7:35 Modern society is built on an emotional perception of information, and not a rational one [smiles]. I don't think I need to tell you how people read information. Therefore, even rational arguments will be rejected on an emotional level, because there are established, well, uh, myths, yes, about who is who, who has what authority, who is high-tech, who is low-tech in this war, who launched what processes, and society can have its own idea about this and right to react the way it reacts.
9:04 There is a design that is very good for me. Time heals.
10:02 You know, you can't change your inner essence.
14:00 I consider him [Mykhailo Fedorov] an effective manager. I believe that he has already brought a lot of benefit and can bring more benefit.
16:19 Vadim Radionov: So, since you communicate with the president practically every day, tell us what a day for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy looks like. What does the working day of the head of state looks like and how do you see him in this work process?
Yes, ah, very early on a large volume begins. Well, I didn't even say that it starts even at the workplace. That is, the president receives the first reports there as early as possible, maybe at 6:00 in the morning, right?
That is, already from the first report, if there has been shelling, even earlier, maybe, yes, he is always aware of this, situational meetings are immediately held, that is, those that should be a priority, if some kind of crisis has arisen, either in the energy sector, or in connection with Russian shelling, or somewhere else, then situational meetings are held.
Next come scheduled meetings, that is, when we need to prepare this or that agenda, and then there could be telephone conversations with our partners or meetings with our partners if they come here. Or it could be presidential trips. He is very mobile and very active in this regard. Well, well, here's an extremely busy schedule until the very latest time. And this has been going on for 4,2 years already.
And in order for you to get to the president, how quickly can you get there if necessary [Mykhailo smiles]?
I can do it quickly [he is amused]. I can do it quickly if necessary, unless, of course, there are some meetings where my presence is inappropriate, well, you understand, I cannot be present at all meetings, naturally. I can get there quickly, but again, only if you have something very important and it really requires an assessment by the president, discussion with him, getting his approval or, on the contrary, a ban, and so on.
Well, that's how the system work should work. That means, there are some decisions you can't make on your own. There is always a boss, well, in this case the President of Ukraine, yes [smiles], who must evaluate whether you are moving in the right direction or not. Ah, well, after all, I work in his support structure, yes?
That is why, of course, my main task is to do everything so that it is clear to him, and I mean from the point of view of, for example, assessing this or that information, it is clear in terms of the scenario, how this can develop further. And, of course, this work is directed at him. And it is clear that communication with him is required [smiles].
18.37 In general, it's just interesting, can you disagree? That is, can you say that--, well, I don't know, to what extent it is still a civil structure, therefore there are different relationships there. Well, it's just really interesting because it's, well, a historical period.
Briefly. The president is very demanding. That is, if you will-- You can agree or disagree, of course, such an option exists, especially if these are internal closed meetings, there is a discussion going on, you can express your point of view there, and it can be completely different, yes, but the president's demands reach the point that you must clearly--
Well, or not, but it is conditioned by the fact that you must clearly argue. Not just that "I don't agree." and give some superficial arguments. It is necessary to clearly show, using facts, why, for example, such a scenario will look negative, and such a scenario will look positive.
Or even if that scenario is negative, why is it important here and now because from a strategic perspective, this will produce a different result, yes, a positive one. That is, when you respond to the president, whether you agree or disagree with something, you must provide clear, intelligible, structured arguments.
By the way, this is quite simple for me. In principle, I am used to always clearly record for myself why this is possible, why this is impossible. And this mobilises people, well, it structures people, yes, and many try to speak very clearly, distinctly, even if they disagree with something.
Again, once again, this is acceptable, but within closed meetings before the president makes a decision. Once a decision has been made, we must implement it, naturally, without introducing any confusion into it, refusing and so on. A decision that has been made, it must be implemented. Before a decision is made, it is possible to debate, but only with arguments that are clear, pecise, and supported by facts.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
2.31 Disappointment. And the second is betrayal. Always betrayal. These are the two most terrible sins.
34:31 In our case, success is measured by the opportunity to build, as it were, a nepotistic corruption vertical.
35:57 There are people who, again within the framework of a certain personal program, believe that if we move like this, I will receive public dividends. In this case, publicity, brightness. So we broke the corruption in the customs office, we broke the corruption in the region that was traditionally considered shady. Ugh. Oh, and I get dividends. Ah, but, well, but this person is weak, maybe, right?
They come to him and say: "Look, why break all this, for these dividends, we'll here's the feeding for something. For the party, for elections, for electoral work, something else." /…/ And the person looks like this: "Yes, there are such advantages here, there are such advantages." And here is the question of his personal quality, what he'll choose.
There's transparency, success, and breaking the system. And with this example, you're taking it further. But then you'd have to break everyone. And then you'd have to give up the most important thing: personal profitability. And how was the system of political relations built in Ukraine? Personal profitability. Careers were built solely for the sake of earning money for oneself.
48:27 He miscalculated in the fact that there were fellow travellers here, unlike in Georgia. /…/ There were allies there, he went with them, but here they were fellow travellers, and he thought that they were allies. This is a standard error. I will explain why. This is a standard mistake of all people who enter another cultural environment. He was a stranger at the moment.
Not for you and me, but for the environment he fell into. You must be born here, it must be felt, soaked, and then you will understand when they look at you, while the pupils are already running in their eyes. This means the person has aleady cheated. He thinks you're stupid. He deceived you, you did not understand it.
12:03 Игорь Яковенко: Well, I understand. Well, then it's either Fyodorov or Budanov. That's how I understand it. Two, two options.
[Smiles and nods] Budanov, I like Budanov here as the Head of the Office, yes, in this building [laughs].
13:51 Игорь Яковенко: Still, I can say from my own experience that when you deal with people who are about half your age, you see the difference in speech, emission, in tempo, in the speed of thinking. And you understand that, in general, when you are already almost 80, it is one thing, but when you are dealing with people who are just over 30, then the speed of nerve impulse conduction is completely different.
Absolutely. I agree. But there are two more remarks here. It is possible, it is possible, at 30, even at 80, to be very advanced, intelligent, to understand cause-and-effect relationships and, accordingly, to draw the right conclusions and quickly change internally, right? That is, biological age here, it, in principle, has nothing to do with intellectual age, I would say so, yes. But on the other hand, it is possible to be a bit stupid at 30.
15:12 Игорь Яковенко: Uh, Mykhailo Mykhailovych, since we've moved on to personalities, to personnel, I can't help but ask your attitude and your general attitude towards the phenomenon that is now in the form of General Zaluzhnyi. Because on the one hand, when a person speaks of his intention to run for president, while remaining in public service. /…/ That is, you first resign, and then criticise.
Here is a different situation. The person, uh, does not so to speak resign, he continues to be a high-ranking employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, heads, so to speak, the British Embassy, and at the same time he says: "I want to be president," and writes articles, well, let's put it this way, well, again, I don't want to judge his latest publication, but, in general, the article is a bit out of this world [Mykhailo smiles].
That is, mm, it's not critical of the address, but it is, it is strange. That is, for some reason, his glass is always half-empty. /…/ The article is quite strange. Ah, although he writes everything correctly, but so, so this is the attitude towards this. Will it be like this from now on, that people from the executive branch will speak out and, without resigning, will, so to speak, act as presidental candidates?
Well, my attitude towards all this is always negative, because I pragmatically look at things. I think you're absolutely right. This person works in a vertical chain of command, directly in the president's chain of command. This is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ambassadors are a direct prerogative. The appointment of ambassadors is the president's direct prerogative. Of course, it is essentially his team. Moreover, it is a team that presents an extremely active president on foreign platforms, because we depend on foreign aid.
Well, I mean, not that we depend, but we have very good partnerships. And Britain plays a leading role in these partnerships. And here, of course, I would like more, uh, clearer, more understandable work of the embassy in terms of organisation, perhaps, some additional platforms and so on. That is, there is work to be done.
18:10 Again, it all seems strange to me, it seems very strange. That is, all these declarations of readiness, once again, anyone has the right to become president. When our electoral cycle begins, then you can, of course, declare your ambitions. And we are now in the midst of war. We are now at a stage of war when Putin is focused on attacks on civilians, when a lot needs to be done specifically to ensure the protection of the civilian population.
