from everyone, so that they locked themselves behind the Iron Curtain and sat there with [combat] mosquitos, I don't know, with toads, with whatever they want.

But you can't expect people who put forward such arguments time and again, you can't expect them to behave rationally. What will it take to stop holding meetings on how to counter Russian propaganda? Well, how? Simply close off their opportunities pysically. Close them off. They don't exist. Forget about their existence. Ah! Gas, LNG, gas -- that's so cool. We can make money. There's such a bonus there now.

Денис Ковалёв: Well, Mykhailo Mykhailovych, thank you very much. Advisor to the Office of the President, Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine Mykhailo Podolyak spoke with us directly today and was very emotional and very--, how should I say, with medical background.

9:03 This is the problem. That is, there is no such thing as punishment in the world, right? That is, harsh punishment, yes.

11:09 Grigoriy German: Ukrainian society and its reaction to what happened from Saturday to Sunday, or more precisely, yes, let's talk about Kyiv specifically, since the blow was dealt to Kyiv. /…/ What do you think? How do you think Kyiv society, the residents of Kyiv and Ukrainian society as a whole reacted to such a blow?

It reacted as a healthy society, a cool society, should react. On the one hand, everyone understands the tragedy, and everyone understands the drama and horror we are in, and everyone supports each other. And that is correct.

On the other hand, everyone clearly stated, everyone, I mean except for the marvelous characters. They are of little interest. I think that if they weren't fed like trolls, yes, then they wouldn't exist. I simply don't even know, to live with arguments like these, who still buys this stuff.

12:51 This is a standard law of life. If someone commits evil and does not pay the subsequent price, he will only increase that evil. But I don't even understand how such a basic truth can-- This should come with mother's milk. This-- Dad is normal, right? /…/ If dad is absent or dad doesn't understand anything himself, then ultimately these kinds of individuals degenerate.

15:29 I always say this: "There are no conspiracy theories, but there is ordinary human stupidity." Incredible stupidity, yes.

16:50 It's just that the world is such that an ordinary person is really afraid. And he's looking for simple solutions. Why was there such a, ah, long successful move, I use this word, yes, of right-wing populism, such a blatant one.

24:20 This is what I catch myself doing…

24:54 Returning to clinical psychology, which I was actively involved in at one time.

29:56 There is simply no need to idealise global elites. They are ordinary, they can just as easily believe in arguments supported by other arguments.

30:54 I would be very happy if all these cool guys, who are very cunning, yes, that is, you are fighting there, we support you, of course, but can we earn a little here, because these guys are selling there with a big discount, ah, and so on. So that they end up with fixed operating losses. Well, life always presents bills.

32:59 If you want to be subjective, be independent. Then you will determine the rules of the game yourself.

33:31 Whenever I hear this formula, we need to talk to Putin, I would like to give one piece of advice. Well, it's probably not entirely correct, yes? But I would recommend that people who talk about this at the level of prime ministers, yes, and so on, at least go for a day just as a tour of a psychiatric hospital. And there are special characters there with a stratified personality, with fixed overvalued ideas.

So, they're put in this ward, it is locked there all the time, yes. That is, you can't go there yourself, but they will take you there and have you try to tell the person who thinks he's Napoleon something rational and see how it works, yes.

4:46 Nuclear weapons as an argument of last hope are already a thing of the past. Artificial intelligence, uh, drone technology. This is the future and this is the future of wars.

10:07 There are a lot of diplomatic nuances [in China]. No, you record it. Everything there is symbolic. China is symbols. It's not just-- They can't, like we, say directly that you are something, yes. But everything they did, yes. Look, in the protocol, well, if the partners are equal, then the partner who meets goes a little towards them.

If it's not from a plane, if a car picked him up, yes, then you take two symbolic steps to meet to show that we are equal. Xi Jinping is standing, here comes the little one, something is being sniffed at there, yes, he's going to the owner. This is a classic diplomatic, properly constructed protocol. The entire meeting looked like a total humiliation for Russia.

23:29 I simply know both countries deeply, Russia and Belarus.

