Piers Morgan Uncensored - "I'll NEVER Trust Him" President Zelensky on Trump, Putin, Paralympics & Why Russia Should Apologize

Episode Date: February 18, 2026

Four years ago, Vladimir Putin launched a war he believed he could win in four days. More than one million of his men have been killed or wounded since, as well as more than half a million Ukrainians. Now, for the first time in just over a year, President Volodymyr Zelensky joins Piers Morgan again, as Trump-brokered peace talks in Geneva reportedly ended in acrimony. The US president is pushing for Ukraine to make concessions - will their leader oblige? He discusses his feelings on Trump - and his relationship with Putin - plus first hears the news of Russia being allowed to compete in the Winter Paralympics from Piers as the news breaks and gives his reaction. Piers is then joined by author Scott Horton, former US assistant secretary of state General Mark Kimmitt, senior editor at Human Events Jack Posobiec and Ukrainian commentator Anna Danylchuk to get their response to the interview. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Russian and Belarusian competitors will be allowed to perform under the flag of their countries. It's dirty decisions. Absolutely. People said that you were humiliated in the Oval Office that day. Did you feel that? It was not just to us. If you were to sit with Vladimir Putin, what would you say to him? For end this war, I don't need all this historical shit, really. We're killing Russians. on the cheap. We're send them home in body bags, we're sending them home in coffins,

we're causing the Russians to bleed. No American soldiers are dying. Four years ago, Vladimir Putin launched a war he believed he could win in four days. More than one million of his men have been killed or wounded since then, so of more than half a million Ukrainians, and were more than one year into a presidential term that was supposed to stop the killing in 24 hours. A lot has changed in four years, and not just the lives of the millions of people living with grief. President Zelensky, revered as a Churchillian hero, became a bogeyman for US conservatives

who want nothing to do with the war. The Ukrainian flag is no longer the prevailing symbol of struggle, flying above official buildings and emblazoned on social media. First it was Gaza, now it's Iran. The war itself has changed. Ukraine has moved from defense to attack with audacious drone strikes on Russian soil. But despite all of this, the big picture,

frustratingly, looks exactly as well. same. Europe is not doing enough to solve a war on its doorstep. The US is giving Ukraine enough to survive, but not enough to win. Russia, we're told, can't possibly sustain those losses, but is also strong enough to raid the rest of Europe if Putin isn't stopped. And most importantly, neither side wants to blink. As we prepare to record this interview, Trump brokered peace talks in Geneva have reportedly ended in acrimony. The US president is pushing for Ukraine to make concessions. Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, says that isn't fair and the pressure should be put on Russia. Well, President Zelenskyy joins me now on censor. President Zelensky, it's great to talk to you

again. Thank you very much. Hello, everybody. Maybe good evening. I don't know, we live in different countries. So, hello, thank you for invitation for these dialogue peers. President Zelensky, I came to Kiev and interviewed you four months into this war. And I was struck then by the extraordinary spirit of you and your first lady and your people. Ukraine was united, it was resolute and it was prepared to do whatever it took to win this war. Many people feared that Ukraine would be taken quickly by Russia's forces. That hasn't happened. As we approached the fourth anniversary, what are your feelings about this war and where

Ukraine now is? Thank you very much. Of course, it's people more tired than it was. The first year of the war is understandable. Yes, because it's long war, big land war and now with new technologies, with drones and etc. So another war and cyber war. So hybrid, hybrid war. So, I mean, of course, it was difficult, terrible,

winter. We still have winter, but mostly, of course, it's in the past. But it was terrible because they understood, I mean Russians, they understood they can't have success. They can't have successful goals what they had before on the front line. So they are not winning on the front. That's why they decided to make chaos or to try to make. Now we see to try. We see the answer. that they couldn't manage this, but they wanted to make this, you know, terrible winter, taking our energy. As you know, for example, we have 18, about 18 gigawatts in Ukraine, what people need each day, every day, but Russia destroyed 10. So it's understandable where we are that people have and had four, five hours a day, electricity, not everybody had heating. Of course, we're innovated as quick as possible, everything, everywhere, but the unity of people still were strong.

For example, how we renovated everything in the capital, because the capital was in the most difficult situation. And of course, Kharkiv, Odessa, Palatava, but the most difficult situation was in Kiev after all this energy attacks. And can you imagine that 240 brigades, I mean, there's a lot of people in each brigade, they came to renovate Kiev just from all their regions. It was not just my signal to them to come. Yes, it was, but not because of this. I mean, because of their willingness of people, they wanted to help, and it was like the first days of the war when everybody joined it against the aggressor. That's why I said, yes, people are tired. Yes, people want to finish with this tragedy.

And of course, we want to stop Putin with this war, to end this war as quick as possible, of course, but in a right way, not to lose dignity in any way. That's why I think this, our country didn't lose the morality and the dignity like it was first year. But again, a lot of losses comparing with the beginning of the war, a lot of losses during these four years of the war. We are thankful to the partners, but you know that we pay for this, for Russian war against us with a human losses. It's a high, very high price. That's why we do what we can. If you speak up, if you're asking what's going on on the battlefield, as I said, they didn't get successful stories for them. They try, I mean, Russians, they try to sell their audience, the successful steps, but they can't really.

even their audience, even they are very, you know, that they have this very nationalistic, very radical part of Russia. Even they don't trust their government, Putin, because they see that there are no successful steps on the battlefield. I was, when I was, you mentioned before the interview, you mentioned a meeting in Munich. And during this meeting, I said that really Russia now loses 40,000, difficult wounded or killed per month. And they really lose 157, 56 people dead, dead people for one kilometer. So to occupy one kilometer of our land, sometimes, you know, that it's temporary occupied. Occupied and then we have our offensive steps

and they lose and et cetera. But in any way, even to occupy one kilometer, they need 156 dead Russian soldiers. I mean, these are staggering statistics and an appalling toll on human life, both military on both sides and civilian. As we were about to start this interview, the news broke that the,

the trilateral meeting in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine and the United States had broken up. There have been reports that it was acrimonious. There was a big dispute there. But there is going to be another meeting shortly, apparently. What can you tell me about the current state of these peace negotiations? I think the good point really that we had meeting in Switzerland. So, I mean, this is very important. I always raise this with all respect to Middle East and other countries. But I think if the war is in Europe, then we need to find a place and people, Europeans. They have to feel that this is the aggression against us and against Europe.

And they recognize it. Not ever, but they recognize it. And that's why I think peace negotiations have to be in. Europe, to my mind. This is not the priority. Just wanted to say that it's in Switzerland. And you said about next meeting, I just wanted to underline that the next meeting will be also in Switzerland. That's what I have information for today. Of course, our group will come back and I will have more open brief than on by phone I had. But in any way, so we had two groups, military group and diplomatic group, political. So on military direction, we are closer than on political. Why? Because

military guys, they trilaterally, they spoke about how to monitor, how to develop monitoring mission for ceasefire when it will come, when political will open these possibilities. So they discuss details, technical things, of capabilities of both sides, and first of all of Americans, because they will have leadership in monitoring mission. And I raise now about Europeans, because it's always, you know, difficult discussion about the role of Europeans. For us, the role of Europeans is significant. we again raised the topic that even during monitoring mission, during monitoring of ceasefire, when it will come, whenever it will come, I think that of course it's great that we have Americans. Of course, it's understandable that in this group will be Russians and Ukrainians because we stay both sides of contact line. But again and again, I'm underlining that I think that we need also Europeans representatives. Yes, military guys. It's up to a military decision who will be, military guys' decision who will be. But I support this idea.

So on the military direction, as I said, they are closer to result, that we will have a paper where it will be written all the details, how it can or it have to monitor immediately after ceasefire. On the political direction, it's more difficult. We don't have same view, even trilateral. We have different three views on the land question. Yes. And I think this is not simple, but we try to be very constructive.

We supported the idea which was previously, I think that you remember Saudi Arabia. It was almost one year ago where we supported A big compromise as Americans proposed us during the meeting in Saudi Arabia. They proposed ceasefire and to speak about other territories which are temporary occupied only in diplomatic way, only diplomatic way, but first to make ceasefire and ceasefire from the point where the sides of the war stay. And it was a big compromise for us because we always said that about accountability. We spoke about it and we said that they have to go out from our territory.