Air defence systems, joint ventures, possibly other systems, not only Patriots that can work on ballistics, hypersonics. That is, there is work to do, yes. And accordingly, not so much to analyse the progress of the war along the front lines, but rather analyse the type of war that Putin is waging against the civilian population, against large cities, and accordingly, within this framework, make adjustments to one's uh, position as ambassador.
19:15 For me, once again, it all seems mysterious. For me, sociology, which periodically measures uh, popularity ratings, or something like that. Measuring popularity ratings within a war, well, that's very strange. When the war ends, it will be clear how it ended, what's next, that is, what further actions we need, and so on. Then, probably, electoral preferences will emerge, then, probably, discussions will arise, yes, and so on.
Asking questions now, especially to the president, who is extremely effective, again, on those same external platforms. I can't quite imagine if we had a different traditional configuration, yes, for Ukraine, which is sitting there as a supplicant in a reception area somewhere, waiting for someone to mature into providing some kind of assistance to Ukraine, as was the case for Ukraine for a long time, yes.
The president has built a completely different configuration, where Ukraine is proactive, where Ukraine is subjective, where Ukraine negotiates on an equal footing, where Ukraine is heard and agreements are made with Ukraine, yes, its terms are accepted. In this context, of course, all this looks very strange when someone says that we'll probably have elections in autumn, we'll go there, we'll fight with the president there. It's a very strange configuration, but again, it can't be banned. Objectively, it's still democracy, even if it's a military democracy, but it's democracy during a war.
Secondly, well, neither you nor I are active psychoanalysts or psychotherapists so that we could work with a person and explain that, well, it's probably not quite right to do it this way, yes, and so on. And thirdly, well, we can't delve into the personal self, into personal ambitions and so on. It all depends on a person's inner content. How they sense the moment. So, you sense the moment like this. You feel that at this moment you need to come out and say. "I want to be an alternative to Mr. Zelenskyy." Well, that's how you feel.
Uh, you feel you need to come out and say, look, we need to work on this in a consolidated manner. I'll do this amount of work in this area. The president opened the doors for me here, I walked through those doors, and I want to push these doors, well, basically, what's happening there further, even further. Well, that's a different feeling, yes, and so on.
But look, well, in Ukraine, ambitions are very common, somehow people don't measure them, the place where they are, the time in which they are. Those around them are probably also interested in making some kind of bets on who they will be later and so on, yes. Well, in general, it's difficult. But I have a negative attitude towards this. In general, I believe that while the war is active, a very active phase of the war, especially this genocidal phase of the war. Now, everyone should have slightly different interests, to put it mildly.
As soon as we enter the electoral cycle, no problem, please, all ambitions are on the table, whatever you want, everyone can participate here. A bunch of political strategists, everyone is probably sitting there hungry. They want to show off their creativity, they want to compete, uh, intellectually compete, who can come up with the best slogan or billboard, no problem at all. But at this stage, the focus should be on just one thing. Additional investments, additional defence systems, additional joint ventures, partnerships, and additional pressure on Russia.
24:18 Игорь Яковенко: Well, let's put it this way, I have, if you allow me, three comments. First, he has no right. He simply doesn't have the right. You say he has the right, I say no, he doesn't, because if a person is in the vertical, well, for example, Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak [he nods] decided tomorrow that [he smiles] he wants to declare his presidential ambitions and starts criticising [he smiles and shakes head, but he has a sly look].
Mykhailo puts hand on chest, laughing: "I don't have any, and there never were."
Игорь Яковенко: But, firstly, how do you know?
[Mykhailo looks surprised, then bursts out laughing: "I'm not talking to you, but in principle, I know, yes."]
27:03 Игорь Яковенко: Well, I understand that as a sociologist, I may be professionally deformed, but I think that stopping work in sociology during a war is not very healthy.
No, no, no. Sociology is very useful now, right? It tells about what people are going through, how they feel, what concerns their assessment of the adequacy of the defence, or rather, how they perceive it, and so on. This is all very important.
Just for some reason, the main emphasis is only on this part, about who has what kind of electoral rating, potential, yes. But for me, this is only [important?] to an extent, because I understand that the situation with ratings after the end of hostilities, when the main discussion about everything begins, yes, then it will be different.
But everything that concerns public sentiment, yes, this is very important, of course. About how effective local authorities are, how effective central authorities are, which decisions are right, which are wrong, I mean including social decisions and so on. All this is very important to study.
19:09 First of all, I have sympathy towards Poland. For me there is a fixed fact. This is 2022. Well, and the years that followed. The position that Poland took and the assistance, the volume of assistance that Poland provided to Ukraine. For me, this is all, well, it's clear, yes, and here I don't have any dual attitude towards Poland.
19:44 As for historical collisions, you know your history is difficult, yes, and there are many difficult things in our history, uh, yes? Ah, well, every country has a sovereign history. Some people may like it, some may not, but it is ours. Your story is yours, right? We need to find ways to accept this, right? That is, I may not like something in Polish history, but I have no right to tell them: "These are your heroes, these are not your heroes," and so on.
I can go there for mutual reconciliation, if that is necessary, yes, or go there for mutual repentance, if that is necessary, yes. Ah, but you are absolutely right. Historical topics, especially between neighbours, are very difficult. Why? And you know, yes, that in the Middle Ages, well, it's unlikely that controversial issues were resolved correctly [smiles]. They were resolved through wars, they were resolved through conflicts, and not only in the Middle Ages, but also in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries, when those states were formed, and now there are other states.
All this needs to be put aside and we need to sit down at the negotiating table, as you rightly say. Perhaps not only historians, but also others, intellectuals, can participate in this discussion. Do you know what the problem is? The modern information society. The modern information society loves to consume scandals, it loves to consume speculation. And it's very profitable to speculate on historical topics, right?
He came and said: "Look, they offended us then, let's hate them for it." And this is bought by part of the electorate, part of the citizens. It is bought and it is often used in the internal political process. /…/ And there are reminiscences there, like we were once great, and they insulted us, and so on. This is a very simple path to situational popularity.
In a strategic course, well, this certainly won't provide stability to the relationship there, or the opportunity to earn money together. That's why I'm saying it needs to be divided into two parts. Here we are doing something together, joint production, joint transitive things. Here we earn money, here we strengthen each other in terms of defence and security, and here we conduct long, if necessary difficult, negotiations about the historical legacy, about who is a hero and who is not.
But again, to say as an ultimatum that you can't make them heroes there or you can't make these people outcasts there, well, this is unlikely to be necessary in bilateral relations or multilateral relations.
26:10 For me, this is mystery, I emphasise again. Here you are talking about what steps are being taken here and now. Taking steps here and now is called masculine determination. Well, or the female type, it is not important now, yes, we live in a gendered time. Determination, responsibility.
27:31 Well, that's really bad, yes. Well, it's hard for people to give up their earnings. Hard. Especially if this income is premium, if it has a high rate of return, if part of this income is also in the shadows, if part of this income is not taxed because it is shadow cash, and so on. Well, it's hard to give up a luxurious lifestyle. It's hard because you're not being attacked, you live far away.
32:58 "Call me, call me", yes. They have a national song there: "Позвони мне, позвони", yes.
35:35 I'm generally a supporter of the idea that the start of the war was, and I remain one. The start of the war showed who's who. Like Lithuania, like Poland. They provided maximum assistance. They did everything that was necessary in every sense: information, diplomatic, transit, logistical, weapons, support. Citizens, countries, states. Poland was one of the most effective at that time. And accordingly, for me, this is the most important thing.
That is, I understand that the mutual historical grievances that have accumulated there need to be discussed, and solutions sought. Here, I just see it a little differently [puts his hand on his chest] than, probably, everyone else. I believe that your history is your history, and mine is mine. I can see dark spots in your history that hurt me, yes, they hurt me there, but I understand that this is important to you.
In the same way, something that is important to me, it may irritate you a little, but well, that's history, yes. There is sovereign history and ours is ours and Polish is Polish. And especially among neighbours in history, in the Middle Ages, the 18th century, 17th century, and even the 20th century, there were always many conflicts between neighbours. Many of these conflcts were resolved harshly, unfortunately, sometimes bloodily, yes, wars between neighbours.