24:44 I like him [Prime Minister of Hungary Péter Magyar]. He has pro-European statements, pro-liberal statements. /…/ And besides, he's open, right? Well, I mean he has completely different values. He has good views, he is very constructive. We see that there was a decision regarding the oil pipeline, there was a decision regarding Ощадбанк.

31:48 Everyone thinks that we need to counteract disinformation. I say "No, we don't need to counteract." We need to understand how to break those who sell propaganda, not counteract, because then it's a pro-active position if you break. Or it is a passive position, you wait for some narratives to come to you, as they say, cognitive wars. Someone comes in with narratives and then you explain it all, why it's not true. It doesn't work that way. That's in the past, right? Nothing works there.

37:02 Well, first of all, not everyone is a moral authority, yes. Unfortunately, human nature is weak. There are many painful things that a person cannot stand. Well, they can't. Well, that's how it is. But look, there is a difference between those who can be a leader on the Maidan, a leader on the street, and take responsibility there and thus protect people. This is cool. And it's not necessary that he has enough expertise and competence to be a leader in the relevant industry institution. There has to be a certain balance here.

And the key thing is that people's values have to change a little bit. Not for myself, for me, for my house, but we work, there are agreements, I have a contract, within the framework of this contract I give everything, I don't take anything for myself. I get what we agreed on, but I don't take anything for myself. And it's difficult, believe me. Well, such tests for people.

Well, they bring-- Look, a person earns $1,000, for example, a month. well, $5,000, and here they bring him a suitcase with $500,000 in it at once. And they say: "Just put a little signature and this land will already be, 100 hectares will belong to other people." How many people will survive this? And he understands that times are fleeting and careers in our country go both up and down quickly.

38:41 There must be a certain understanding of the concept of statehood. You in the state, you are creating something that will work institutionally for decades. There are few such people. They exist, but they are few. And they are in the state, they hold state positions, they try to do it and some succeed, some don't.

40:42 Світлана Шереметьєва: Is the Office of the President discussing whether Volodymyr Zelenskyy will still run?

That's his decision.

Would you like him to run? Do you advise him?

It's a difficult question, because I understand how many questions will be accumulated and maybe we need to go through a cycle, as was done in Britain after World War 2 by Mr. Churchill or de Gaulle against the backdrop of the Algerian crisis, yes. And maybe we need to take responsibility immediately for the second term, because he looks the deepest and most subjective today, yes, and understanding all the issues.

That is, there are 2 scenarios, both one and the other. If earlier I believed that he should definitely be in his second term, today there are 2 scenarios that I believe are equivalent. But it will be his choice.

Well, accumulated problems, I don't mean problems that need to be solved, but accumualated problems of his, he's still at war 24/7, without vacations, without breaks, and so on. Well, without a family, essentially, yes. Well, because the family lives their own lives. He's visible, but I mean he's immersed in war. This is a slightly different psychological state.

The Office of the President during the time of Yermak and the Office of the President under the leadership of Kyrylo Budanov?

They're just different.

What's the difference? Can you explain?

Simple enough. If Andriy Yermak was about concentrating control in his hands--

It was allowed.

Yes, yes. But this can be a management technology. I'm saying that he worked like an operations manager, he wanted to control everything, essentially manual management. Mr. Kyrylo Budanov has a slightly different technology. If he feels that you have deep expertise, you provide facts, you operate with facts, and are ready to moderate certain processes, he delegates to you, yes. And then there are many more directions that can be effectively develop, because one person cannot physically control everything, moderate everything.

40:39 From the point of view of the rooting of certain internal institutions. This is a question of societal demand, it is a question of a new social contract. Well, I understand that it's a bit clichéd, yes, a social contract. This is an issue that has never been resolved. And why hasn't it been resolved? Because once again, there really is no consensus on what justice is for now.

I would like it to be, well, rules that no matter who breaks them, they should be punished for it. And the concept of justice should not be in the form of whoever controls the legal vertical, for example, in a state, controlling the judicial system there. I just want us to reach a point where the rules are set, strict and the same for everyone. This is institutionalisation.

