TIME’s Interview with Ukraine’s Pres. Zelensky

President Volodymyr Zelensky has not talked a lot about his assembly on the White Home because it led to acrimony on Feb. 28. He by no means anticipated to seek out himself arguing with Donald Trump on tv that day, and he knew the hazards of creating the state of affairs worse by discussing it brazenly afterward. However on March 21, about three weeks after the drama within the Oval Workplace, he agreed to speak about it in an interview with TIME.

On the entrance of his thoughts going into that assembly, he says, was the peace course of President Trump had initiated. He wished to make sure that Trump understood what phrases Ukraine may settle for and what it will discover too humiliating after greater than three years of all-out warfare with Russia. He additionally wished to make Trump perceive that Vladimir Putin can’t be trusted to barter in good religion. “However, effectively, the dialog went in one other path,” he advised TIME in his workplace in Kyiv.

The complete story of the Oval Workplace assembly, what led as much as it, and the way Zelensky sees the endgame on this warfare, seems on the duvet of the newest situation of the journal.

What follows is a partial transcript of the dialog, wherein Zelensky spoke his native Ukrainian. It has been translated, condensed and edited for readability by TIME. 

Thanks, Mr. President, for making time to talk with me immediately. It was a tough evening in Kyiv. The Russian drone strikes saved me up half the evening, alongside with all of the air-raid alerts and anti-aircraft fireplace. Do this stuff nonetheless preserve you from sleeping? Or are you already accustomed to them? 

It’s laborious to get used to warfare. Security, consolation, freedom in life—warfare takes all of that away. We had been using within the practice once we heard these alerts. So sure, the warfare doesn’t let anybody sleep.

The principle goal yesterday was Odesa, the place the drone strikes had been significantly intense. What does it say concerning the peace course of that such assaults have continued virtually each evening? 

[The Russians] don’t wish to finish the warfare in its present state. For [Vladimir Putin], in my opinion, the purpose is to place strain on us, on everybody. He wants to lift the temperature, to lift the stakes, to lift the strain earlier than talks start in any type. 

Not too long ago the U.S. determined to droop army assist to Ukraine, together with the sharing of intelligence. How did that have an effect on the armed forces, particularly these within the area of Kursk? 

Any suspension or pause in help actually doesn’t do something good for us on the battlefield, and for our protection. Don’t get me flawed. The state of morale at all times is dependent upon whether or not your companions are standing beside you. However I wouldn’t say that the freeze influenced the operation in Kursk. 

Thank God the pause was not lengthy sufficient to have a elementary affect. On-line somebody wrote that they may flip off Starlink. I don’t know whether or not that’s true. However that may be very delicate, in my opinion. And naturally that pushed us to hunt alternate options. We’re engaged on that. I don’t wish to speak about it brazenly, however we’re doing it. 

What do you assume was the explanation for the halt in U.S. help? 

I believe Russia managed to affect some members of the White Home workforce by means of data. Their sign to the Individuals was that the Ukrainians don’t wish to finish the warfare, and one thing ought to be achieved to pressure them. In fact, that was disinformation. It’s not true. The Russians don’t need [to end the war], and we see that now, as we’ve at all times seen it. However this case arose, probably, resulting from a scarcity of dialogue [between the U.S. and Ukraine.] 

Second, I believe the Individuals wished to show to the Russians that they’re within the center. They aren’t with us. Usually, I don’t assume the American workforce was hiding the truth that they wish to be mediators moderately than standing with one of many sides. We advised them, Nicely, okay, should you’re not on our aspect, then not less than keep within the center. So if the Russians don’t settle for the complete ceasefire that you just proposed, we wish to see further sanctions. They don’t should be in place for lengthy, identical to the pause in our case wasn’t. However it is advisable show that. We’re actually anticipating the American aspect to take these steps.

Up to now the other appears to be occurring. The U.S. has pulled out of the worldwide group that was investigating Russian warfare crimes. It additionally stopped the venture with Yale College to trace Ukrainian kids that had been kidnapped into Russia. How do you interpret these steps?

Once more, I believe they wish to present that they’re within the center, and which means they will get behind Ukraine’s recommendations, or they will get behind these of Russia. They’re demonstrating that. As for what penalties or outcomes will come out of this, sadly we will’t foresee that immediately. 

Through the Oval Workplace assembly on Feb. 28, you tried to make the case that the U.S. is your ally, not only a mediator. You even introduced a set of pictures of Ukrainian prisoners of warfare that you just confirmed to President Trump. Why did you determine to try this? 

Initially I wished to indicate not solely the implications of warfare, but additionally a very powerful issues, with which I might start the plan to finish the warfare. It’s not about some political steps, no. It’s about individuals. [For the Russians] individuals are like rubbish. That’s a truth. And that’s what I wished to show. Other than that, I do know that in any negotiations there’ll at all times be questions of NATO, territory, and issues like that. However we by no means get round to the query of individuals… I at all times say, simply give me a couple of minutes to inform you about my precedence: the individuals, the prisoners. But it surely’s at all times very laborious to get round to that. In order that’s why I began with it. 

It appears you had been additionally attempting to achieve Trump on the extent of human values, empathy. Do you discover that works with him? 

I believe he’s a human being. He has household, family members, kids. He has to really feel the issues that each individual feels. We talked to him concerning the [abducted] kids that we wish to deliver residence. And we’re having plenty of hassle doing that. 