38:01 Let's create platforms, let's work on them. Moreover, Ukraine, by the way, was already moving towards these platforms. In 1991, let me remind you, those rather difficult discussions had already begun back then, followed by mutual repentance, mutual apologies. In my opinion, this is the right way.
40:19 I have no doubt that the Baltic countries clearly understand the risks and have the resources to counter them. And yes, and we will help here in any case, yes, and so on.
I'm probably not typical for all these historical conversations, because for me, history is all that matters. I sometimes dive deep into it, yes. I love there, Ancient, Ancient Rome, the Middle Egyptian kingdoms, yes, and so on [smiles], and see what it is.
But for me it is important that 2022 was a watershed line, when it was clearly shown who is who in this modern hierarchy, yes. And for me everything is clear with Poland, yes. It's a country that deserves respect, deserves a friendly relationship. Yes, we can discuss complex issues there, but if necessary, we need to help it. It's the same for you, right? That is, for me there is no question that if something happens, we need to come to your aid as actively as possible, because we have one common enemy.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
14:32 In any case, any conflict, even if it is used in some internal situations, simply requires a high-quality negotiation process, nothing more.
16:27 There is a certain fatigue with Ukraine, with Ukraine's presence or with the life of Ukraine. This is all clear.
19:14 Here, you and I can, of course, go on emotional escapades there, yes [smiles] but why?
19:52 They are extremely important to us. Poland is one of the most important allies.
27:32 I simply understand that people have never worked in psychiatric hospitals, yes, they just watched the film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" [1975].
41:13 Your assistant says we must finish [they continue for 8 more minutes].
45:01 Okay, last question. I'm letting you go because I know you have next broadcast [he smiles].
"Freedom of Russia" Legion and "Цезарь" из Легиона | Максимилиан Андронников
0:41 Uh, I don’t even know how to describe Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak in one word or briefly.
Just Podolyak, as the president at the beginning. Podolyak is here, we're here.
Yes, Podolyak is here, we are here. We are working.
Yes.
Greetings!
Greetings [they shake hands, both are smiling]! [Podolyak is looking very kind]
I am very glad to meet you and talk.
We know each other in absentia. You're the ones who made a lot of noise [there is the white-blue-white flag of Russian opposition in the background].
I would like to discuss the current situation and see what were the reasons that led to it. We understand that in its current format, Russia, as a civilizational model, is approaching its end. It can no longer exist in this format. And my first question to you is: Where is that point, where is that trigger, when turning back has become impossible, when the final transition of the Russian civilizational model to a model that exists only in the format of war occurred.
Ah, that's a difficult question, because I believe the first point of no return was 2003, when the elections, well, electoral elections in Russia were essentially cancelled. Then 2004-2006, when NTV and TV-6 were finally finished off, well, one after another, yes, there, well, essentially, freedom of speech as a concept.
That is, competition policy as a concept was killed, uh, competitive freedom of information was killed, and that was it. And then the turning poin , the point after which, uh, Russia was dying, dying very quickly, was Putin's 2007-2008 speech, where he clearly stated that we would fight against the entire world.
The so-called Munich speech, yes.
Yes, the Munich speech. Uh, but the most uh, triggering thing for me, after which I realized this country will definitely not survive in this form, it is not competitive, it was the winter of 1999, early 2000, uh, the Second Chechen war. Moreover, it was exactly like what we see in Ukraine today, as genocidal as possible, with the most false justification. Instead of reaching an agreement and implementing the Khasavyurt Accord, basically, everything was, well, the same as in Ukraine. Everything was exactly the same.
3:53 Until this whole structure dies, this dead one, like Frankenstein's bride, yes, the last film, until this Frankenstein's bride dies, well, actually, nothing will happen.
Mr. Mykhailo, I've just launched my lecture series. This is a prelude to the publication of my political program, my views. And I believe the problems are deeply rooted. They stem from what I call Homo Sovieticus. Basically, the Soviet Union, or whatever it was, to use Dugin's terminology, Eurasianism, it hasn't gone away.
There were periods in Russian history when Europe struggled with Asia, so to speak, right? Here we see Peter the Great, the transfer of the capital St. Petersburg, an attempt to carve a window onto Europe, but somehow, historically, Asia has always been putting pressure on Europe. Always putting pressure, putting pressure, yes. And now, this Asianism, under Putin's rule, is increasingly breaking through.
I attribute this to the fact that poor, illiterate, oppressed people, as a compensatory mechanism, they need some kind of grandeur, right? For some, it's ballet, for others, it's Gagarin's flight into space, for many, it's their grandfathers fighting. And, well, I actually believe that the Soviet person hasn't disappeared. He's just, let's say, changed the scenery a little. And Putin's Russian Federation now exists in the same format. What do you think?
Oh [sighs]. The most interesting thing is that the Homo Sovieticus, the term that [Alexander] Zinoviev introduced in in his time in "The Yawning Heights", he turned out to be just that himself. That is, he actually denounced the Soviet Union, believing that this system was ineffective, preventing people from realizing their potential. But, actually, when the Soviet Union collapsed, he became one of the adaptors, essentially, the Reconquista, yes, that is, the restoration of the Soviet Union.
6:22 You, as a representative, we, as representatives of a developed modern civilisaton, we believe that if there are rules, then they must be followed. The problem is that when you fight a backward civilization, it doesn't understand the rules. They're too complicated for them; they can't read them.
In general, there's a problem with the Russian language in Russia, you know, yes? That is, they don't know it well, they argue poorly. Well, absolutely. They can't even talk. Look at how Putin talks, how the rest of this group of people talks, Lavrov can't even string two words together. It's simply astounding, 20 years of a Minister of Foregin Affairs who speaks in such a way that you just, well, whoa, ёлы, where are the speech therapists, guys? Where is anyone who will teach them some kind of rhetoric?
Well, this is not even an Asian problem. The simple fact is that Europeanness has never existed in Russia. There is no such thing as Europeanness; it can be created, but to do so requires a completely different view of what Russia is. It's a patchwork state, in my opinion. That's not a problem. Many states are patchwork, but when you pretend to be someone you're not, gradually stealing history, literature, your past, then, of course, you constantly experience what in psychiatry is called a foreigner complex, right?
It's like you're at the train station, you've stolen everything, and you're constantly expecting to be exposed.There is also an an impostor complex that is more understandable for our latitudes. These are the ones who occupy the wrong places. Here Russia is an impostor state. It doesn't exist, it needs to be created.
8:13 Putin is not unique, he is primitive, because he is speculating on exactly what was speculated on in the 16th and 17th centuries. Look, we've collected more weapons, they're rusty, of course, but we have two men-at-arms. We're going to seize your castle now, yes. That's what Putin is selling. And our problem, I'll come back to this again, is that we say: "Wait, how can you seize it? We have rules, you can't come and take it, let's trade."
And for them, there are no rules.
Of course. So what should we do with them? They need to be taken out. And that was the tragedy of this moment. Let's go back to 2007. As soon as this guy just came to Munich and started saying: "A unipolar world can't exist," you should have stood up and asked: "Who are you anyway?" What are you offering? Trade with you? You can't sell anything except oil. What can you sell? You can sell your army. Okay."
That is, you should have assessed correctly at that moment. And I remember, now, if you look at the archive footage, everyone was sitting there, smiling, no, we'll just buy oil from them here and there and that's it. That's the problem. Developed civilizations and undeveloped ones. The undeveloped ones, paradoxically, are grouped around some idea.
And Putin offered them: "Look, you're poor, pathetic wretches, but you'll go and conquer Europe." How is it called? A barbarian wave, huh? Well, there was the initial barbarian wave at the beginning of human civilization. A barbarian wave runs in, destroys everything, lived in the houses while they were still stable, captured them, ate them, and run away.
Your answer here directly prompts me to ask this question: why are the EU and the US so afraid of what is called a regime change? Although I don't like the term itself. And when I hear " regime change," I imagine Putin being replaced with Patrushev. For example, I support the idea that this system should be completely torn down and rebuilt. That is, it is not, well, capable of any transformation. All those elites who, well, this pseudo-elite, of course, I consider the national elite to be people who act in the interests of the peoples of Russia.