And then they said, America said, look, let's try to find a way how to stop, how to make ceasefire, move this battlefield just to the diplomatic way. And then during diplomatic conversation, you will decide. I mean, you Ukrainians, with Russians and with our also mediating rule that Americans, that Americans, But it will be after. And that was one year ago. And now we are a little bit out of the position when Americans said, look, we have to speak about free economic zone. We said that, look, guys, we are at the same year, by the way, your American position, which has been proposed in Saudi Arabia. But okay, we are not delaying everything.

That's why it's my proposition, Pierce. I want to support any kind of format, not to speak dialogue. That's why. But it doesn't mean that I will accept everything, just accept to withdraw from our territory, even from the territory which we control. Like now, the proposition of Russian sounds. So they said that their proposition for Ukraine,

to go out by forces from the part of the, it's a part of the, Donbass, Donetsk region, territory, just to withdraw by ourselves. And the war will stop. But we can't just withdraw. I mean, it's unbelievably how it can't be. It's our territory. And of course, this is also our territory, which is temporary occupied. That's why it's not just occupied it. It's temporary occupied it. And we are not recognizing judicially it. And even we are not recognizing de facto in any papers. Yes, it's temporary occupied territories.

It's very painful for us. But let's stop where we stay. And this is a big compromise. Can you imagine any circumstance in which Ukraine, while your president, cedes any terrorist, to the Russians in terms of sovereignty? Just give by ourselves. I can't really support such idea.

And I think that in any very difficult circumstances, I'm not sure that our people will be ready. Because, as you said, thousands, dozens of thousands of Ukraine have been killed on this direction. defending this part of Ukraine. And I just want to tell to everybody, it's not only about morality. But morality, by the way, is very important for us.

Very important. Like values, like freedom, it's not just empty words. For us, it's very important. That's why such strong answer was from the first day of this war. And defending these values, we have to understand that this, Donbass, it's a part of our independence. It's a part of our values.

It's not about the land. It's not only about territories. It's about people. It's about membership and also about strategy. How to defend our country. So for today, nobody can give us, you know, very strong world. With all respect to powerful American president and America as a whole.

I mean, there's America like a strong country with all respect, and we need their security guarantees. But even have all these, nobody can tell us and give us the word that Putin will not come again. When we speak about security guarantees, we need strong security guarantees that the rest of the world or some countries will be ready to answer Putin if he will come back with his aggression or when he will come again.

It can be ending the war or it can be freezing the conflict or it can be pause. And it doesn't matter. This is a pause two years or ten years. It's not about me. We have to think about next generations. We have to think about next people. who will be in our chairs, but they have to manage this. We can't give them, you know, empty paper. We need strong, you know, security guarantees. One of these guarantees, of course, security guarantees from the United States. Then, EU membership is important, like representatives of Europe on our land.

We support this idea, coalition of the willings. Also, our army, why I always. been against that our own army can decreased, can be decreased by anybody. Anyway, it's up to us, up to our government, up to will of Ukrainians, willness of Ukrainians. That's why we need these 800,000. And one of the very important moment, defending lines. That's why when we speak about security, when we speak about Donbass, then yes,

region. I also think, like a president, about this, you know, defending alliance, which are very strong, especially there. What will be if our forces will go out? Just go out without any kind of security. And if Russia will begin aggression again, if they will be at this territory already, how we can defend? For example, when we spoke with military guys from the United States, Europeans have, by the way, the same position. But with the United States, when we spoke with all these generals, I showed him, them on the paper. Just on the paper, I show them that, look, look, just like I draw them,

that, look, you know what does it mean cities? This is one defending line. And you know what does it mean after the cities? It goes the field, kilometers of fields. And you know that even if you will, you know, will make these defending lines there, you will need for these, not less than one year, to make them very strong. This is one. Yes, of course, if the United States, all the business, building business will come to investors. Maybe they will build it in half a year.

but in any case, it will be strong, but it will not be the same defending life as the cities. When I speak about cities, it's not about people. Not people. I'm not thinking that people of the shield. No, no, the cities and there are fortifications which already been done there, been built there. That is why I said we can't just withdraw. It's a one, two, three, four, five, ten reasons why we can't. And it's not fair at the end.

It's not fair. The Russians have stated that there are two absolute red lines for them. One is Ukraine cannot be allowed to join NATO, and there must be a guarantee of that. And the secondly, NATO forces, cannot be on the ground in Ukraine as part of any security guarantees that you've been referencing. What is your view of those two red lines from the Russian perspective? You know, I think it's more about ambitions of Russia. It's not about real logistic steps.

When they speak about that, they also need security guarantees. They said that they don't trust Ukrainians, that if we will have ceasefire, Russians are not ready for ceasefire because they're afraid that Ukrainians will prepare and begin offensive operations. So logically, it doesn't work for me because if Europeans or Americans state how we can begin any offensive operations. This is a guarantee that these representatives of NATO, by the way, can give security guarantees that we will not begin offensive after this war will add if representatives of these countries will stay. So it doesn't work. And for me, if Russia doesn't want representatives there on the front or deeply, it's the answer that they are thinking that maybe they will come again. because if there are Europeans or Americans, it's more difficult for them to begin offensive. It's true. Yes, it's true.

The same about sea. How we can use sea drones. They afraid that we will use sea drones, hundreds of them on the sea in the Black Sea, maybe in the Baltic and etc. But how we can do it if the ships of our foreign friends will stay there in the Black Sea and will control security, just security, that there is a silence in the sea, that there is a foot corridor, the grain corridor, that everything works, and the same about sky. When they said about satellites and et cetera, we need Europeans and Americans. They can control the sky. So that's why I said it doesn't work with the NATO or representatives of NATO. The second point, I know that Americans and some, maybe some Europeans, they discuss with Russia about something new document between NATO and Russia.

And I always said that we are not in NATO. It's a pity, but we are not. And we've been not, I mean, it is involved in NATO. I don't remember. Really, really, in practice, not in just words, in practice. United States, previous administration, and this administration doesn't see, they don't see us in NATO. Let's be honest. And they say this, but it doesn't mean that in the future, Ukraine will not be.

But again, it's not up to us. We already did what we had to do. We said that we want and we are ready to be a part of NATO, to be a strong part, and to strengthen all the efforts. allies, what we can do more, nothing. And now this is now the ball on the side of our partners, NATO countries. That's why I said to NATO countries that it's up to them to have us or not, to accept us like a future for us in NATO or not. That's why when they will have the document between NATO and Russia,

They can discuss everything, everything. But for me, it's important that they will discuss our potential place in NATO with us, not just with Russians, but with us because it's about us. But they can do it also without us. Maybe we don't know something. So we will react on surprises in any way if they will be. This is about NATO. That's why I said that Putin speaks a lot about Ukraine in NATO,

but it's a pity, but it doesn't depend on us. You mentioned Vladimir Putin there. I interviewed the former US President Bill Clinton a few years ago now, and he had a crossover period when Putin had first come to power and Clinton was president. And I asked him what it was like to deal with Putin. And I wanted to play you a clip. It's gone viral recently again.

I want to play you the clip and then get your reaction to what Bill Clinton says about dealing with Putin. I think the right strategy most of the time is, but it's frustrating to people in your line of work. You should be brutally honest with people in private.

And then if you want them to help you, try to avoid embarrassing them in public. Now, sometimes they do things which make it impossible for you to keep quiet. But by and large, I found all the people I dealt with appreciated it if I told them the truth. How I honestly felt and what our interests were and what our objectives were. And they also appreciated it when I didn't kick them around in public for as long as I couldn't kick them around. So that's my experience.

If deputin ever renege on a personal agreement he made to you? He did not. So behind closed doors he could be trusted? He kept his word in all the deals we met. I guess the obvious question President Zelensky is, would you trust Vladimir Putin? You have suggested that you would be prepared to meet with him leader to leader. And at some stage, I guess that has to happen for a peace deal to be done. Would you trust him if he gave you his word?

I found it very interesting at the time, but this is a long time ago. This is early Putin. But I found it very interesting that Bill Clinton said, however rough stuff got in public, that if Putin gave him his word, he always kept it. Would you feel confident that Putin would keep his word to you? Of course not. With all respect to President Clinton and to other partners, I mean, he never had the war against Russia.

So he's never been, God bless. I mean, he's never been in such circumstances and relations as we have. We don't have any diplomatic relations with Russia. We have now war dialogue, and which just began. Dialogue during the war. And, I mean, this is not even me. I mean, this is on the technical level of our teams.