42:42 Why didn't Mr. Zelenskyy manage to completely break the system, as you say, riding the wave of anti-systemism? But this isn't something that one person should do, right? This must be, once again, a request from certain social passion groups. Are there such--

Darya Kudimova: Do you think, I apologise, do you think there is no such social demand to justice?

Yes.

Is this what Mr. Zelenskyy's high ratings are related to?

Look. There is a demand, but the willingness to accept that something will be done painfully and not within the framework of the concepts supported by certain leaders of certain activist groups is another matter. Do you understand?

That is, I want it that way: we sit, talk about something and theoretically we understand everything, but when in practice you start to break something, various difficult discussions begin there even with the initiators of certain processes, because they saw these processes as the logistics of these processes a little differently, for example.

And I have something else here, well, if you'd like to take a look. Look, there is a request from certain social groups, right? But there is a demand, let's say, from other more conservative social groups for the immutability of certain processes. Do you understand?

And when you break something, then you need to understand that these big ones are also conservative, they may be more passive in the information sense of the group. They too need to get answers to simple questions: what are they doing next with their careers, what are they doing next with their jobs, what are they doing next with the lifestyle in which they were integrated.

Because any revolution, including a revolution-- I don't mean a revolution on the streets, yes, I mean any revolution that should lead to the transformation of certain social relations, it always poses questions to various groups about what and how they will do next.

And I understand that, for example, for certain social passion groups, changing concepts is, well, normal, they are adapted to it, they are already ready for it. But for many, well, it's, you know, it's comparable to any industrial revolution out there 100 years ago, right? Likewise, conservative social groups were against it.

And do you know what the right thing to do is for this or that leader who is in charge of this? He must consider these needs of some groups and consider the needs of others and find some compromise. But this compromise must be progressive.

45:33 As for Yermak, let's go back to the literal remark briefly. Look, the Office of the President is not some kind of state body that has to perform certain executive functions. This is essentially the office, the secretariat of the president. And the president is driven by what? He needs such operational managers.

In my opinion, Yermak was a successful operations manager who performed the functions of such a manager under President Zelenskyy. And that's why he was there for a long time, yes, and that's why he effectively performed, as the president believes, the functions of an operational manager, not an independent political figure.

Another thing is that in the public consciousness, yes, there is a demonisation of the image of Yermak, and everyone can say for themselves whether it is right or wrong, is this normal, right? And it gave him this image, so that people had the impression that he was an autonomous political unit. And this is not true. In fact, he was, let's say it again, president Zelenskyy's operations manager. And the president was comfortable working in the coordinate system that, uh, Yermak created.

Well, from the point of view of working out certain positions of the president in various professional groups. Therefore, to say that he kept him there for a long time, although we need to quickly, beause we talked about this at the beginning, quickly make appropriate decisions. Yes, Yermak exactly met the criteria that Zelenskyy laid down for the role of his operative. That's all.

51:10 Society is always much larger, 80% of which are conservative social groups, 20% are active, proactive ones who want transformation, revolution, change of rules and so on.

It's very important to understand here, look, it's not a question of giving interviews or not giving interviews. Well, it's a question of who knows how to talk, yes, who knows how to maintain communication, to be, well, not too dry and at the same time not too bright when there's no need to say something. But this is a matter of internal communication, it is a matter, once again, of responsibility.

55:54 I wanted to ask you about Yermak. We talked about how you are working with the new head of the presidential office.

Well, they are completely different. If Yermak is centralisation, this is, at a certain stage, extremely positive manual management, then Mr. Budanov is expertise, this is delegation of authority, this is a different psychological environment, and so on. It's quite comfortable.

I emphasise once again that he is an expert, that is, you can talk to him about a lot of things at the level of expertise. And accordingly, he will be ready to discuss, he will be ready to give his alternative vision, but at the same time he is ready to delegate immediately.

If you have a great understanding of the issues here, for example, I have been dealing with the issues of the Caucasus as such for quite a long time, well, the Ichkerians, the Dagestanis, and he says: "You deal with it, please, we will delegate it to you, deal with it and do what you consider necessary. Meet with these people at an official level and so on." And so in each direction, you understand? That is, his expertise is enough to assess how expert you are, and then he delegates.