But in fact, Putin, so to speak, from the very first days of his rule, has been waging war against the peoples of Russia first and foremost, yes. Well, this is traditional for everyone, right? That is, this is the format of demographic, economic, ideological warfare, political repression. The first subjects that, let's say, fell under the military steamroller were Chechnya in 1994-95, then 1999 and beyond, then Georgia, and all its action in Africa, in Syria. So, I understand that it can't be cosmetically corrected. This entire model, it must be completely demolished and new elites must be built.
Hey, why is the West so afraid of regime change? Why hasn't it become clear since 2007 that Putin only has one corridor? This is escalation, this is the sale of violence, this is —attempts at blackmail, uh—various expansionism? Why hasn't the West understood this yet? And why is it still, let's be honest, afraid of it?
How was this joke? Hard times make hard leaders. This is a joke because history contradicts all of this.
14:12 You can't break something that was broken initially and you cannot restore it because the cast had to be applied for the first 2 weeks after the fracture. And that's why it is like this. Until a new generation of politicians emerges. When-- When they will finally start to apply the solutions. If an unidentified drone flies in, it must be shot down. Why? What difference does it make whose? Right? This is my sovereign territory, I shoot down everything that flies here without my consent.
16:45 Ethics doesn't sell, unfortunately. No, there are no moral values, it seems.
19:46 Americans have become too confident in their cinematic myths about Rambo, yes. Well, not "First Blood", but later ones, all this "Red Dawns" and so on.
20:21 Unfortunately-- I'll go back to the beginning, yes, uh, unfortunately, so far I don't see any basis for this moral policy, this ethical policy, yes, when you understand that your word is worth something, that you took on some obligations, that they need to be, uh, fulfilled no matter what.
21:32 We are now-- Because, on the other hand, there is a technological turning point, yes. Artificial intelligence alone is worth something, yes, from the point of view of waging war as such, by the way, it turned out that these concepts of nuclear deterrence--
24:06 Many countries that yesterday didn't lay claim to the global agenda, to moderating this agenda, are laying claim today. This is Northern Europe. In my opinion, the most promising countries to discuss and negotiate with are the northern, the countries of Northern Europe. This is Denmark, Norway, Well, first of all, Norway has a border with Russia. This is, of course, Finland, they have an amazing president, Mr. Stubb, who places the emphasis correctly.
Well, of course, the Baltic countries, fantastic. By the way, they will need support all the time, don't forget. That is, they must always be supported, despite the fact that they have 2 birthmarks called Narva and Daugavpils. /…/ These Baltic countries are really cool.
29:05 I was taught one main rule since childhood: look, you can, of course, look for a conspiracy theory here, but everything always comes down to human stupidity. That is, first you decide whether the person is stupid or not, after that you will understand that there is something else hidden there, and so on. As a rule, in 99% of cases, especially when it comes to Putin, it's just ordinary human stupidity, low intelligence, low general erudition, and the corresponding childhood complexes that are simply written all over their faces, a whole notebook of them. Notebook face, another meme appears.
Ah, returning to Dugin. Not really. Totally empty. This is fiction. This is all like that, this is when they have already started trying to build something ideologically, yes, justifying there the banal desire to go, seize, rob, kill, well, they came up with, look, we have some Dugin here. No, rather an influence on worldview, there were 2 such funny characters, one a writer, well, a pseudo-writer, and the other a pseudo-political figure, [Vladislav] Surkov, who wrote the book "Almost Zero" under the pseudonym of the maiden name of his then wife, yes.
And the second is [Sergey] Minaev, who also wrote those hyped-up books about the turn of the millenium and so on. That's the ideology, in fact. Such a glamour, mixed with total insane stupidity. Well then at some moment you wake up, you wake up with a hangover, wow, we started something, a war, missiles flew somewhere. We need somehow justify who we are. And then there was this boring guy who was saying something about how he doesn't wash his socks, because he doesn't have a smell, he doesn't eat anything.
35:19 This is standard clinical psychology. A person who has lived in the shadows all his life on the sidelines, and inside, someone is constantly tormenting him, he is offended from the outside, but inside he's tormented because he can't fight back. And so, he gets everything in his hands. Why did you think he would later guarantee anything? No, nothing of the sort. He will gradually realise his accumulated anger.
Putin is a classic example. There are many such people. Take the Roman emperors, there's a whole line of them, not just the notorious Nero or anyone else. There were tons of them. Why? Accumulated irritation, accumulated fears, and he realises them.
38:33 And now, to remove him, we'll have to go through a classic Russian revolution.
A special internal Russian operation, let's call it that.
That's great, yes. And I, in principle, will support it if you start carrying it out, we'll support it as much as possible with everything necessary, yes [laughs].
42:27 They have already restored, as far as I remember, the monument to [Felix] Dzerzhinsky opposite Lubyanka [in Moscow, dismantled 22 August 1991, re-erected 2023]?
No, no, the monument, not yet.
That was, yes, it was a symbol of 1991, they toppled it.
43:15 You will take this monument down, you will photograph it again. Here are the fragments. By the way, I {say] right away, I have a fragment, I still have a fragment from the last time. I need a second one.
All right. For the collection.
For the collection, well, it's somehow strange, right [laughs]? There is one, but there won't be a second one [smiles].
43:28 You were an advisor to several presidents. Tell us what you saw, how Ukraine changed during this time, what positive changes, what, perhaps, negative ones?
Advisers are more likely to be with the heads of administration, yes. Because the presidents--
44:07 A state is a responsibility. You're not just something abstract, you're part of something important.
And Ukraine, in my opinion, made a fatal mistake in 1991. It didn't establish a specific border with the Russian Federation, didn't separate the information space, the cultural space, the economy. Well, it wanted, like Leonid Danilovich [Kuchma] said, a good calf uses two mothers. Yes, it wanted to sit on the small chair of the European movement, it wanted to sit on the small chair of the Pan-Slavic movement. In general, for me, this is simply utter horror. Eh, and, accordingly, this led to tragedy. But since 1991, every president has become increasingly pro-Ukrainian.
47:34 You were a key member of the negotiating team. How, years later, let's say objectively, do you assess what happened there?
49:34 I often say that if you take some film, yes, let's go back to Hollywood, yes, here's the action of a Russian bad guy--
A bad example, let's take Bollywood instead. Indians are closer to reality, as it turns out.
Well, the film is good, the film is good, yes, I don't want to associate it with Russian reality, to trivialise it somehow. Well, "Groundhog Day" is what most reflects, let's say, the process of interaction between Putin and [Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Valery] Gerasimov, right? That is, they have Groundhog Day every year. That is, they take Mala Tokmachka 1,500 times, well, in fact, yes, that is, the battles for Mala Tokmachka last longer than many wars, longer than the siege of Leningrad and so on.
54:05 Again, I'm just always wondering why-- I, uh, left psychiatry a long time ago, right? Well, I had some experience working there. I always look at characters like this Simonyan, she says: "My children sleep in the hallway. Drones are flying." Not enough drones. You should sleep in the hallway. And in general, there should be one big corridor around the Kremlin where they all sleep. They sleep because drones are flying over the Kremlin. They fly all the time, every day.
57:22 Perestroika is a competition of intellects. Well, I mean after perestroika, democracy is a competition of intellects. Not always directly, but nevertheless. It's a competition of technologies, intellects, uh, it's a competition of the future, because you understand what you want. Someone understands it differently, but everyone wants progression.
1:08:04 He mentions the film "Brazil" (1985) by Terry Gilliam.
9:27 I like it, you know, when I hear about Crimea, I always ask myself a question: So you decided in 2014 for some reason, I mean those who are there in Crimea, our people there who are traitors, yes, these people who came to steal, you seriously believed in 2014 that you could come, steal property from someone on a large scale, take it all and then, well, live as if it were all yours, that is, that there would be no responsibility for it.