And we are enemies. I think he, of course, I can't. trust the person who killed so many people in Ukraine and who began full-scale invasion against my nation. And we answered, you know, that we spoke about it today, he attacked all our civilians, infrastructure, people, schools, and et cetera. And of course, we answered to them, but not on civilians, everybody knows about it. But in any way, I think he understands who I am, and I understand who is he.

And that's why I will not trust him. That's why I have more specific dialogue with him. It's not about trust. It's about to decide how to end the war. I'm not sure that our teams can really decide the question. of the land. Of course, it's up to our people in any way. At the end, it's our people to accept the peace deal or not, not up to anybody in the world. And it doesn't depend on a strong country or strong leader or not. No, it's up to Ukrainian people. But before it,

I see now the result of our negotiation meetings. As I said, there are a lot of our negotiation meetings. As I said, some points which are constructive, Americans put a lot, and everybody wants, I mean, it's not everybody. We want, Ukrainians want very much to end this war. But I see now that only on the level of leaders, we can try to end this war. On the level of leaders, we can really try to solve the question, the territorial questions, which are very sensitive and painful and difficult. That's why we speak about security guarantees, because we don't trust Russians. Personally Putin and personally Russians. It's not just about Putin. It's about system. It's about his people around him, even when another person will be on his place and

and another people will be on my place, of course. On my place, of course. I don't know what will be with him, but on my place, of course. It's been that we have to speak about the institutional trust, but not to each other, trust to the institution of security guarantees. So because we will not support personally, we will not sorry trust personally. But also, also our nations will need additional,

I don't know how many years for the dialect. I don't know. They have to be. They need to apologize to you. You want to hear an apology. Not to me. No to me. I mean what I mean, I don't know how many years,

dozens of years, or I don't know hundreds of years. And at the end, we will need for the dialogue between our countries. But in any way, it's not only about years. It's about the position of Russia. like the position of today's Germany, which apologizing for all these Nazi years. And it's understandable that it's not about modern Germans. It's not about these young people, new generation,

but they know that at the end, it's all about their roots. It's all about their country. And it's so difficult to clean all. this. In any way, you have to change your strategy from the point that you've been right to the point that you started the war against people and you are the aggressor and recognize, oh, sorry, now I found this war, I couldn't find the war, to recognize that they started the war, to recognize that they really had real, real fascism in the 21st century. This is this. This is this. regime, which is now in Mosque.

And that's why I said that we don't know how many years. It will depend on the position of Russia. If you were to sit with Vladimir Putin to try and finalize a deal and you were face to face with this man that's committed such horror on your country and your people, what would you say to him if it was just you and him face to face? I don't have personal things to him. No emotion. No emotions. Just, just I have understanding how really try to finish this war in the, I mean this, not permanent pause.

I just try to finish this war. I'm not sure that he will hear my arguments and I don't want, I don't need it because I'm not aggressor to find arguments why I'm aggressive. I don't need arguments for, I mean, it's just for the world, that why I'm defending my life, like all the Ukrainians. We don't need it. That's why we don't need to lose time for all these historic issues with all respect to history, but I don't want to lose time on all these issues. We need just now, and even, by the way, we need just now to finish this war.

And that's why even it's not interesting for me why he began this war. He can, he has his, I mean, these reasons and it's his personal. I don't want to speak about it because I don't have time. I have my point of view why he began or why this system began. and I can definitely speak about it and etc. But I don't need to waste time on historic issues, reasons why he began, all this, I think, bullshit what he's raising with Americans and et cetera,

that it's not simple things about the Peter I, et cetera. I don't need it. Because for end this war and to go to diplomatic way, I don't need all this historical shit, really. Because it's just to postpone. Because I read not less historical books than Putin, I'm sure, and learned a lot because we have to know everything about this country. And I know about his country more than he knows about Ukraine. simply because I was in Russia in so many cities and knew a lot of people.

And so many times, and he've never been so many times in Ukraine, and he was only in the big cities. I was from small cities, from the northern part to the southern part, everywhere. I know their mentality. That's why I don't want to lose the time on all these things. It's about them. They decided to have such system. Russians decided to change themselves. Russians decided that they need new Tsar.

But it's up to them. But there is a security thing. There is a big war against us. There is our lives. The only thing what I want to speak with him, that I think that we need to manage the most successful way, successful, I mean this squeak way, without not too much losses again and again to end this war.

And that is why what about I want to speak only about such things. President Putin and his forces, they have made multiple attempts to kill you. If you had an opportunity to kill Putin, would you authorize your forces to take that opportunity? You know, in the, you know, in their system, I'm not sure that another person will not be Putin. The same as Putin. It's not about, I mean, it's not about such things. I don't know how many times they tried to kill me.

I mean, this security service told me about some of these times. Yeah, I understand that in my country, maybe in this difficult period of time, it was like push Ukraine to chaos. But when you see our people under missiles and under attacks on our lives, energy system, like one of the elements which are very important during this war, not the only one. Of course, the priority is army, army the strongest point which is very important. But there are some other things, business which pays defending production, energy system, water supplies, a lot of different things, banking system, Yes, anti-sabre system and et cetera.

So a lot of things which give Ukraine a possibility to defend. So in our system, the president is one of these elements. I'm not comparing and I'm not sure. And I'm not sure, of course, I am the very important person. It's more about institution. The president in Ukraine is one of this institution which strengthen the country. And they understand that to delay me, first of all, you always can find somebody in your country who will be maybe more diplomatic. And another thing that the first period of time, country can be in chaos.

But again, I think that it's not smart to do because, as I said, as attacks on our energy, it didn't break our country. It was oppositely the hateness to Russians increased after that. That's why I think it's the same how to kill people, even the president. it will not break. It will not break. I think that the reaction can be another, which Russians, it's a pity,

but they don't estimate really the reaction of Ukrainians. Because we are, I always said, we are emotionally different people, emotionally different people. That's why, after emotions, after attitude to humanity, always go their values. And that's why we can understand each other,

we can speak with each other, we can fight as you see, but for different values. When you had the now infamous shouting match with President Trump and Vice President Vance and the Oval Office, the world watched on in horror, I think. But I made the point at the time,

and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, that I suspect that you guys, have had quite a few quite fiery conversations behind the scenes during this war. The only difference is that this time it was in public and the world was watching. Is that true? You know, have you behind the scenes

had a lot of fiery, passionate arguments like that? First of all, first of all, it, I mean, we had different, different, absolutely, different conversations with America. And I had a lot of different conversations with Biden administration. And I had with Europeans a lot of conversations. And of course, I had during this year conversations with President Trump and his team. Different.

Some of them have been very constructive. Some of them have been emotional, like one of them, which you raised up. and there are some which have been not in media, but also been emotion. Yes, it's true. Emotional. But I think that, I don't know, I don't know, we are who we are. So I can't change myself,

and it will be not fair to my people, just of all. You know, I'm not. People said, President Zelensky, People said that you were humiliated in the Oval Office that day. Did you feel that? Not me. I had feeling that Ukraine was in the position and our people, you know, after all these days and years and after all this pain,

I thought that it was not how the, to say, it's probably what's a fair. No. Yeah, it's not, it was not just to us. It was not, it was simply not just to us. Even not the words of our president, I'm not about the words. I'm speaking about the situation. Yeah, I came to, to the partners, and I wanted very much to hear more big support than previous administration. Yes, I wanted, because I knew that President Trump, that he's a strong person, and that's why I wanted to have strong support. But even not, it's not, it's not my decision.

I mean, it's the decision of sovereign country. But I didn't want to hear, you know, with all respect, I didn't want to hear something. support of Russians, you know? And that's why my reaction was my reaction. And that's it. What can I say? When it comes to President Trump, I've had private conversations with him multiple times

in the last year since he became president again. And he cares genuinely, deeply, about the appalling loss of life in this war. and he is, it seems to me, desperate to try and bring peace and to end this war. But many people feel he's tougher on you and Ukraine than he is on Russia and Putin. Do you think that? And if that is the case, why do you think he's tougher on you than he is on Russia and Putin? I don't know, maybe because America thinks that they helped us.

helped us from the very beginning of this war. And even before the war, when President Trump remains the jevelins, I also have been very thankful to him. It was not during my presidency. It was before, but in any way, we speak about our country. Doesn't matter who is the president at this time. But he helped, and I think that he thought that he helped Ukraine, And Ukraine has to be more thankful and he underlined it.