Mr. Yermak was a little different. He believed that it was necessary to control everything, to go personally somewhere. I don't think that the manual control method is promising in the modern world, yes, well, there are a lot of incoming information flows and it is impossible to analyse all of this in a timely manner and therefore it needs to be integrated, yes.

Are you more comfortable working with Budanov?

I am comfortable with anyone, because I believe that you yourself must correspond to the function that you take on. If you don't correspond, then you will always blame someone, right? That is, you need to be critical, this is how I advise everyone. A sign of mental health is a critical attitude, first of all, towards oneself. I understand my shortcomings, well, from the point of view of certain competencies that need to be worked on.

And accordingly, if someone makes some remarks to you, you can argue why this is so or not. So that people can hear and see that you are not just giving emotion, but giving facts, right? Then, in principle, it's your own fault. And therefore, if you can always argue something, then you will be comfortable with anyone, regardless of power.

I emphasise once again, for purely personal reasons, I don't really like it when there is too much manual control. Why? Because, well, well, well, again, well, you don't have time, just the timing is off, right? And Mr. Yermak, who wanted to control everything, sometimes just didn't have enough time for something.

Well, he just physically didn't have enough time. 24 hours. And there are still no pills, yes, that allow you to expand your thinking speed so that you have not 24, but 48 hours in time, although they are working on it. And that is why today, and I emphasise it once again, Budanov has a nice nuance called delegation. It is cool.

And finally, I can't help but mention that there have not been and will not be elections in Ukraine on time, probably because martial law, it doesn't just prohibit elections. It also allows the president to work without a mandate. Is there an awareness on Bankova that this is a kind of debt to society that will need to be paid?

1:35 I don't even know. How can you communicate with a person who lies all the time? Well, that is to say, lied once, lied twice, /…/a braggart, yes, well, tells some kind of phantasmagorical scenarios.

All the rest is Tales from the Vienna Woods [by Johann Strauss II], yes, I don't know from what kind of forest.

4:28 It seems to me, it seems to me that you are kind, idealistic people, yes [smiles]. You don't fully understand human nature then, to your great delight, because you get good pleasure from life, yes, and that's right, you need to live in fact.

7:39 I'm talking about Americans right now. They want to enter Belaruskali, yes. If through this negotiation process we manage to get another 1,000 political prisoners there, I will only be happy, yes, regardless of the fact that we don't always understand what's going on.

Well, like, for example, the exchange of [Alexander] Butyagin for, ah, a whole series of prisoners. But again, from a humanitarian point of view, I'm in favour of releasing [Andrzej] Poczobut and the rest, and so on. For me, that's a priority.

8:12 Well, imagine living with a person for 10 years, yes, even 5 years. You'll already know him inside out, what he wants.

8:35 In world football today, there are a ton of strikers who will not score. The question is, this has long since ceased to be a sport, but show business, yes. And the main thing here is to be able to sell strikers who don't score and sell them to Manchester City, Arsenal, also Milan [laughs].

9:42 Lukashenko is -- Remember, Alexander Zinoviev's novel "The Yawning Heights" (1976) had this Homo Sovieticus, well, Zinoviev himself, admittedly, was like that, I mean, the writer. So, Lukashenko is a classic, primitive Homo Sovieticus. At the same time, Putin, for example, there's another writer, Yerofeyev, but not Venedikt but Viktor, yes. He wrote "The Great Gopnik", yes, the novel of Russia.

So, the great gopnik is only great in terms of concept, but in terms of appearance and execution, Putin is a gopnik. Well, look, Homo Sovieticus and gopnik. This is an alliance of sword and ploughshare [underground organisation from Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov's classic novel "The Twelve Chairs"], which is basically meaningless.

11:09 Still, Belarus, I think, will soon emerge from this darkness, from this kingdom of shadows, yes, from this otherworld. Not the one that was in Egypt, yes.

14:37 [About Lukashenko] Ozempic. He uses Ozempic, yes [laughs].