And today, and later, yes, when the war started there, there were several of our strikes there, you said: "No, well, this is all nonsense, yes, it doesn't work." And today, when you are practically left alone with problems, there is a fuel crisis, there is a food crisis, the inability to leave, and so on, for some reason you say: "How is it with us? We are simply living here on stolen goods. We simply stole all this from you."
That is, you want to live on stolen property and bear no physical, legal, and so on responsibility for it. It doesn't work after all. Moreover, not only did you steal a part of us, I mean this subject Putin, yes, you stole a part of Ukraine, yes, that is, Crimea and a part of Donetsk, Luhansk regions, so you came in 2022, and let's steal more, kill more. And that's cool. And today, when you say. "No, look, it all always comes back.You will pay the maximum price."
14:50 You know, after this speech by the subject on this, the economic forum, yes, the businesses that were there, they started recording it in the reels, yes, I looked at it, well, I'm analyzing the reactions of those loyalists, yes, who were there, who received an invitation there, and so on.
17:10 Kateryna Solyar: Mr. Ignat says that the percentage of ballistic missile downings in Ukraine has decreased due to a shortage of air defence missiles.
18:30 The only question is, why always say in public that we have a deficit against missiles? I just don't quite understand what's going on here. /…/ But why, why keep saying this? Well, the president [saying it] is understandable, of course, because it has an impact on colleagues, partners, and foreign markets. And that's right, because for him it's a key element, yes? That is, the explanation for this.
Why expand it later? I don't quite understand this strategy or tactic. Who is this for, to decipher? That is, for the average citizen? And he can buy it somewhere, buy a Patriot on OLX, well, a missile for the Patriot [OLX is a buying and selling platform]? Well, why would he have to say anything there, we don't have this, we don't have that?
25:20 Less words and more takeaway.
32:58 Well, I really like [President of Finland Alexander] Stubb because he assesses everything that is happening in the global world today as realistically as possible.
9:19 FREEДOM: Let's do it in chronological order, because Abramovich came, it didn't work out, they wrote a letter to Putin, and because of this, Putin declassified Abramovich's visit. However, chronologically Abramovich is the first. Have you met him? Did you see him in Kyiv or was it a one-on-one conversation between the president and him?
This was the conversation between the president and him.
14:01 FREEДOM: What is your opinion of this letter? Did you participate in its creation?
He doesn't answer the 2nd question.
23:23 If there is still someone smart, uh, in the global elites, yes, he should have analyzed all of this a little. If he can't do it himself, well, it's hard for people to analyze long sentences, I understand, try to use all these, uh, features of today's artificial intelligence, the same ChatGPT, yes, and everything else.
26:40 I'm always a supporter of pragmatic approaches.
26:49 They [the Poles] are friends in any case, yes, that is, we are partners, we are one of the strongest alliances, such dual alliances we can create, yes. /…/ Adults come to the realisation that you have your own history, we have our own history, yes, within this history there may be those you don't like.
And in your history there will be those whom we don't like, and vice versa, we like, yes. It doesn't matter. But this is our history, within which we live, yes. We can accept all of this, yes, that is, not demand from the other side that they adapt to us and at the same time not adapt to someone else. But again, this needs to be done gently.
28:09 We can, of course, ignore each other, although, frankly speaking, it would be strange against the backdrop of the aggression against Europe that Russia is waging. On the other hand, we can still strengthen our partnership, because through crises, and in any bilateral relationship, even in interpersonal relationships, there is always time for crises, yes. Problems have accumulated, mutual misunderstandings have accumulated, and so on. In these crises, you just need to sit down and work long and hard.
/…/ Our president is very tactful. Let's be objective. We saw, uh, the president's tactful position, that is, he doesn't comment, he understands everything that concerns all these painful manifestations, yes, in bilateral relations. We also see how constructive Mr. Budanov is, yes. He is currently active in the negotiating track, trying to establish a relationship between us and our Polish colleagues.
29:24 Let's get to the main thing, yes, don't forget the basic thing. When the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation's constituent entities began, Poland opened its doors wide, did everything it could do to support Ukraine, to support our ability to resist, to wage a defensive war, and accepted most of our, well, forced migrants (вынужденных переселенцев), forced migrants (вынужденных мигрантов), let's put it this way, yes, primarily women and children. And for this we thank them very much. And we must not forget this, never foerget it.
2:39 And in principle, what [Péter] Magyar does, in my opinion, looks very, very impressive. Again, I approach everything with such cautious optimism [smiles], because in Europe good guys come, and bad guys leave. In another place, on the contrary, good people leave and not so good ones come. They seem to have this very strange trend.
29:48 Do you know what negotiations are? I'm being very brief here, right? Negotiatons are always when you want a result and the other country does too. And at the same time, the main problem with negotiations is that both sides subconsciously -- yes, I understand that consciously it's difficult -- subconsciously understand that they'll have to come to some agreement somewhere. Concede something.
That is, you won't be entirely satisfied, yes, at the end of the negotiations. That's the point of negotiations. /…/ And when the parties enter the negotiation process, they understand that they won't be entirely satisfied, but in the end, a good compromise will be found, which will gradually develop into close cooperation.
30:48 Why was Bulgakov dismantled in Kyiv?
Ah… You know my opinion, right? That is, I believe that there is world literature, it includes certain authors. And time has clearly set the tone, who is who, what benefit, or not, they bring to the global literary process. But there are public demands, realised through voting in the Kyiv City Council. That's all.
33:20 Uh, look, uh, once again, it's very important to understand. Verbal indignation or outrage is, of course, fine within the framework of the Soviet Union, yes. [Yuz] Aleshkovsky laid it all out well. But in a democratic system, there are absolute tools that allow you to defend your interests, values, and so on, or ignore the protection of interests and values. And then another social group, other activists will dominate. It's very simple.
Look, maybe, it may be important, but look, there is such a concept as a community. Here you live, yes, this is your habitat, you live here, you want this habitat, this place to look like this. Be active. This is the post-Soviet tradition. Passivity. On social media, well, or earlier in the kitchen, and now on social media, yes, everyone is very active, everyone understands everything, everyone knows everything, everyone knows how to argue. Great, I''m all for it [puts his hand on his chest]. But responsibility comes in the moment when you start to be active in politics.
Not only during the election campaign, when you came, passively ticked the box and threw the ballot into the ballot box. But when you-- You want this to happen, you come and work actively, find time, form a group of like-minded people, they put pressure on municipal bodies, which will be very dependent on electoral sympathies and so on, that's how the system works. But there is no other way. And therefore, as you say, of course, while many are passive, unfortunately, once again the post-Soviet syndrome of passivity, especially among older generations, yes, among generations 40+.
They are most active during the election campaign, because they already understand that it it is important, but at the same time they cannot get rid of this syndrome of passivity and so on. And therefore what you say will happen speculatively. A small group came, 2% for example, who, well, more accurately, express the interests of 25%, but they are active and they will demolish. Then another group comes, 2-5%, and also demolishes. Both the one who demolishes it and the one who does it make money from this, yes.
36:47 Just one more small remark. I would only rename it based on the toxic speeches that we have already heard in St. Petersburg, yes, I would rename it as the international radioactive forum. They just talk about it [laughs]. They know nothing about economics and don't talk about it. /…/ Look, the forum is-- fair, [English writer William Makepeace] Thackeray has "Vanity Fair", yes, but here there is a fair of freaks, yes.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
00:57 Poland is one of our key allies. And this scandal that recently erupted over the decision to grant the honorary title "Heroes of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)” to an elite Ukrainian military unit provoked such a negative reaction in Poland. The question is: if the Ukrainian government is counting on a strategic partnership with Poland for a decade to come, maybe it's worth considering where that border lies and maybe not directly force it, yes?
No one is forcing it. Let's put the emphasis correctly here. I understand that if we follow your logic further, given that history is history, there were many conflicts, especially between neighbors, ah, and as a result, you won't be able to record your own history at all. Because it will turn out that someone was offended by someone, someone considers someone else, one way or another, an enemy.