And I think you hear it. Heard about it. And, you know, maybe he's right. Maybe we have different positions on it. I think that, you know, we are defending Ukraine and defending the world and defending their values which always Americans spoke about and try to, you know, push this values to the world. And I thought that I think that we are defending by paying our lives.

That's why I thought that it's not just help. No, it's not just, I mean, the nations of America is about help of allies, that we help each other. We are helping defend Europe and America are helping Europe to be alive. And that's why they support us. But you see, maybe we had different views on it. Do you trust President Trump? I trust him in a first thing, first very important thing that you said,

that he really wants to end this war. Yes, he really wants to end this war. And the second point, when he speaks about the children, when he speaks about losses in Ukraine, I trust that it's very painful. for him and he speaks about it. Yes. I don't know really his, all his internal questions, steps with all respect. I'm sorry, I'm focusing on the war, not on these things. Maybe, maybe some of them internal American things, even more important for him, I'm sure that this war.

But in any case, and I trust that he really can, can to, and. this war. But I don't know to speak about his relationship with Putin. I want to be very honest. It's not about question of trust or not. He has such relations which I can't really estimate or understand something which is not famous, yeah, famous, which is something which is not famous, I mean, for me. Yeah, I don't know about it. Yeah, but they have some relations, I'm sure. And that's why for me, sometimes it's very, very painful that his attitude to Putin is sometimes as the law over, young Buddha. Huh?

It's jobs. Yes, I think sometimes his attitude to Putin more good, than Putin deserves. Yeah, and that's it. I'm sharing with you what I think. But really, he speaks, Trump always speaks with me about many, many losses in Ukraine. Yeah. Yeah, and that's it.

President Trump has said that he would like to see presidential elections in Ukraine this summer. Obviously, because of the war, it's not been possible to have a free and fair democratic election because you have hundreds of thousands of men fighting on the front line. You've had millions of people leave the country. Obviously, 20% of the country is under Russian occupation at the moment. You have responded that if there was a two-month pause in fighting a ceasefire, it might be possible to have elections.

Do you think it would work to have a free and fair election even after a two-month ceasefire? I think that our partners have to answer on one question, what they want. They want really elections or they want just to change me. And I think that Russians want just to change me. And then they used something what you said before, physical. changing or another steps. And there is very, how to say, civilized way. Yes, civilized way, it's elections.

Yes, but you can't influence on people of other nations. They have to choose with whom they live. But I said that I will never stop any propositions from the Americans if they can bring us peace. So if we can have two months of ceasefire for elections, I will do my best to speak with Parliament and to push Parliament to the way which they don't support and even people don't support to make elections during the war.

because even if you have ceasefire for two months, it's not ending the war. But even in such case, if you have ceasefire only for two months, yes, if it can bring at the end of these two months, it can bring signing of everything or referendum or something like this and people will accept peace, I will do my best, I will speak with Parliament, they will change the law, I hope so. I hope so. They are, by the way, they are also independent people.

We have not to forget. When Russians, for example, speak with Americans. I know they speak, they can do elections during one week or two weeks. It doesn't matter. No, they forget always that we are not Russia. That in parliament, yes, it's our parties, different parties. But even during the war, we have different positions on many laws, different positions on a lot of things. And that's why you can't just pressure or just break the parliament.

You can't. You have to speak with them and have real reasons why to have elections now. Because it's, I mean, now it's against today's law. We can have elections only during peacetime. That's it. But I said, do strong first step. push Russia for two months of ceasefire for elections. If they want elections, we can think about it.

They have to do their homework. I mean, Americans. But homework doesn't mean that we are pushing them to this. They raised this topic. That's why I said, okay, guys, if you can stop Putin for some months of the elections, let's do it. It's an interesting situation with the American public. in relation to you personally, because there are a lot of people on the MAGA conservative rights who, as you know, don't like you, don't like the American support for you or Ukraine.

They think that Ukraine's corrupt and will come to some recent stories about that. But that's how they view you. But at the same time, a UGov poll only last week, I think it was, of two weeks ago, in the United States, came out, it asked people, US adults to give favorability ratings to world leaders, and you were number one by a distance. You were the leader around the world that most adult Americans view favorably. Putin was second to bottom just above Kim Jong-un from North Korea. Donald Trump himself was 16th, which is not surprising because the country obviously is pretty split 50-50. But the fact that you won a favorability rating amongst American adults so comfortably, and Putin came right at the bottom,

what does that tell you about how most Americans really feel about you and Ukraine? First of all, I want to react that I'm trying to be honest as much as possible with everything and with everybody. I know, of course I have mistakes. like every person which tries to do something in this life. And when any newspapers in media in Ukraine or somewhere speaks about some cases of corruption, and this is the answer. This is the answer that we fight against it. And that we have such cases, yes, but we build the big anti-corruption infrastructure.

And this is the first. The second point that we are a new country with historical roots. We had our re-independence 35 years ago. And of course, we've been always under somebody, some pressure on our roots, on our identity, on our language, A lot of things, but at the end, on our freedom. This is the most important thing. That's why it was always difficult to fight for independence.

And that's why, of course, institutions are young. That's why a lot of different people, and there are some cases, and of course, there are criminal cases, a lot of different things. The difference between our country and other countries that we are not silent. But I think this is good that we can speak about it, And we can really support to fight with any kind of such cases, as you mentioned. The second point, that we really fight us for freedom and for independence. And I'm focusing on it.

And I think that Americans feel it. They feel that we are honest in this fight. Then they feel that the big guy that are like Russian enemy in this case, they want to eat us. definitely 100% between us. They just want to destroy us totally. And I think that Americans feel it. My personal steps each day being about it to speak with the world, to tell the world,

all these crimes for Russia came with to us. And I think that Americans also feel it and hear it. Yes, and I know that the questions of a lot of difficulties, crimes, or anti-corruption steps or corruption steps will be raised, yes, a lot of time, because they don't know what more to raise, what is wrong with Ukraine, how to divide this society in Ukraine, how to pressure and how to, at the end, how to change me, and how to break our soldiers. So it's understandable what's going on, what Russia is doing. And I think that Americans, Americans, mostly they feel it. They feel where it's truth and where it's not, where it's disinformation, where it's real problems in Ukraine. And I think the answer of such support is in this, that America, truly understand and truly on our side.

President Zelensky, I want to end just with two questions. One is about the Olympics, one is about you and your family. On the Olympics, there was an extraordinary moment last week in the Winter Olympics where the Ukrainian skeleton racer, Vladislav Hirosekovich, was thrown out of the Olympics for wearing a helmet that had images of athletes and children killed during the war. the war. You've now presented him with the Order of Freedom. But I posted, as you know, because you posted back at me on X, that I was enraged by this. It wasn't a political statement. It was somebody

using a helmet in the Olympics simply to honor people who'd been killed. Did you feel that it was outrageous, that he was thrown out of the Olympics? Yes, yes, of course. They withdraw this guy and this boy, no, this man. After his steps, he's not a boy, he's a man. And really, I had privilege to meet with him and his father. He's a trainer. And he came to Munich conference, but I reacted after they withdraw, Vladislav.

And, you know, it's why the reaction of all the people have to be very, very strong for this, which is not just to him and to Ukraine. I can tell you. Because, you know, I don't know, in Ukrainian language, it's translating like two standards policy. I don't know in English if it's understandable. A double standard. Yeah, double standard policy.

Why? I will tell you. I like sport. I don't have time. But I am fan of different kinds of sport. I always respect all this sport. I understand that it's a big, difficult work to be a great sportsman. And that's why I deeply understand the details of some personalities

who've been taking part during Olympic Games, who participated in teams. For example, if you will look at young figure in Gattain, skating, skating. Fegger skating. If you will look for figure skating, for example, German, United States, Kazakhstan, even I think Poland, maybe I'm mistaken, but in any way. So you can see different countries, Hungary, Hungarians, also. In Hungarian, by the way, team, in the pair of skating figure, the pair is both Russians. Both Russians. So what I wanted to say, if you look, for example, it's just one kind of sport during this Olympic Games. If you will look at figure skating, you will see that 30%, maybe half, 30% of the teams of all the countries have Russians there. Not Russians which have been born somewhere.