Marina Mentusova: Have you seen how people lose weight on Ozempic? [He shakes head]

By the way, by the way, it's a dangerous thing like--

28:15 Mykhailo, I have a few quick questions, but I don't know how you will answer them. It's just that we are at the end of the conversation. They sent us a donation and asked us to comment.

You decided that we were so tired after half an hour of conversation that now we can only do such a blitz, yes [laughs]? Yes, no, yes--

Konstantin Kaverin: No, I'm not about that. I-- Listen, I value your time.

Marina Mentusova: Yes, we all appreciate your time.

35:27 Mocks scornfully: "I don't wash my socks."

35:51 I hope that we will make such an Iron Curtain. Just a small window is opened, what do you want? They say: "Can I have some water?" No, you can't. Closed, that's it, goodbye. This is how it should work in Russia.

36:00 The last one. I want to make a little lyrical digression now. Mykhailo, /…/ I only ask one thing of you, Mykhailo, if you somewhere with Syrskyi, with Zelenskyy discuss something there, strolling in the smoking room, please, I ask you, just don't--, I ask you on my behalf [Mykhailo is smiling], calmly and methodically strangle this fascist bastard.

There is no need to wave a saber, because I know Ukrainians, you know, they're just Aye, come on with two sixes. There is no need to go all in with 2 sixes [Mykhailo nods]. Calmly and methodically take the bank and strangle this bastard. I ask you on my own behalf. That's all. I have recorded it. Thanks for listening.

Yes, the only little-- Yes, I heard everything, everything is correct. The only small remark, very important, yes. Smoking is extremely dangerous. In general. There is no smoking room, never any smoking. Never in my life, never in my life have I smoked, I am not going to smoke and I do not recommend it to anyone. This is the most dangerous thing, the worst addiction.

Konstantin Kaverin: I will quit.

26:00 Look, Дмитрий, I want you and I to be clear. I am an extremely pragmatic person, yes. That is, for me, nothing mystical exists, except for films, "Stranger Things", yes, well, TV series and so on, which I can sometimes watch an episode a week. You see?

That is, I believe that competence, ah, a broad outlook, uh, high intelligence, uh, an understanding of what you're doing in a particular position, yes, willingness to work, yes, these are the important criteria, yes, everything else seems very strange to me.

I've never in my life dealt with, as you say, fortune tellers, nutritionists, toxicologists -- no, with toxicologist I did, yes [laughs], they were directly work-related-- , tarologists and so on. Toxicologists by the way are top professionals, as a rule, they determine the use of certain toxic substances in certain situations. I mean in criminology already. So ah, I've never dealt with it and I think this is absolute nonsense. As for my work in the office, I've never dealt with that, I haven't seen such manifestations here, yes.

I understand that a lot will be exaggerated, as is common in modern information societies. And, probably, again, this is normal. Society has the right to discuss any topic. But to say that this was some kind of dominant thing which was somehow circulated here in the office, no, that certainly didn't happen, yes.

And, accordingly, let's come back to that again. In my opinion, the elements of a crime are when a person, using their official position, received something in excess of what the state owed them, right? That is, when they use their administrative powers, yes, then the subject of the crime appears, then the structure of the crime appears, and so on. This material part must be either proven, or not proven.

That is, roughly speaking, Mr. Yermak's intent to commit a crime against property in the form of a house, in this case we are talking about, yes, that it was obtained criminally from somewhere. Again, the criminal origin of this property must be proven.

And then, that some kind of money was laundered through this property, money and so on and so forth. This is the material substrate that requires legal proceedings. And this is correct, I emphasise once again, either yes or no. Either the intent to commit a crime was proven, or it was not proven, and then the person is innocent.

Everything that concerns this rhetoric, there were tarot readers, I say again, it, in my opinion, has no direct relation to the procedural action under discussion. Does it have anything to do with Mr. Yermak himself?

Well, it's not correct for me [to comment] here, because, once again, I haven't encountered such things with him, yes. This is already a question directly to him, how he sees his understanding of the management vertical, the management system as such, and so on.