Look, in my opinion, there is a simple rule: don't judge the unconvicted, right? That is, there are heroes, uh, for Poland. This is very independent of our opinions. You and I know history well, too. And everything related to [Roman] Dmowski, [Józef] Piłsudski, and so on and so forth. But these are Polish heroes. They have the right, they have the right to build a heroism and mythology around this, to build their future. This is very cool. Just as there are heroes for Ukraine, who shaped the concept of Ukrainian statehood. They may have an ambiguous connotation for others. They may even have a negative connotation for others. For us, the main thing is what connotation they have. That's the point. So, we need to negotiate.
No one is arguing, Mykhailo, no one is arguing with this. That's not the question. The only question is, you see, that I, you know, I gave this example: if my neighbour, a good neighbour, with whom I have a lot of common interests, I know he hates Strauss's music, then maybe I shouldn't put the speakers out in the yard, not turn them on, or maybe I should wait until I discuss this issue with him.
Natalya, look again. Let's do it this way. Look. Ah, well, we didn't put the speakers out in the yard, yes, in the common yard of Europe. That's our internal decision.
There too, that's my yard too. I'm the one entering my yard.
Look, here's your neighbour, who's a good, ideal neighbor, I really understand it conceptually, psychologically, like classic clinical psychology. Concessions to someone's interests lead to the following, to escalation. We are not [speaking about] Russia now, we are now [speaking] as a whole. Look, your neighbour doesn't like Strauss, that means you're not listening to him.
No, I listen to him, but maybe not with a speaker.
Headphones. Agreed. But the next thing that will be said is, look, you're parking your bicycle here by your door. It's blocking me from getting to my apartment. Understand again, it's not a question of your-- Well, a yard is a yard, that's the general rule there. I mean the European yard, the general rule, we all adhere to it. But the history of every country, especially between neighbors, is full of internal, or rather, not internal, but between neighbors conflicts. Not just between us and Poland, but even between us and another neighbor.
Then could it be better to resolve these conflicts after the war?
Maybe after the war, maybe before the war, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the decision has been made. It's a sovereign internal decision.
Okay. The position is clear.
No, no, it's not about the position. The point is that the decision has been made. We can have a discussion, we can discuss everything that concerns our, well, history of the middle of the last century. And there is something to talk about here, and there are apologies to offer to each other, by the way, yes, and there is something to work on. This is the right position. And Ukraine, by the way, is doing just that.
That is, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is working with our colleagues from Poland on the issue of let's discuss, you have a certain number of questions there and it is necessary to carry out exhumations and so on. These are the right questions, and we are moving down this path. But everything that concerns internal history, well, let's still approach it more calmly and tolerantly; these are internal decisions. They do not affect our bilateral relations.
And, by the way, regarding bilateral relations with Poland, well, I probably mean that I'm such a pronounced pro-Israel person, that I'm just as likely a pronounced pro-Polish person. I believe that a union between Poland and Ukraine, well, this is one of the most powerful and promising unions that could be in Europe.
I think so too. That's why I asked the question.
I think it's a real bomb [mind-blowing]. And I understand that we will be difficult-- We are neighbours. There are accumulated historical questions between neighbours. We must learn to resolve them separately from what the future prospects of the Union of the two give us. That's all.
10:22 Natalya, look, I would like to-- We are placing emphasis. I would like our politicians regardless of names, to understand the basic rule. Well, if you speculate on some issue, yes, that doesn't mean that it will be resolved. It just means that there will be a lot of hysteria, a lot of emotions. You'll gather some kind of ballistic reaction there, you'll gather something else there. But that doesn't mean you'll solve the problem. It doesn't mean that the management system will become more optimal. Well, we still need to get rid of this a little, you know, this provocation. I understand that no one will hear [smiles].
19:48 I believe that intellect comes first. And competence is determined-- deep in the material.
22:18 And by what criteria do you determine public consensus?
Dominance, so to speak, in the agenda by voice. That's it. That's it. Look, it's a paradox.
You mean, you mean social media? Seriously, what do you mean?
No, not just social media. I mean, we're now entering a very important point, because I am a categorical opponent of universal suffrage, along with many other concepts, understanding why this sometimes leads to tragedies. Ah, but nevertheless, the public consensus says: "We want universal suffrage." How? Ah, the dominant point of view, total. Yes, that's accepted, we'll work this way.
23:02 That's exactly how corporate governance should look like. There should be three, if there are nine observers.
I understand that. And how do you determine that this is dominant?
Dominance in the information field, because there are no other social groups that come forward with arguments and say: "No, that's not how it works."
And how can, Mykhailo-- How can different points of view dominate if 90%--
You don't listen to the end. Further, further. After all, social groups have the right to delegate their authorized observers to supervisory boards. Do they have the supervisory boards? They do, and even today, they always win in supervisory boards. Here one social group sends its representatives there. Plus foreign representatives, who are also dependent on this dominant social group. There are no others who join the supervisory board.
24:23 We won't change the system. We need to discuss this. The fact that we're discussing this is already good, because we're talking, hell, how will there be a negative phenomenon there, yes.
Yes, shortcomings.
Shortcomings, yes. Shortcomings that exist. We simply accepted. Look, we had such euphoria. There's a model, it works somewhere. Let's automatically accept it.
There's no such model anywhere. There is no system, so to speak, in any country.
There wasn't, there wouldn't have been, there is no, there was no social resistance there. Wait, where does this model work? And--
How, how, how could there be social resistance, if, for example--
You. Once again, you journalists on one hand, social groups on the other, and political parties, well, when all this is immature and when, "Wow, they dominate, let's not attack, because they have more resources, as you said, on social media, in this, in this," that's the paradox. The system must be balanced in every sense. The system cannot be balanced only here; but not here. Look, there are no parties that are ideologically, clearly, and structurally understandable and that typically have 10%+ in parliament. There are parties that are in favor of the leader's party or some other kind, and so on. This is the history of Ukraine.
Similarly, social groups are built to serve a specific lobbyist interest. There are no longer social groups that are built on the principle: this quality of life will be such-and-such if such-and-such changes are made. The same goes for the media, for social networks. If all this--
And again, I'm not complaining, I'm speaking from the perspective that this is a maturation process. Gradually, you're asking the right questions. Gradually, society will come to the realization that expressing one's interests isn't just about voting or not voting during an election campaign. Expressing one's interests is understanding that this party is mine, I'm not just voting for it, I'm fundamentally listening to what it says, I support it. Similarly, there's one social group, then another, then a third. Why do only certain social groups or, as you say, activist groups dominate?
Because they are allowed to dominate, and the state will support this dominance. Isn't that so, Mykhailo?
26:38 So the state only creates the opportunity and rules, and groups dominate, they either dominate because they have the resources to do so. I'm not talking about financial resources, but simply resources like speakers, networks, media platforms. Are there common goals or not? We're not talking about activists now, we're talking about how this is structured in other countries. And, accordingly, Ukraine will come to this too. Why? Because you're asking a perfectly valid question. This isn't working. Maybe we should abolish? АРМА, not АРМА, or something else. It's good that you're asking these questions. The question is different.
This is my professional duty.
I understand [smiles]. But the question is that the state cannot do this by force. Why? As soon as the state starts to break something, then again the socially passive stand aside, don't defend what the state is doing. But they are passive, objectively speaking, there are no complaints. And social activists, who were interested in creating distorted spaces, begin to attack the state. And at some point, our partners say, "So, what's wrong? This is democracy, you should be listening to social groups. You see, your society is saying--"
Maybe, well, maybe it will at least start with the fact that the state has the right to prosecute those who break the law. Well, for example, I'm looking at this post by MP Власенко. He says: "The disclosure of personal data of individuals who contributed to the investigation of one or another, that is, any person, shall be punishable by a whole bunch of offenses, including criminal offenses."
And they have nothing to do with our path to the EU and there's no need to hide behind, writes Vlastenko, compelling necessity. There is no compelling necessity. And so on. Just like, for example, disclosing pre-trial materials. As for me, I've never seen Mindich. I don't give a damn about him, frankly. Well, excuse me for being rude, yes, well, I didn’t mean it in any rude sense, but I've never seen it, but I'm talking about pre-trial materials. This applies to any person in this country. Well, anyone.