So I'm not about, you know, their identity, not about roots. I'm about Russians, which trained in Moscow, in St. Petersburg, which trained in Russia, which moved during the full-scale war to other countries, which changed their citizenship. No, it's not my attitude to them. That was their decision. It's my attitude to management of a liberal. games. And this is, I mean, this, it depends on them. That was their choice. They have to live with it and they will live with it. But at the same time, what I said, it's two standards.

Well, also, also President Zelensky, if I could, if I could tell you something, I'll tell you something else about this. Yes. I was going to mention something else to you. Sorry, finish your point, please. No, no, I wanted to decide. So they withdraw one guy with a helmet, with the images of the sportsman, not just the soldiers, by the way, of the sportsmen

with became soldiers or been killed by the Russians, by the Russians during this war during Russian aggressive steps. And he put them. It's been that they support him. People have not to forget. And these forces, for me, it's very symbolic that these boys and girls that they represented Ukraine, even in such way they represented Ukraine in the Olympic Games, that is great. It's a great idea.

but it's all about respect to these people, not something else. But the withdrawing the fact that they withdraw this guy, it means they made this case political. They move this case about sport to political, policy. Well, also on the same theme, I don't know if you're aware of this, but this morning, the Winter Paralympics have announced that Russian and Belarusan competitors will be allowed to perform under the flag of their countries,

which is obviously not the case in other sporting competitions since the war began. What is your reaction to that decision? No, it's, I mean, this. I don't want to say that it's about money because I don't know. But it's dirty decisions. Absolutely, not respectable and not European.

I mean, this is not, I mean, this is Europe from the point of values. I think this is awful decision, absolutely, and not just decision. So we will react. I didn't know about it. Thank you that you said to me, but I didn't know about it. But it's like the Russian way of life, how they began this aggression. You know, we say, how to percolidivouche. Gripping, gripping, gripping occupation.

You know, a little bit, crime here. Nobody answered, nobody gave a kick, okay, Donbass. Nobody is answering, nobody is putting sanctions, okay. full-scale invasion, step by step, the Russian way of life. The same with Olympic Games. Finally, President Zelensky, and thank you so much for giving me so much time. When I interviewed you that first time four months into the war, your wife, the first lady, joined us.

And I wanted to play you a clip from what she said. When we have this interview, we experience joy because we have the chance to see each other throughout past days, past months, because during this period, Volodymyr has been living at his workplace, and I'm with children, but we are in another place. I was really struck by the way she said that and the fact that, obviously, you had so little time together. Obviously, in the next three years, I'd imagine the war has put an unbearable strain on your

life, your family life, with both your wife, your kids, and so on. On a human level, how has it been for you as a family? Not enough time. The daughter, she's not a child. She's a young lady. And I lost this time, you know, lost this period from the childhood to this moment, to today's moment. I lost it by.

I will not even say because of the war, I lost it by myself. Of course it's because of this war period, but in any way, this is my question. And the boy, he's a real boy, and he has many questions to be. And I didn't have enough time for answers. And what can I say? thanks to my wife, that they are not bad educated. And I think this is very important when you are losing time,

and you know that at this period of all these challenges, to have good education, not bad education. Yes, because it's not normal education in any way, because online, you know, everything is online. It's not the same as offline. and that's why the level is what we have. But it's up to all the Ukrainians. We are at the same positions.

But this is important. And the only one emotion that they still miss, and we still miss each other. And I think that if we miss each other, the only one constant thing what we have, we love each other. And this is great, I think. I think so. That's wonderful to hear.

I think I said to you when I saw you in Kiev that you reminded me of Winston Churchill, that sometimes leaders are kind of born for a role to lead a country when they come under attack, as Churchill was obviously in World War II, as I think you were in Ukraine. And for all those who criticize you, President Zelensky, I have remained absolutely steadfast in my.

enormous admiration for you. I think you've shown astounding leadership and courage, personal courage and I just want you to know that a lot of people feel that way about you and we wish you all the very best in trying to secure peace for your country and that hopefully it comes sooner rather than later for the sake of everyone involved in this awful war and just on the point of education I would like to point out to my viewers that I've interviewed you numerous times times now, but always in Ukrainian with a translator. I asked you today if you would do the interview in English. You've spoken for nearly 80 minutes in English. Your English has improved enormously

from when I first met you. So, congratulations on that, and thank you for doing it in English. I appreciate it. Thank you so much, and I'm so sorry, but to you and to all the viewers, sorry for my English. Maybe I had a lot of mistakes. I'm so sorry, but I'm so sorry. But I tried my best. You know, your English is great, actually. And it's, I think, more powerful to the wider global audience when you speak in English like this. And I think your English was excellent, and I really appreciate it. Best of luck to you, President Zelensky.

And thank you so much for giving me so much time. Thank you, so much. Thank you, first. Thank you for your support. All the best. Bye-bye. Interviews with President Zelensky always make headlines, and they always spot a debate. He is, after all, a world leader, and he's fighting the deadliest European conflict since the Second World War.

I've personally interviewed him numerous times now since the war began. But this time it felt different. This is a man no longer holding back. You may be frustrated by the stalemate in Ukraine, by the same talking points, by the same arguments, by neither side giving an inch. Well, so is he. Whatever your personal view of the conflict, Zelensky's personally had four years of arguing his country's case with diplomacy, four years of questions about Russia's red lines and four years of talking points about why Americans

don't support the war, at least some of them. Clearly, he's had enough. He told me Ukrainians want the war to end, but not without their dignity. He said he doesn't trust Russians, and he'll never trust Putin. He said he's sick of wasting time on historical bullshit about Russia's right to invade.

He said that overlawful of his bust up was unfair on his country. He said he's pained by Trump's relationship with Putin, the man who invaded his country, and he slammed the Olympics and Paralympics for what he called an awful double standard. This was a frank, feisty and fed up Zelensky who wants his country suffering to end. But for those who've held clear and firm views on this war

ever since it began, did it change their minds at all? Well, here to give their reaction to the interview, Scott Horton, author of Provote, General Mark Kimet, former US Assistant Secretary of State, Jack Posobic, who's the senior editor at Human Events, and Anna Denilchuk, Ukrainian, Well, welcome to all of you. General Kim, welcome back to Uncensored. I've interviewed Zelensky a few times now, and I really felt now he's reaching a point where he's prepared to speak very

frankly, probably the way he does in private, but now prepared to do it in public. And it just struck me that at the center of all this, in the end, is this debate between all the sides, and he made a point of saying it's a three-way debate, the United States, Russia, and Ukraine over territory, that ultimately any peace deal is going to come down to a settlement over territory, and he is not prepared to cede, on behalf of the Ukrainian people, an inch of land in terms of sovereignty. The compromise, as he was putting it to me, is that it may be they freeze this war on current territorial lines, but without any seeding of territory, and they work out security guarantees, which may be for 10, 20 years, whatever it may be, in a way that ensures

Putin can't then attack again. What do you make of what he was saying about that? Well, I think he's starting to acknowledge that his war aims are finally getting worn down. And for that matter, so are President Putin's. One of the reasons they can't come to an agreement is because they still believe in their original war aims. President Putin's. President Putin wants him out. He wants to take Ukraine, and he doesn't want Ukraine to be part of NATO. He doesn't want those security guarantees. President Zelenskyy wants security guarantees to include being part of NATO, wants to restore his entire landmass to include Crimea, and wants Russians pay reparations. What has changed in four years of war? So I think at the end of the day,

if President Trump wears him down and says, we'll offer you those long-term security guarantees for land, I think he's got a choice to make, and his people have a choice to make, which is either continue the slaughter from years and years, or finally coming to some sort of Cold War, some sort of frozen conflict inside the country. I want to play you, General Kim, just a clip of what he said about the current state of the battle, in the context that there's been a report out today that Ukraine has made more gains in the last three, four days than it's made for a very long time in this war.