But let me return to the basic conclusion. The modern world requires only one thing: deep knowledge, either industry-specific or, if it's CEO, related knowledge, but very deep knowledge, so that you can talk to specialists at an expert level, and they understand and feel it. And then the control system will work perfectly, like a clock.

If you use outdated archaic practices from 17th, 16th centuries, then you will not have, firstly, an effective vertical management system. Secondly, you will very quickly be discredited at an informal level among industry specialists, and, accordingly, you will not be able to influence it. And thirdly, all this will lead to sad personal consequences.

Дмитрий Семёнов: And you, Mykhailo, by the way, just taking into account let's say, professional competences, how would you characterise Yermak?

As a person who is strong-willed, as a person who can push through certain management decisions, as a person who is ready to take responsibility and as a person who essentially worked around the clock for weeks, yes, and at the beginning of the war, in the first months of the war, this was extremely important, because, well, the system needed to be rebuilt, yes, because war is a major crisis, it breaks down, and psychologically strongly breaks down traditional management models, and even traditional models of behaviour, it breaks down-- the behavioural breakdown happens, and so on.

And at this moment, we need people who will take responsibilty and, in principle, delve deeply into the topics and force people in these topics to move in a new mode of behavioural reactions. This is what Yermak was able to do, yes.

Another question is that a long war always leads to an accumulation of mistakes, right? That is, I'm not specifically talking about Yermak, but about any system in principle, yes. Any crisis, especially a crisis like war, I emphasise again [coughs], always leads to an accumulation of errors. So look, the question is always the same: are you ready to admit and correct these mistakes or not? Or do you put them off?

So, in my opinion, Mr. Yermak's problem was that he accumulated errors, as is normal for the process, this is normal, but he did not want to analyse them, make appropriate decisions about them, including personnel ones. And he traditionally put them aside somewhere, and it accumulated to a critical level. In the end, the critical value played out the way it did.

As a result, he will now have to get out of this personal crisis by proving that he was successful as a manager or not successful as a manager, while simultaneously proving that he did not commit any criminal acts of self-enrichment or, especially, of laundering any property or money.

32:21 Again, this is not quite my profile, I don't really like to engage in conspiracy theories, and, to put it mildly, conspiracies. Again, going back to the fact that I am very pragmatic, I always believe that behind everything there is either human stupidity, or human meanness, yes, that is, two main motives. That is, you are either stupid or you are selfish, yes, and both lead to fatal consequences.

16:03 There is a large audience that buys hate. Well, you yourself know this, you know it personallly, and I know this personally, and so on. People love to buy hate. Moreover, they like to join in to hate, because it's cool. Look, we are sitting-- The effect of the Library of Alexandria, as I always say. Well, we sit, no one knows us. Here, we will now hate this, this and that. Hop, someone will see our last name and so on. That's it. That's how it works.

[Мосейчук asks him just not to be offended. He doesn't look offended.]

17:51 Look, there is the Premier League [professional football league in England] where Manchester City play, even Brentford plays there. Chelsea, everyone else. And there is championship [he says the word in English], that is, the first league, but there is also a second, third, fourth league.

So, at the beginning of the war we all played in the championship, for example. Today, the president plays in the Premier League, everyone else plays, by everyone else I mean those who try to increase their subjectivity, in the fourth division.

Not all will be in Wrexham. Wrexham is a team led by Mr. Ryan Reynolds, yes [smiles], Hollywood actor who plays simply brilliantly. Today they are already in the second league and will qualify for the championship.

And so, if it seems to the fourth division team that they can ask questions at the level of Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and even Tottenham, well, that's a bit of an illusion. That's all.

[They show a short video of Dmitry Gordon interviewing Andriy Bohdan where Gordon insists that Bohdan loved Zelenskyy and Bohdan maintains that he loves women.]

What is there to comment on?

19:49 I said it before, I am not a supporter of conspiracy theories. Everything is always simple enough in life, in general and in everyday life of every person. If a person thinks, "The neighbours are looking at me, something was wrong there, the wife looked at me or the husband looked at me, children are looking at me." All this is wrong. Everything is simpler. Go and ask: "What's up? What happened?" And it turns out that just-- [Мосейчук interrupts him]

Have you asked the president, what's up, what happened, how do you react to that?

