President Zelenskyy, thank you very much for joining us on Sky News and sparing time in what must be a very busy schedule. We hear often from the White House utterances about Ukraine not being able to win this war and that Ukraine is going to have to give up territory for peace and make difficult decisions. Can you win this war?
It depends what people mean when they say to win. Really, it's very difficult if you speak about territories. First of all, how to get back all the land for today, it's very difficult and it will be too much losses, people's lives. And it's really difficult. But what is good is that Russia also can't do it on the battlefield, so that's why they are not winning and we are not losing.
Stopping the war being a priority, if that is the case, why not just give up Sloviansk and Kostiantynivka? Why not, if that is what it takes? Why is that not something that you can do?
It's our territory and it sounds, I mean, unbelievably strange. Why we have to withdraw from our land? Why they occupied our land and nobody can push them out?
But you talk about the loss of life, you talk about the desire to end the war. If you gave up, this is the argument that's certainly put forwards by Donald Trump, if you gave up those cities, it would stop.
In one moment, if we will withdraw from this territory, like you said, for example, Kostiantynivka, Sloviansk, at the very moment, 200,000 people who are there now will be occupied by Russians. Who said to Russians that these people are ready to be Russian people? And if they don't, they will kill them or push them to the front or push them to prison. They did the same steps in Luhansk, in Donetsk, in Crimea.
So, let's be clear, that is a red line. You wouldn't give up any territory that Russia hasn't taken on the battlefield to secure peace.
I think this is not only a red line. This is also a defending line. Don't forget that really strong fortifications have been built there by our people, and these lines are there. To withdraw from this territory is also to lose these people, their rights, our land, and defending lines.
You spoke to Donald Trump on Wednesday. You had a call. What's the relationship like now between you two? It's fair to say that it's not always been great. Is that fair?
At night, we had a really very good conversation. It was positive. Our teams also heard us, and he had Jared there, and then Steve, and maybe somebody else. We spoke, we had a long conversation, positive. We spoke about our negotiation groups because the day after our teams had a meeting in Switzerland. Yes, they spoke mostly about prosperity because it was an economic bilateral meeting. But anyway, when you speak with Americans about prosperity, you will speak about territories. You will speak about how to end this war. It's normal. It's okay. I had a brief before our meeting. My team didn't finish, but we spoke, and I also spoke with my team and with Steve and Jared. So we spoke about a lot of details, public and not public between us. Next week, I think, we will have a trilateral meeting.
Is it hard to have a relationship with an administration that's called you a dictator in the past but has said that you've started the war? Is that difficult?
It's not simple. Yes. But when you, during the war, compare everything with Putin and occupation of our country, I think everything is more simple. So I can manage it.
Do you trust Donald Trump?
You know, it's more about me and President Trump, really. It's not about personalities. It's more about institutions: Ukraine and president, and United States and president. And in our choice, what Ukraine did several years ago to be free of Russian influence and to have strategic partners, Europe and the United States. In these circumstances, we have to build relations the way where we have to trust each other, and we need to trust each other. That's why I'm trying to build such relations with the United States. Relations can't be dependent on personalities, but they depend.
If I said, are we talking about peace in the next few months, are we talking about next year? What would you say? Are we close to peace, or do you see Ukraine still fighting this time next year?
No, I think that we have a chance. So I think between us, what I really think about next year, it depends on these months. If we will have a chance to finish the war before autumn, really before elections, important, influential elections in the United States, if it will be possible to achieve peace, we will have. I think now we have this window.
What does your gut tell you? What does your stomach tell you? What is your feeling, your deep feeling about this? Your head tells you one thing, but what do you know if you have...