Let's hear what Zelensky had to say. If you speak up, if you're asking what's going on on the battlefield, as I said, they didn't get successful stories for them. They try, I mean, Russians, they try to sell their audience the successful steps, but they can't really. Even their audience, even they're very, you know, that they have this very nationalistic, very radical part of Russia, even they don't trust their government, Putin,

because they see that there are no successful steps on the battlefield. The report I was alluding to said that Ukraine has recaptured territory at its fastest pace in three years, 78 square miles between last Wednesday and Sunday, which is equal to Russia's advances for the entire month of December. Should we read anything significant into that? And what do you make of his kind of overview that Russia has failed in its military objectives? Which, you know, I remember at the start of the war, the belief was Russia was trying to get this over in a few days, depot Zelensky take control and so on. Clearly, that has not been achieved. And they've lost

over a million people in terms of death and wounded in this war so far, which is a catastrophic loss for any army. What do you think of the two points? Well, number one, Russia has not achieved its military aims, but in any sense of the word. Number two, with 78 square miles in a country of that size is meaningless. Unfortunately, one of the most pressing articles I ever wrote was in July of 22 in the Wall Street Journal when I said, this is going to turn into a bloody stalemate. I wish I was wrong. But this looks like, and you know this well, peers, the history of the First World War after

about a year and a half, looks like Flandersfield. Yeah, you know, the last person that used the comparison to Flanders to me, It was Donald Trump, President of the United States, who said this is like Flanders. It is open fields, and there are thousands of young men being mown down week after week, month after month, year after year. Let me bring Scott Horton in. Scott, you know, I'd obviously know your perspective on this war. I thought it was interesting that President Zelensky several times to say to me he's not

interested in relitigating Russia's excuses for doing the invasion, or as he put it, all the historical bullshit and I'm sure that people will take issue with that. But I think what he was really getting at is that we are where we are and it's kind of meaningless to any resolution now. Would you agree with that? Notwithstanding, I know you wouldn't view what happened before was historical bullshit, but do you agree that we are where we are and if we need to get to peace, actually it is kind of irrelevant? Well, no, because you have to take into account what started the war in order to figure out how to of it. So for example, if Ukraine is going to insist on more guarantees from all the European countries and even the United States and including hosting European troops on their territory,

well, then obviously that is completely contrary to incentivizing the Russians to compromise and come to peace on their side, since that was one of the major instigators of the war, was the integration of Ukraine into the Western Alliance instead of working on a permanent neutrality, which, as I've said on the show before, even the NATO expanders said all along, well, we're going to have to make a special case for Ukraine and guarantee their neutrality. And then when the policymakers didn't abide by that, starting with George W. Bush, they really put Ukraine on the path to war. And that's the point of my book is, you know, the book is called Provoked how Washington

started this war. Not so much Kiev. It's the United States that put them in this position. There's that famous Henry Kissinger quote that says, to be America's enemy is dangerous, but to be America's friend is fatal. And what he was talking about was the kind of things that he would do, which is support people in a fight that they can't win

and then eventually turn around and leave them high and dry, like the Bay of Pigs, or like the Shiite uprising and Kurdish uprising in 1991, or the Hmong tribesmen in Vietnam, or you name it. We'll make big promises and then stabby in the back. And so the Ukrainians, you know, have a rise. to be resentful. Joe Biden promised them total victory. We will give you whatever it takes

to completely defeat the Russians. And based on those promises, they gave up on the peace talks in the early part of the war in 2022. And then the die was really cast Pierce in September of 22 because that is when Ukraine had their best day, their best weekend, when they got a real victory in Harkeve and down in Kurson. But then Putin just got angry, called up 300,000 more troops and then officially annexed Ziproja and Kersan and doubled the size of his territorial claims in the war, which he's still far from achieving. And then so you mentioned that 78 miles. The only meaningful thing about that, really, is it reinforces the Ukrainian government's position that they don't want to quit when they haven't lost yet. But of course, the Russians don't want to quit when they are winning but slowly, and they are far.

from finish taking even the rest of Donetsk, much less the rest of Ziproje and Kurson. So at the rate we're going, this thing could go on for years. And it really is all Washington, and especially Joe Biden's fault, for getting the Ukrainians into this position and then refusing to negotiate a peaceful settlement. Anna Donald Chuck, I want to play you a clip. This is where he talks about Vladimir Putin and the prospect potentially of a face-to-face leader-to-leader meeting, which obviously hasn't happened since the whole. war began. If you were to sit with Vladimir Putin to try and finalize a deal and you were

face to face with this man that's committed such horror on your country and your people, what would you say to him if it was just you and him face to face? I don't have personal things to him. I have my point of view why he began or why this system began. And I can definitely speak about it and et cetera. But I don't need to waste time on historic issues, reasons why he began, all this, I think, bullshit, what he's raising with Americans and et cetera, that it's not simple things about the Peter I, et cetera, I don't need it. Because for end this war and to go to diplomatic way, I don't need all this historical shit, really. He went on to say that he doesn't just distrust all Russians,

but he specifically wouldn't trust Putin at all. I just want to flip that question slightly and ask you as a Ukrainian. Do most Ukrainians still trust President Zelensky to do the right thing by them in this war? Yes, and, you know, I think this is one of the big things that many people who push Ukraine to have elections right now during one week, organize all the process, change Zelensky, and it will be easier to make Ukrainians agree on giving up our territories

or the way we see our future. But it's not the first time that Ukrainian civil society surprises the world. And we do have a very open, very sincere and active, not always easy dialogue inside the Ukrainian society. And you might have noticed that with protest, with disagreements. We always react in a concern. instructive way. And this is actually what ruins all of Putin's plan. He misreads Ukraine from the very beginning in 2022 and now. They think that the problem is Zelensky, because in Russia,

they have just one leader for 25 years and nobody's talking about the needs for some elections. So the fact that we have this dialogue, that we influence the decisions of our government, that we have parliament that is working, that we do not rewrite our constitutions based on the Tsar's decisions as they do in Russia, adding Ukrainian territories or changing the duration of Putin's regime. So, of course, we can criticize our leaders, we can demonstrate us that we don't like something. But in general, what Putin did, he united Ukraine extremely well. And even during this, called genocide, he tried during the worst winter maybe in 10 years, achieve the country. Once again, we back up each other. Regions send energy to most affected end. Nobody during this cold, dark days, things that, oh, my God,

we want to join Russia, just the country. And concerning meeting with Putin, I think our president is young and strong and Putin could not survive that meeting. But speaking seriously, I think that not enough world leaders discuss whether Putin is actually adequate and feed for the job now after a quarter of a century of his reign. And I'm sure that he knows very little about the things that are happening on the front lines in the Russian economy. And their decision, for example, to switch off messengers only proves that this pressure, these problems in Russia keep accumulating. Look at me. I'm in Ukraine. I have problems with electricity. But I have access to messengers. I can speak to you. cannot do it, and not because they are hiding their victories of success, just the country.

Jack Pesobi, it was an interesting moment when I told him about this UGov poll that came out several weeks ago, because obviously there are a lot of people on the conservative MAGA right that have expressed concern about America continuing to fund Ukraine and its war against Russia. It split the conservative right in many ways, in a surprising way, because if you went back 30, 40 years, it would be unthinkable that the American conservative. right, but not be united in wanting to help a European country against a Russian dictator. But times have changed. And, you know, I was struck by this poll because, notwithstanding all the animosity that's

come Zelensky's way from sections of the conservative right in America, this U-Gov poll showed that he is by far the highest amongst American adults when it comes to favorability of any world leader, and it's Putin, who is right down the bottom. with Kim Jong-un. So what was your reaction to that poll? And what do you feel it says really about what most Americans are thinking? Well, peers, yeah, the first time I'm seeing the poll. And, you know, it really goes to show me that Americans do, by and large,

regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, they stand for freedom, they stand for the right to vote, the right for democracy. These are things that by and large Americans do share. Now, of course, across the left and right, you're going to find Benny's, big differences on how we define that democracy. The left likes to use this as a watchword of, you know, our democracy is under assault when President Trump is simply, you know, using the actual laws on the books for deportations or something like this. But what I wouldn't read into that poll too much is an appetite for continued war. And that is where you see the split that you're

talking about among the MAGA right. So you see that split. It's typically an age split. those who are older tend to support war, whether it be Ukraine, whether it be Iran, where, of course, we're hearing the war drums beating yet again as we speak and seeing a massive military build up in the Middle East. And when you look at the younger voter, so I work with TPSA, and of course when we see folks really in college, in high school, even I would say up to the 40-year-old level, that's where you just see people who are remembering the history of Iraq, the history of Afghanistan, the, the, The loss is there, the disastrous withdrawal from Kabul saying, what was it for? What did we go for? And people who are veterans like myself, who served in the war on terror, a lot of people saying, do we really need to do another one of these things? And politically, that's where the bottom falls out.