I ask him all the time.

So you think that these bites, they don't even get it?

They are bad, because you know, you're standing, and there's someone behind you, you know, how is it called, stabbing in the back with knives. Look, let me giggle, yes, I'll throw a knife in him, yes. I will insult him somehow and so on.

This is what it looks like, because this is a matter of your personal priority. What is important to you? That we effectively brought this war to an end, after that, a political process will begin, where we can ask each other any questions. Or that we were moderated by someone else and brought this war to an end in a different format? It's your choice.

22:49 The opposition may insist on resignation of anyone. This is a normal process for any democratic country.

23:35 For investigative journalists of the democratic countries, this is a fundamental value. Any, publication of any transcripts, by journalists officially - this is a value in democratic sustainable systems.

31:02 I, as a person who understands a little about political processes, well, just a little bit but still understands…

31:39 I'll make a remark here. For me, [they] do not exist today, however paradoxical it sounds, understanding in what stage of the war we are in, what Russia is like and how they think, for me there are no sociological ratings of these or other potential political candidates today. They are just not physically there.

Because I understand that as soon as the war is over, well, frozen, yes, everything will look completely different. Completely other issues will be debated, completely different people will lead as speakers. Not as leaders who will go somewhere later, but in the capacity of speakers and so on.

Therefore, everyone who thinks that they moderate something today, form some teams, are already opening some headquarters, it's all fiction. But who wants to make money from this, well, they have the right. These are business projects [smiles].

Yes, we talked to Mykhailo Brodskyy…

Let's talk about Mr. Brodskyy. In my opinion, he's always deep in the material, in an analytical sense, that is--

Did you watch the interview?

Yes, I watched the interview. Well, he's always interesting. He is always interesting.

Thank you.

He is well oriented in the moment, but he has one trait. He sometimes within the framework of the answer gives how he wishes it would be. Well, you understand, right?

Well, this is sincerity after all.

Yes, yes, yes. He's unique in this regard because he's sincere in this regard and very interesting. It's always interesting to listen to him, I emphasise. And, by the way, I always advise everyone to listen [to him], because he is always deeply in understanding of the process in which we are. But once again, when he has already made the conclusion, then this conclusion is always such as he would like to receive. This is his second uniqueness [smiles].

34:01 I am lucky to work with Zelenskyy, there is no method at all.

38:55 Mykhailo uses the Russian word после війни and corrects himself right away, після війни.

After the war, yes, already when, well, it will be clear who, what and how affects it here, then new heroes will appear who will be telling how cool they did here, how they moderated all the processes and so on. And I think that it's right, too. This is also an element of democracy, because in a democracy you can always sell an impostor, you can make yourself a hero, yes, and so on, but the truth is a little different.

39:22 I hope you write your transcripts, too, so as not to forget anything.

Me?

During these four years of war.

No. For what?

No?

No, that's not necessary. Because when you have phenomenal memory and when you understand who is who and when you sort of study psychotypes of people, I am after all, my basic profession, yes, it is related to this exactly, yes. And when you read people's eyes clearly, who is he, what is he, what is he thinking about, what he wants to earn and so on.

Are you [talking] about political strategist or a doctor?

No, I'm only talking about the psychiatrist, yes [smiles].

39:54 Budanov is here, Podolyak is here, Zelenskyy is here. Is Bankova ready for the parade?

Not so. Zelenskyy is here. We are tools, I would even say, which will help the person who took on the historical mission. In history there is simply one, who takes on this mission. And we have to help him reach the final. And then Zelenskyy is here, Ukraine is here, the Ukrainian people are here. And so it will be.

And I say again, those who think that they will reformat something later there, we will give, there will be something to sign, they still didn't understand. 2004 [Orange Revolution] didn't understand, 2013 [Euromaidan] didn't understand, 2019 [presidential election] didn't understand, this year they didn't understand, they don't understand today. They haven't understood Ukraine at all. But they will try to make money from this. Well, they have the right.