28:50 Why, why don't we punish those people who, well, who make careers off of this? I'll give you some more figures. They're absolutely amazing, just so you understand, because what do I mean? Look, the same Власенко writes, we received statistics for the past year, 2025. A total of 109 sentences, 3 acquittals, 106 convictions, and the icing on the cake: 72 – this is plea bargains. Everything has already been told. Everyone's already, so to speak, as you say, the media of a certain group has already slandered everyone. There you go. And then, a plea agreement with the investigation. How does that even resemble a norm or a law?
You're talking about two things very-- Unfortunately, it is sad. We have a tradition of accusing people without evidence. It's a tradition. Well--
How could we not know that?
That's the first thing. And secondly, our entire policy is built on fictitious conspiracy theories, on fictitious compromising. That is, invented fakes, and then the subjects, who are often not even on Ukrainian territory, simply make fun of people's names. That's it. Well, I mean, they make up something, they write something. But, unfortunately, this tradition has been cultivated. And here the problem isn't with the state again. The problem here is with society's consumption.
30:21 Society consumes this. It enjoys unsubstantiated accusations against people. It claps its hands. It starts fidgeting. It starts mocking people. It doesn't know these people at all and starts insulting them. Look at social media, look at these people, look at these jackals express trains, yes. This is an absolute tradition of our young society. I'll bring you back. I understand that this is bad, I understand that it shouldn't work this way, but for young maximalist states like Ukraine, this is a maturational disease. We will go through this and formulate rules, and these rules will be stricter.
There will be honour and dignity, there will be real trials, there will be real testimony, independent show trials, regardless of who is who is on the other side of this judicial thing, yes, and so on. We are not yet ready for this. Why? Because we believe that this is the meaning of democracy in complete hate, complete insult, regardless of who the person is. We absolutely-- Look, you're talking and don't even touch on more dangerous things.
Sometimes a person is simply insulted in this way, transferred to his family, his children, his parents, and so on. This leads to tragedies. But those who hate, first of all, some of them are anonymous. Well, devils, cowardly devils, who are just hiding somewhere, yes, and you'll never know.
31:48 I think it's not that hard to find anonymous people these days. And if only there were at least some kind of verdicts on this topic, so that the courts wouldn't say that this is evaluative, so to speak, an evaluative position of the editorial board or journalist--
There is no evaluative position. You are either responsible for what you say, because any assessment you make means you're relying on some factors, which are facts, which give you the right to do so.
32:12 Of course. And you're destroying a person's reputation.
Calling a person someone, a thief, without evidence, which means you're relying on some facts. So, you're not responsible for some abstract value judgment; you're responsible for directly accusing someone, with evidence to back it up. You must provide this evidence, otherwise you're violating everything accordingly.
32:33 But this practice doesn't exist yet. Firstly. Secondly, it's an even more complicated story: there's no institution of reputation yet. And the institution of reputation is created with the reputation of the state. And the reputation of the state is the reputation of individual institutions and individual heads of institutions. And we have many examples where--
The institution of reputation will begin with sentences, you see, judicial ones, when it's scary, as in any country, there are countries with old democracies, the United States, Canada, and so on, which simply give prison terms or huge fines for such posts.
Natalya, I will disappoint you. Reputation begins with your position, your competence, your lack of thievery, and how well you fit into what you do.
33:20 Even if you fit into everything, you can be turned into who knows what, believe me, through social media and impunity.
33:28 Court verdicts begin precisely when people are competent, not thieving, occupying positions that correspond to their understanding of what they do. And then they are offended by/there is the court verdict, and society accepts the court verdict because they understand that it does not correspond to the truth. Understand finally!
All of this is still in the making here. There's no such thing as an institution of reputation. It doesn't matter in what field, it doesn't matter. It's still a road that we need to travel. The war, I'll say something important here: it accelerated many processes. But then again, I'll take you back a bit, because you are rushing along so fast, yes, the main thing is to ask questions.
You tell me you don't have much time, I want to ask more questions.
Of course [smiles]. I follow the entire conversation. I never lose the thread of a conversation. And so I returned to Максим Бужанский, for example. Look how he wrote his post. He already embedded offensive tones in it. I don't want to say he's right or wrong. He can do what he thinks is necessary.
So, you and I see this post differently, but that's your right.
But he, look again, I told you, he linked the conflict that exists between Mr. [Oleksandr] Bornyakov and Mr. [Danylo] Hitmantsev, he linked it to Fedorov, and said, "You better tell us about the ТЦК." This is already a taunt, understand. You can't-- You either understand the specifics, the conflict between the Ministry of Digital Development and its corresponding parliamentary colleague, or you introduce a completely different option into this, called the Ministry of Defense, and, er, army reform, ТЦК reform. It doesn't work differently.
There was talk about the running business. But oh well. I think Maksym will answer himself if he wants to about this post [Mykhailo smiles].
And the information from today, which everyone is discussing, is about the tax service transferring 198 billion hryvnia abroad, probably through fictitious foreign trade contracts. So there. Well, then they explain why they cite figures and so on. And I quote: "Furthermore, many violating companies used the same IP addresses, filed reports from the same computer networks, and were registered at the same addresses."
For example, in Kyiv, 20 such companies were registered at the same address. In Lviv, at separate addresses 10, 15, and so on. And as I understand it, these are the results of the tax analysis of tax information from the National Bank for 2024 through the first quarter of 2026, regarding violations of deadlines for payments. The NBU and the tax authorities recently signed a memorandum on the exchange of information. Why only now? Why hasn't this been happening since 2022?
36:08 Well, you're asking the wrong person. Basically, look, to put it mildly, there's financial monitoring.
Well, that's some crazy amount of money.
I understand. There's financial monitoring, there's the National Bank, there's the ability, they have tools to block any payments, meaning they can stop any payments at any moment, to any exchange rate account in any country, and, accordingly, conduct further investigations. They have at least 30 days for the same financial monitoring service, during which it can conduct the proper work. And then it's up to law enforcement agencies, if there are any fictitious signs of something.
Well, look, for many successful countries, financial crimes are, well, some of the most terrible, right? That is, like, they get huge sentences for them there. Let me remind you of the story, and the builder of the pyramid scheme that defrauded the Americans, Bernard Madoff, yes. There, he defrauded $50 billion. He received life sentences, several life sentences. They add up, right? Life sentences, he's 50 years old, so it's unlikely he'll be released, and there's not even the possibility of pardon, as such [he died in prison in 2021].
But, in principle, we probably also need to come to the same conclusion: any financial fraud, any financial crimes should be punished as harshly as possible. Law enforcement has all the tools to do this. That's the first thing. Secondly. Well, this practice of registering multiple companies at one address, it's long-standing, right? So, it's not a question of today. It existed there, I don't know, even in prehistoric times, even during the time of the first president of Ukraine. It existed when cooperatives first emerged, when the first companies appeared. Well, this practice probably also needs to be looked into.
That is, we need to figure out if there's a company, what its legal address is, whether it matches the actual address of the company's location, and, accordingly, what it does. If it's a financial company, that's one story. If it's a manufacturing company, that's a different story, and so on. Well, these are all valid questions that need to be raised and not after the fact, firstly, and secondly, we need to look for solutions. Well, I don't even understand the question here.
Look again. Financial monitoring, financial monitoring, the National Bank, oh, even the Ministry of Internal Affairs. I don't even bother with the economic groups of the БЭБ, ДБР and СБУ. They all have tools that allow all of this to be blocked at any stage.
That's why I asked you, where were they before? This is a political question. It's not an economic question.
38:43 The question is: there's a set of options, there's a set of tools. Use them. If they don't use them, then the question is: why aren't they using them? It's not a political question. What else needs to be done? Amend the constitution so that for theft, the penalty is 1,000 hryvnias plus a life sentence? Well, that's kind of absurd, yes? It's absurd, but what else is political? Look, absolutely everyone has the tools to conduct investigative work to the extent necessary. I guess we just need to focus on this, but then again, this is not a question addressed to the right person, yes, I can't answer for the--
Simply, if according to the rule, the law were the same for everyone, it would change a lot. A lot. Well, look, I'm reading--
39:27 You see in me a person who is all for, in principle, transparency once again and reputation always lead to good results, and the state always becomes richer, and, accordingly, competent people always earn and monetize their competencies better. I'm interested in this because I understand who I am. I understand perfectly well that a transparent state will give me more opportunities. And I'm all for there being no gray schemes, gray opportunities, any kind of scams, and so on. I'm all for it.