I mean, just on that point, though, it's interesting because when this debate started, of course, America was pursuing very much an America first under President Trump in his second term. but now he's flexing America military muscles in a number of places from Venezuela to Iran and so on. Showing that he does have an appetite, actually, for engaging in foreign affairs in a way that perhaps some people who are Magga or America first in their thinking find a little bit perturbing. But it makes interfering in the Ukraine more consistent with what he's doing in other parts of the world. because actually, you know, what Trump would argue, he has argued, is that, you know, you can't let Russia just ride roughshod

over a sovereign democratic European country. And I, you know, my whole argument from the start has been if you let him take Ukraine or the Dombas, for example, as he took Crimea, as he, you know, marched into Georgia and all these things, the lesson surely we've learned from Putin is he won't stop there. Why would he? He would just perceive weakness and carry on. trying to take stuff.

Well, I think you're going to see this split continue, regardless of what really happens, because it's not so much that Americans are going to support Russia in their gains, which, of course, we're always accused of whenever anyone brings up this America first line. It's that Americans are sick of putting the interests of other people around the world ahead of their own. When you've got people freezing to death on the streets of New York City under Mamdani, when you've got people who are trying to just put food on the table,

where we do still face issues with inflation in the United States. And when you look at the affordability crisis, which unfortunately has not, there's been to help on the gasoline and some of the other issues, but price-wise, those are the issues. Obviously, we're an election year this year. Those are the issues that are going to be driving this election, not foreign policy. And I predict that when you go outside of the America First Wing and just really look writ large, any of these actions.

So you look at continued war in Ukraine or a new war in Iran, that is going to be very, very, very unpopular with the American people writ large. General Kim, I want to play your clip. This is where we talked about the now infamous meeting in the Oval Office that got very shouty and acrimonious between President Zelensky, President Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance. People said that you were humiliated in the Oval Office that day.

Did you feel that? Not me. I had feeling that. that Ukraine was in the position and our people, you know, after all these days and years, and after all this pain, I thought that it was not, how to say, it's probably what's a fair, no. Yeah, it was not just to us. It was not simply not just to us.

even not the words of president. I'm not about the words. I'm speaking about the situation. What did you feel, General Kim, at watching that? Did you feel it was disrespectful to Ukraine? Did you feel it was a bit humiliating for Zelensky? Or is this the kind of, as I suggested to him, the kind of confrontation that goes on a lot behind the scenes

when you're trying to negotiate peace in a war and that actually the difference this time was it would happen in the Oval Office in the full glare of the world's media? Yeah, I think that was early on in President Trump's second term, and I think he was still sort of getting his feet on the ground. If you take a look at Steve Whitkoff, Jared Kushner and the other negotiators that we have around the world,

they're not acting that way, and President Trump is not acting that way. So that was pretty much mature, a maturation of the president. I think he'd take it back and at least do it behind closed doors the next time. Listen, I'd like to go back to a comment that was made. I think people don't understand to a great extent what's happening in America. What is called the right wing MAGA is really a conventional isolationist group, which you find in both the left and the right. President Trump has turned out to be far more internationalist than those on the right that believed we were going to get

an isolationist president, or at least the president that was going to focus on more immediate challenges and larger challenges like that of China would put its focus. But I think it's also important to understand that in terms of quoting Iran and quoting Venezuela, Ukraine is unique. Ukraine is simply unique because Americans don't feel it. There are no American troops at risk. There are no American troops that are getting killed. This is, in many ways, for somebody who spent 25 years of his life on the East German border, this is ideal. We're finally killing Russians and we're not getting Americans killed. But nonetheless, I think the important thing to understand is that the Ukrainians are taking the casualties.

They are willing to fight. And whether you're an isolationist or a globalist or an internationalist, we should be backing Ukraine until this is over. Doesn't matter how we got here. It matters where we are and where we're going for here. Let me jump in here, Pierce. Yeah, let me just finish. Yeah, sure. Sorry, I thought you.

Let's go to finish. Let me just finish. If the Ukrainians want to fight to defend their country, why shouldn't America support it? We'd support any other democratic country in the world. Okay, Scott. Well, yeah, a few things here. First of all, anyone in American political culture could tell you,

There are no group of people anywhere who call themselves the isolationists. That's just a smear term for anyone who's anti-war. No one talks about isolationist Brazil or isolationist Spain, just because they're not picking fights all the time the way the United States is. I understand. That's a neutral term. It's not a neutral term. No, it's not a neutral term.

It is a neutral term. We are $37 trillion in debt. Empires fall apart because they run out of money. The isolationists say we need to regroup. We need to rearm. We need to fix our deficit. China is the threat. And so let's hunker down, as we used to say in the military,

let's regroup and re-cock and get ready for what's important and not fight these lesser essential wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're not a threat to our nation. So there is a logic to the isolationist argument. I don't consider that a smear. I consider that a logical branch of our political theory that says, we've got ahead of ourselves. We need to focus on Mendonis, New York City.

We need to rebuild our infrastructure. We need to start saving America before we save the rest of the world. All right. Well, I appreciate that, but that term is always used as a smear at this time, I guess. But the point being to imply that people who are isolationists just are cowards or are afraid of engaging with the rest of the world, don't want to trade with anyone,

don't want to know about anything in the rest of the world, and don't want to travel, don't want to engage, that kind of thing, like no matter what the emergency was, that kind of deal, that it's just ideological over reality. And that's not true. As Jack has explained, Americans have very good reasons. There is a break.

There is a branch of the isolationists that we can call the ostriches. But I think in the main, most isolationists are logical, and they're not ostriches putting their heads in the sand. All right, well, we're agreed about that then. And then I have to say, too, I do find it very distasteful. All of this talk, and you're not alone, sir, there are many others, General, who have made these same sorts of comments about how we're killing Russians on the cheap. We're sending them home in body bags. We're sending them home in coffins.

We're causing the Russians to bleed, and no American soldiers are dying. But hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are dying. Their country's being completely destroyed, and they're being essentially used as a weapon in what the Biden government called the policy of strategic defeat. They didn't want to end the war. They wanted to drag it out as long as possible, knowing that Ukraine would lose ultimately,

but thinking that that was funny, essentially, because it'll cost the Russians a hell of a lot of rubles, and a hell of a lot of dead young men to do it. And that is about as satanic a policy as you could possibly come up with. And it's one where even though American GIs are not directly engaged on the ground, the war risks spreading into a full-scale war

with the Russian Federation and the NATO alliance. And I'm not saying that's likely, but it's a lot more likely than it has been since the end of the last Cold War and completely unnecessarily. Well, let me say one way. Let me say one way. Yeah, let me just say,

And then that general commit response to that, then I'll come to you, Anna. It is a collateral benefit. It was not the primary benefit that the body bags are voluntarily being piled up inside of Ukraine by volunteers that want to fight. And candidly, I'd much- Well, they're conscripts. We have people in this panel that have sent their friends home in body bags. And I think that that, if we're going to fight a war, and another country, country voluntarily wants to do it and does not need the involvement of American soldiers

and American body bags. That's a collateral benefit. A lot of those Ukrainian soldiers are kidnapped off the street by press gangs and force into vans and take into the front lines to be cannon fodder. We've all seen the videos. And there are more than a quarter million Ukrainian troops have gone AWOL and tried to flee. Some of them drowned in the river on the way trying to escape to Romania. It's in the Wall Street Journal. the Associated Press, hundreds of thousands AWOL. They're conscripts, they're slaves. They're not volunteers. Their government has volunteered them, like Woodrow Wilson. Maybe this is a good time to talk to Anna. That's a bit outdated. You know, you keep repeating these messages, and I'm not sure if you even

speak Russian to read Russian telegram channels and the impressions of Russian soldiers as they get super exhausted. And we also observe a very serious evolution of the Ukrainian army. What you're talking are the cases that might have been observed even during the Second World War in the bravest armies. But in general, right now, Ukraine has the strongest and the most skilled army of the 21st century. We did not choose the war. Russians invaded our country. Any Russian soldier can save his life but not crossing the border of the independent country. But they kept making these choices because of money. You forget that Ukrainians are super motivated to defend the territories because they know what happens on the temporarily occupied Russian territories.