Different, really. Each day, the situation can change. Yesterday it was one thing, today I spoke with Americans, a little bit another. Yesterday we spoke with President Trump, and I said we need a trilateral meeting on the level of leaders with Putin. And if Putin will not support it, we will have a long war, for example. So, President Trump told me we have to work on it. His attitude was positive. That's why I said it depends on different things. If Putin will be ready for a trilateral meeting, we will have a chance, we will have a chance these half a year, these some months, to meet and try to finish the war. Then, if he will not be ready, I think after elections it will be more difficult in the United States, or even a little bit before, because the United States team will be focused on internal questions. It means without them it will be more difficult to have dialogue with Russians. Then, if we will not have President Trump, because there are some dangerous things that America has to focus on internal questions, will withdraw even for the time or make a pause. It doesn't mean that we will just have a long war, dozens of years, because we have the factor of Europe. Europe now is not totally involved in the process. It's a pity, but this is the way how it's going on. So that's why I think Europe will achieve and will try to find leadership in negotiations. That's why this is the second factor, the factor of Europe. And if Europe will not be successful, of course, we will have a longer war. All these steps will be this year, and I think all these steps will be answered this year.
You talk about a trilateral meeting. The Russians have floated the idea of you going to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. Is that something you...
Because they know that I will not go. I can invite Putin to Kyiv. For what? I don't want to play games with a question of how to end the war with peace negotiations. For us, it's real, and for us, it's a big problem, this war, a big danger for Europe, for all the world, I'm sure. But that's why we want to end this, and that's why we need to pressure. I'm not playing games with Putin. I'm ready to meet and I'm ready to speak.
Even not neutral, but not Russian and not Belarusian, because they are allies during this war. Belarus is a passive aggressor, really. It's true because they attacked us from the territory of Belarus.
But when you look at the peace talks and how they have been going so far, I mean, perhaps it's unfair to say, but you could, or people have argued that actually you're just going through the motions, not Ukraine but Russia as well, to kind of appease Trump. That's why they're happening. Neither side is really ready to negotiate.
It's not about us. This conversation is not about the President of the United States. They really put both sides at the negotiation table. It's true. Because without the United States, we couldn't even sit and speak with them because they are killers. Just killers. But we think that the United States is even stronger than they think about themselves. And I think so, really. And they really have pressure on Putin. They can stop this war.
Yeah. And I think that... Are they doing enough then?
If they can stop the war, not enough. I think so. But they try.
Really? What do you want them to do then? What are they not doing that you want them to do?
Russians, I'm not sure that Russians understand just dialogue. Russians just don't see it. I mean, this is in their mentality. But what do you want the US? More strong weapons for Ukraine, even not to use it. Real sanctions. They made first steps, been strong, thanks to President Trump with tankers when he stopped one to the third one. But it's not about dozens, it's not about hundreds of tankers. Put sanctions totally. You know, daughters and sons, granddaughters and grandsons of their leaders, of the Kremlin regime. A lot of them live in the United States, in Europe, have real estate in the United States and Europe, have a lot of different things including refineries, factories, companies, etc. in the world. Why it's not under sanctions?
And have you asked Trump to do this? And what was his response?
Yeah, we spoke with President Trump about sanctions. He put sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft. Yeah, he did these steps, but it's not enough. It's not enough to stop Putin. I think so.
And what does Trump say to that when you say this?
They will do these steps. Not so quick, but they will do. Because President Trump's tactics, I don't know if it's right or not, but his tactics is to do some step and then try to make a dialogue, then some step and then try to make a dialogue. Yeah. So we will see.
I have just returned from the Donbas. We were with the 117th Brigade and we went out with a team of drone hunters and they use shotguns and Kalashnikovs to shoot down the FPV attack drones that are coming to attack the supply roads because obviously an army needs ammunition, it needs food, it needs medical to keep the line. How have drones or how are drones changing this war?
Totally changed the war. Totally. You see that we mostly don't use artillery. I mean, not in, but mostly in the hard points of the front where we have, you know, kill zones which are controlled by the drones from both sides. So it's not about artillery, it's more about drones. It's more about electronic warfare because of the drones. You see that Russia attacks without armored vehicles because they understand that it will be destroyed in one second. Yeah, sometimes they use tanks, armored vehicles, but less and less day by day. That's why another war, drone is number one, and defending because of these drones, any kind of defending, I mean air defense, and against guided bombs, aerial bombs, it's also very, very dangerous for our soldiers.
So, another war minister, Fedorov, has emphasized scaling up drone production. And the idea from what he said is to make it more difficult for Russia when it comes to manpower. Does that mean that Ukraine's tactic or strategy now is effectively simple maths, to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible to make it more difficult for the Kremlin to continue prosecuting this?