But, unfortunately, I don't influence many issues. This is a public demand. Look again. No, this is important. One person, of course, can talk beautifully and so on. The issue of proper voting, the issue of proper participation, we talked about this a little above, proper participation in the social life of the state, social. That is, not just some, we like to use the word activists, yes, but all social groups, small businesses, medium-sized businesses. Not just "We've created a platform here, we came to this platform".
So what? This platform was created by the state, it has its own interests. You will create your lobbying tools. You demand a lobbying law be passed. You have parliamentarians, work with them. In the same way, vote for parties, elect people who will be your lobbyists. But the system doesn't work that way— that someone comes in, a good guy or a bad guy. The bad guy works under the table while the good guy can break it. But that's not how the system works. It's a manipulative system. I want an institutional system. An institutional system is when there are rules, there are responsibilities, and there are corporate institutions responsible for this. That's how the system should work [smiles].
Then my final question will be about changing the concept. You know that after 2014, we developed a concept of state-building, according to which professionals were low, vile creatures, eager to get into the pockets of, well, honest, pure, and good people. But non-professionals were pure, honest people. And, well, years passed, and it became clear that this wasn't quite true, that it was manipulation. Moreover, manipulation of a, well, you know, not even of a high order, but at the time, it simply caught the public mood.
And so now, a lot of people are saying that it's time, you know, surgeries should be performed by doctors, uh, education should be handled by people who know about education, not the ones who write some dissertations, copy someone else's, and they even admit it themselves, and so on. And so I read, there was a recent scandal, yes, with this tax, how they chose who would lead this tax. I won't recall it now, because these are again some kind of competitions, again some kind of activists, someone was outraged by someone, and so on.
The people who led the the customs were not the ones who won the competition. But here I'm reading, it means that in the customs not a lot has changed in the last six months. Evolutionary cleansing. That's the headline. The new head of the mayor's office announced the inclusion of people with anti-corruption expertise in the system. Why are they there? Why don't you take an advisor, I don't know, Anatoly Makarenko, who was good, well, I'm giving an example, yes, or some other person who professionally understands what a mayor's office is, what kind of anti-corruption people with anti-corruption expertise are there? Who do you mean? Again, someone with a million subscribers. Mykhailo!
Look, Natalia, I can't understand, you're asking questions that have predetermined answers. But if there's public demand for such a concept, then this is how it's implemented. If there will be a demand for a different concept-- Again, I'll go back to what I just said, it needs to be formed. Society needs to mature to this point. It should generate demand through parties, social movements, public organizations, and so on, but it does not form.
There's an institution created under duress called, as you say, activists, right? Well, it works, it's active on social media, as you say, a million subscribers, and so on. It has the tools, it has an impact. The state actively responds to this. If there will be other institutions, if there will be other demands from society, the state will respond. That's how the system works. You can't get results in a passive environment if there's an active one, even if it's tiny, but it's an active part that influences trends, social discussions, discussions on social media, discussions on leading platforms, and so on and so forth.
Form parties, form social movements, influence processes. And then you mentioned Mr. Makarenko. I have sympathy for him, yes, then he'll get a chance. But if he's alone, and there's a large group of people who say, "No, he's, let's put it delicately, not, uh, not a positive character," then he won't have a chance. But that's how the system works. I understand that I'm talking ? now, but I want you to hear the basics. The state reacts to the structure of social relations that it has.
But I always thought the opposite, that the state shapes new trends, sets them, and doesn't follow the information field.
No, no, no, that's from the Soviet Union. The state is institutions that respond to the demands formed by society. Then that's democracy.
That's called populism. What you are saying is called populism. They--
There's no populism at all in my interpretation [smiles].
No, that's populism. Listening to what social media is saying is populism. But shaping new trends, understanding what will happen in 10 years—that's yes.
45:30 Social media has always been, is, and will be evil. It's a foundation that, unfortunately, no one yet fully understands. But that's not the point. The state responds to public demand, realized through political parties, social movements, activist movements, and the initiatives that society takes. State institutions are regulatory and executive bodies. They are not, roughly speaking, institutions that shape this. In the Soviet Union, the state shaped your demands, your needs, and so on. In Europe, the state implements the demands of society.
46:14 On the contrary, everything is moving in the opposite direction. Society clearly shapes things. So, we want this, we want this, we want this. Otherwise, a problem arises, now I'll move on to the West. A problem arises that exists today in many European countries, when the state, based on the concept, well, you and I know it from Merkel, but in reality there were many more, uh, there were dads and mums, yes, multiculturalism, yes, that is, which led to the overflow of migrants today in Spain, Germany, Sweden, Norway, it doesn't matter.
And this was state policy, a coercive policy. That is, when society was forced to accept the concept that a migrant nearby has the right to all the powers, to be rightfully elected. And we now see that the second city, for example, Birmingham in Britain, has received a mayor who doesn't even speak English. And, accordingly, it is clear that for him, England, the English tradition, is absent.
That's what it leads to when, in principle, the state, I emphasize again, the state forcibly said that we've decided that migrants should have rights. Only the state didn't explain that migrants who come here in such-and-such numbers will begin to erode your identity, your understanding of rules, principles, and so on, and will bring their own principles, from which they are fleeing. The paradox is that the state didn't want to listen. This leftist state in Europe has led to the tragedy that will follow.
Well, he was elected by the people, you see?
Because -- now I'll return to what I'm saying, because before this, a different system was in place, where society shapes demands. Look, we want it this way, we want it this way, we want it that way. Implement them with executive discipline. And the state says: "Yes, we understand, we're implementing it." That's what I'm talking about. Our society should-- I return to the basics, to what I said a little earlier, society should say like this: "I want these kinds of parties, I vote for them consciously, I understand, not populists," and so on.
These kinds of social movements. Social movement, we'll take it from the customs, yes, you said that customs should have such rules. Please, here's the control body. And then, when some activists appear from the outside and want to say, "You know, there should be a supervisory board. And these members will be there." Society says: "Wait, and who are you guys anyway? You have 1.2%. Step aside." This is the system, the state is not the regulator, the state is the executor.
48:50 And the regulator is the social groups within the state. Stronger, weaker, discussion, and so on. This is the principle of building proper democracies. I am for this, and not for violence in one direction or another. You are talking about violence on the part of, uh, activist groups. I understand, but at the same time you are saying the state should use counter-violence. This will lead to conf--
No, no, I am saying that the state must protect the law. The law.
Rules [smiles]. Rules, rules are formed--
We don't see this often anymore. We often see the state submitting to the will of social groups. And that's different. And this is a little different. I am, on the contrary, for the absence of violence, for democracy.
This is a correct and wise thought. Intelligence always wins, believe me. Instead of violence, when you apply intelligence, you will always dominate.
49:45 We've reached a consensus here. Thank you very much, Mykhailo. So, in conclusion, I want to say a huge thank you to you. You are that rare type of government official who isn't afraid of direct dialogue. And for that, thank you very much.
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.
39:08 I would like to emphasise once again how mature and globally thoughtful Mr. [Péter] Magyar appears. Ah, in my opinion, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but in my opinion, Budapest in clearly lucky, uh, that it got such a manager who really cares and thinks about progressive relations with its neighbours, about unburdeing, reloading-- let's say, resetting relations with Brussels, about Hungary looking effective, influential, and being able to determine certain trends. And I really like that, right?
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.
27:13 Mr. Magyar is a very, very mature, intelligent and cool person.
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--
No, a direct boss. One of the direct bosses, president and the head of the administration, yes [smiles]. Two bosses.
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].
36:56 After all, well, taking people [out of prison] is more important than any political statements. And to hell with these statements. The main thing is to take people and, perhaps, allow their families to reunite, because it's really, really horrifying what they do to them in Russian prisons and that they sit there for years and don't see their children and wives, mothers and fathers. This is just awful.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
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.
[Laughing] What do you mean emotional? We are pragmatic, we are always calm, yes.