Millions die instead of hundreds or thousands on the front lines. People know that. They have filtration camp, they steal children. Look at Donetsk and Luhansk. This is, by the way, one of the best motivations for people who were pro-Russian or neutral not to join this Rusky Mir because they bring destruction. And when we say occupied territories, we actually have to change the term. They are destroyed. And more and more Russian military experts now discuss whether they actually need these territories because these are ashes, nothing else. They do not get access to factories or schools or people. They erase and destroy everything. So people do want to keep this front line. And another important thing, that is the war of the 21st century, where infantry now matters very little in

comparison to the drone warfare. This is exactly the reason why the front line is not moving. And here I have to disagree that this is similar to the first World War. No, because right now, they target our infrastructure deep inside the rear. My city is 80 kilometers from the European Union and it was struck a number of times. But at the same time, Ukrainian drones do a lot of job in very different Russian regions that right now do not have more money left. because we destroyed oil industry. 50% of revenue to the Russian federal budget was lost in 2025. And how do they get their soldiers to the army?

Offering them money. And now there are dozens of the Russian regions that do not have money to pay soldiers. Putin faces one of his biggest fears now. He needs general conscription. But in case with Ukraine, we protect our homes, kindergartens, hospitals. We witness what they do.

Don't you think that we have, that we have brains and that we react based on our experience of Russia and not on some conspiracy theories that you are sharing about NATO or something. Ukraine was denied to join NATO a lot of times. Georgia was denied. And that's exactly the moment when Russia attacks. Plus, where is Putin's reaction on Finland and Sweden? And he actually, as a master's strategist, doubled Russia's border with NATO. So let's not try to find simple solutions to very complex problems. And also, please have a look.

Four years, this war already lasts longer than the Second World War for the Soviet Army. And they do understand it. And Ukraine not only survived, but right now our mill tech is better. And a lot of American businesses, EU businesses, are openly or secretly coming here to learn from Ukraine. What we have in Russia, their defense tech failed in Venezuela. And thank you, Donald Trump also demonstrated that in Syria, and they won't help Iran. And this geopolitical influence for Russia is also important. And trust me, even the fact that some negotiations take place between Ukraine and China

is not the sign that we will cooperate, but the sign that China also senses weakness of Russia. Okay. Jack, let me bring you back in here, often turn to the prediction markets to see where the money's going in terms of predicting what may happen here. It's been interesting. Polymarket has an $18 million market on whether a ceasefire can be achieved by the end of March this year. They say it's just a 4% chance of that. That's down 39% from around the time of the Alaska summit. It's been heading down ever since.

it'll be no chance by March, which I think is probably realistic. How do you see this on-pass being broken? Because it seems to me Russia want territory. They definitely want the territory they've taken. They would like a bit more of the Dombas, and then they're prepared to do a deal. But the Ukrainians are only prepared to freeze things on current territorial lines,

not to include anything that Russia doesn't currently occupy. and not to see the single inch of land in terms of sovereignty being transferred. Does this get settled? Or as General Kimmer has warned, could we be seeing just years more of this? Well, I certainly hope that we don't get more. Look, I traveled to Ukraine multiple times since the war has started, both just on the ground doing reporting in 2022 early on, and then also last year, along with Secretary Besant,

meeting at the presidential palace for the mineral deals, part of the peace talks. I went up to Anchorage as well with President Trump, with President Putin and Lafrov and those talks, the Anchorage Accords, which of course we all wished had gone better. It seemed like everything was cordial in the room, and then nothing really shook out of it. And, of course, I'll be at the Board of Peace meeting, which is happening here tomorrow in Washington, D.C. as well. but at the same time, I think the way that the key thing that I believe you mentioned it in the earlier interview with President Zelensky is that there is a third party to all of this. It's Ukraine, it's Russia, but it's also the United States. And whereas Russia is drawing on its limited group of allies, Ukraine is very much reliant on NATO and the United States to continue to prosecute this war.

And so while the general is correct that they are using Ukrainian bodies to commit, this war when it comes to the money, when it comes to the armaments, when it comes to the technology, so much of the stuff that's going on, they are so reliant on that American support, the American material, similar to Blendeleis, which of course has an interesting history in the region as well. And so that's really what it comes down to. I would say the ball is in Washington's court, this meeting that was held in Geneva earlier today. Kushner Whitkoff sitting down with the Ukrainians were told that it actually didn't go very well. So we'll see what happens with President perhaps he makes an announcement tomorrow.

Yeah, General Kemet, just to get into another story that's developed today, which is the decision by the Paralympics, the Winter Paralympics, to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete in the Paralympics under the flags of their country, which would be the first time in a major sporting event since the war began. President Zelensky didn't know about this. I broke the news to him, actually. Let's take a look at this moment from the interview.

It's dirty decisions. Absolutely. Not respectable and not European. I mean, this is not, I mean, this is Europe from the point of values. I think this is awful decision, absolutely. And not just decision. So we will react. I didn't know about it.

Thank you that you said to me, but I didn't know about it. But it's like the Russian way of life, how they began this aggression. You know, I always say, how do you say, how do you're gonna, gripping, gripping occupation. You know, a little bit, crime here. Nobody answered, nobody gave a kick, okay, don't boss.

Nobody is answering. nobody is putting sanctions, okay, full-scale invasion. Step by step, the Russian way of life. The same with Olympic Games. Now, this came against the backdrop, General Kimmel of the FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, obviously the World Cup coming to United States, Mexico, Canada this summer, saying that football bands on the Russian national team and clubs have achieved nothing but create more hatred.

You know, Zelensky's argument is this is all just mission creep by the Russians, the more they can be accepted back into sporting events and so on, particularly under the flags of their country, the more Russia is seen to win and that you've got to stay firm on this. What's your view about sport and the part it can play in terms of boycotts or otherwise? Very simple. The 1980 boycott of the Olympics because of the Russian invents. Asian and Afghanistan. That was the precedent at that time. It should continue to be the precedent at that time. You think it works? This is where our values and interests collide. It may not be in our interest to have this happen, but I think this is where our values need to step in and simply say there was a moral imperative to boycott the 1980 Olympics. And if the Russians and Belarusians are in that, then we should boycott the Paralympics as well.

Scott Horton, there's a lot of double standards, as President Zelensky pointed out, about all this. Obviously, you had the Ukrainian competitor in the Winter Olympics who was just kicked out because he wore a helmet, which featured the faces of people who've been killed on the Ukrainian side in the war. And at the same time, you've got the Paralympic committee bosses saying, hey, Russia and Belarus, all is forgiven, come back in. I mean, that appears to me to be a pretty prime of face-seat double standard.

But are you of the view that sport can play a part in political pressure, or should it stay out of it? The politicians should lead these athletes alone. These people are achieving athletic greatness has nothing to do. I mean, they're representing their country, but they're not representing their national government and its interests necessarily. And, you know, I'm sorry, I forget the specifics,

but it was just in the last couple of years, I saw a thing about where a guy talked about how his entire athletic dreams were destroyed when he was not allowed to go to the Olympics in 1980. That was, you know, his path that he had been on working his entire life up until then that was destroyed for that as collateral damage in these people's posturing. And I think more important is to dispute Zelensky's narrative there, which is understandable from his point of view, that Russia gets away with this and then they get away with this and they keep being appeased and then they get hungry. or whatever, but I would point out that the Russians say the exact same thing. The way the Americans always invoke Munich and Neville Chamberlain, the Russians invoke Molotov and the deal with Ribbentrop and the pact to appease the Nazis in the East. And they say that here are the Americans. They keep expanding NATO.

Now they keep expanding their military equipment into NATO. Now they're making big promises to Ukraine and Georgia. They're, you know, giving all these weapons and increasing what they call interest. operability with their military, making them somewhat de facto members of NATO. And we got to draw the line somewhere. We learn the lesson from Hitler that you can appease Hitler and everybody's Hitler. He sounds just like a Democrat. And that's what they all say.

But they're essentially all being children, right? No one here is Churchill and no one here is Hitler. And no one here is Stalin for that matter. People, this should be hammered out at Geneva, but people are going to have to climb down from their high position. positions. Okay, we're going to leave it there. Thank you all very much indeed.

I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Pierce Morgan Unsensit is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me. To enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcast. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain.

And we'll do it all for free. Independent, uncensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.