This is not a tactic. Such tactics we had the first and the second year of war. It's understandable that this is a part of tactics. You need long range, because mostly the war is money. The war is not people for Russia, because they don't, I mean, this for them it's not the problem to get people more and more. You know about it.
You don't think they'd run out of soldiers?
I mean, this, it's never enough during the war. They have a big deficit with well-trained soldiers. But I want to say that it's a complex of steps. People, it's one of the points of the war. Long range, I think, even more important, because it's attacks on energy, and only energy gives money to Russia, and they use this, Russia, to mobilize people, to have contracts. So I mean, this, even I don't want to compare, so people is important to kill them more, it's understandable, less losses you will have, it's an understandable idea. But we attack on them, and we attack their operators, and they attack and hunt our operators of drones. This is understandable what we do. We increased the number of killings. It's true, but also yes, because of our guys, but also because of Russian offensive operations. They don't think how many people they lose. They just push them a lot. That's why they are in offensive stages, steps, and that's why they're losing more. This is the second, long range. Yes, I mean, this, it's a cut of the economy. 130 billion dollars will be deficit in 2026. In 2025 it was almost 100 billion dollars. This is also a step which is very important. Than sanctions, it's also a kick on the economy, and this is so important. I can't compare what is useful, the tactics. Russia has to lose money, and Russia has to lose soldiers. These two things are crucial. And between us, when we speak about the idea, etc., always, I mean, this, if to think or remind all the historical books, etc., the most important thing is to divide society. What Russians are doing, they try to divide our society, to divide the unity in Ukraine. It's more simple to do in Ukraine because we are very free, I mean, this, we are free, you know, with media, etc., a lot of different people, a lot of rights, and we have democracy even during the war, we have it. But for them to have such influence on them is difficult. You see, they closed all the social media, etc. People can't understand where they live and how many losses they have. So the number of losses will not have influence on their society. We have to find another influence on their society. We need that their society will have questions to the Kremlin. And at this moment, when they have an unstable position on the front, losses, economy losses, and only economy has influence on their society, because they will feel it. If they are each day poorer and poorer, they will feel it. It's not about social media, it's about food.
Elon Musk blocking the use of Starlink. Um, illegal use of Starlink. Has that been helpful to Ukraine?
What's it meant? I see that Ukraine has managed to take back some territory in the last few weeks. But it's a different operation, separate, because the operation where our soldiers deoccupied part of our territory, it's for today 460 kilometers, big part, big operation which began more than one month before Starlink's decision. But anyway, Starlink's decision is helpful for the front line, for our soldiers, but it's different things.
You were on the front line in Kupiansk in December. Have you been since? Have you been to Donbas?
And the morale of soldiers?
Different. Mostly strong. Really? Yes. But there are places strong and tired. What can I say? Of course they are tired. Not enough rotations, I think, and a lot of questions with this. Yeah, we try to give them what they need.
So how serious are the manpower shortages that you're facing?
Of course we have deficits. It's a long process and it's not one month and really, between us, not one year. Yeah. But you know, the good thing is that Russia has a lot of problems also with people. Yes. Less, maybe less with just number of people, but more with trained people, because they move them to the front. They don't give them time to prepare. So anyway, we train people and then they go. Of course, right, a lot of different cases, but mostly, of course, mostly officers try to give people good training so that they will be ready for such challenges on the front. And we have mobilization. Mobilization in Ukraine, 30, 34,000 per month. Russia has 10,000 more each month. But it's a big number for us. We mobilize what we can, and even with such number, there is always a question from somebody, some direction, that they need more because they want more rotations, and they are right because people are tired. When you are tired, morale is decreasing. It's understandable. I hope that commanders will manage it better because I think that now a little bit, it's not, I even can't say simple because it's never simple, but if we compare, some more drones now, some more weapons, and we began to use more long range. And we try to manage that each brigade will get a minimum of people, but they will get it. Yes. Last year, for example, it was difficult. Sometimes people waited for people but they couldn't manage it and they had no rotations still, I mean, long period, long period of time. I hope that it's changing.