For my part it’s solely a query of sure leaders who can merely strain Putin to return the kids. Trump is one in all them. There’s no different means. Not as a commerce, as a result of we don’t dwell in another century. It’s not like shopping for them out of slavery. It’s tough even to lift this query: how do you make trades with kids? For whom? For what? Slowly we’re getting them again, however total it’s tough. What I wished to indicate had been my values. However, effectively, then the dialog went in one other path. 

When did you begin to really feel that the dialog within the Oval Workplace had gone flawed? What went by means of your thoughts? 

Earlier than the journalists arrived, we had a standard dialog. I advised him I wished to speak about this, that and the third — about prisoners of warfare, concerning the first steps to ending the warfare. We have now a plan, and we speak about this plan with the Europeans. But it surely’s a primary draft: With out [Trump] we don’t see a plan to finish the warfare. It might be a assure of safety, however with out America. I wished to have a critical, particular dialog with him. With the journalists we had been meant to have solely a number of the primary matters, say, and a few questions, if somebody wished that. After which we had been meant to maintain going. We had plenty of issues to speak about. It was imagined to be one on one. However we didn’t fairly get to the tip. 

Do you may have any regrets from that assembly? 

I believe this case just isn’t within the service of our alliance. 

I used to be in Kyiv when this assembly occurred, and the individuals I spoke to had plenty of respect for the way in which you acted. Your approval rankings additionally spiked afterward. Why is that? What did Ukrainians see in that assembly that others could not have? 

Why did the Ukrainians defend themselves firstly of this warfare? It was due to dignity. We have now the suitable to that. We’re regular individuals. We don’t think about ourselves some sort of superpower. However we don’t wish to be handled in an undignified means. I believe such issues at all times united Ukrainians. There are small issues, sadly, that divide us. I believe that’s our damaging aspect. However there are constructive issues about this nation. Our individuals are very emotional, and when it involves our sense of dignity, freedom, democracy, our individuals stand up and unite.

It’s not a query of how issues could have sounded. It’s a query of the Ukrainians desirous to see america as an ally, which, in my opinion, america at all times was for us and continues to be. However in that second there was the sense of not being allies, or not taking the place of an ally. And that’s a query of Ukrainian dignity. In that dialog, I used to be defending the dignity of Ukraine.

Outdoors Ukraine, individuals usually fail to grasp how delicate you’re to the views of Ukrainians. Are you able to clarify what position that issue performs for you within the peace course of? For instance, does it restrict what you might conform to in a peace settlement, if the Ukrainian individuals don’t help it? 

Initially, I don’t assume that I might conform to one thing like that. I don’t have an strategy totally different to that of my individuals. I characterize the individuals. I really feel that and I perceive that. I’m a citizen of Ukraine. On this state of affairs, I believe what has already been achieved is already an enormous historic compromise. Lifting Putin’s political isolation—that’s an enormous compromise. Think about releasing Hitler from his political isolation. It might most likely be inconceivable.

We’re speaking a couple of ceasefire, and we perceive who we’re dealing with. It’s just like the story when a terrorist takes over a financial institution, and other people perceive that they will’t inform him immediately: ‘Come out of there! Launch all of the individuals, depart the cash behind.’ Professionals perceive how it’s important to begin a dialog like that. It’s about compromising for the sake of individuals. And right here it’s the identical. It’s for the sake of individuals, the people who find themselves on the entrance. And for the sake of all individuals when all is alleged and achieved. 

Everybody says, OK, we’re going to speak a couple of ceasefire with no preconditions. That’s an enormous compromise, however [Putin] doesn’t go for that. That’s the issue. We wish to use the language of diplomacy with him, however he by no means realized this language. He speaks a unique language. Not as a result of he’s unfamiliar with diplomacy. He understands it as an instrument. However he’s towards dialogue. He isn’t a person of dialogue. He’s a person of ultimatums.

It strikes me that, within the peace course of to this point, because the U.S. has pursued it below Trump, the carrots are reserved for Russia, whereas the Ukrainians get the stick. Is that how you may have felt? 

[Laughs] Nicely, look, if the carrot is poisoned, then thank God. Possibly that’s the sneakiness of this diplomacy… I believe that if the American administration would take stronger steps, then Putin would have a greater response. The Russians would reply extra rapidly. I believe that, as quickly as Trump returned to the presidency, the tempo of his reactions was very fast and sudden. His rhetoric, his statements. I believe at that second the Russians received actually scared. When he began speaking about sanctions, about his different steps. His strikes are very sudden for them. And for them something sudden is worrying. 

Within the lengthy sport, the Russians are pretty sturdy. They’ve an authoritarian system. Below authoritarianism the whole lot is official. It’d transfer slowly, however it strikes. However swift actions are one other story. That’s why I really feel we do not need sufficient sturdy, swift actions. 

As a part of the peace course of Trump initiated, it appears all we see from the Russians proper now are calls for from Putin and members of this workforce, the identical we heard firstly of the warfare: de-militarization of Ukraine, “de-Nazification,” for NATO to retreat from Europe. Why is that?

The Russians are negotiating, setting the bar on the most stage, in order that they’ve some room later to retreat. As we all know from historical past, from books, [Putin] has no real interest in ending the warfare in any respect. The warfare will grow to be a legal responsibility to him when his financial system faces the utmost losses. Proper now he nonetheless has time. But it surely most likely is dependent upon the power of sanctions. I believe the Individuals can lower the time he has utilizing sturdy sanctions. From the evaluation I’ve seen, Putin’s financial system shall be in hassle in 2026 or ’27. We don’t know what reserves he has. However the dates are fairly clear. So I might really matter on sturdy steps, sanctions and varied army steps. 

Up to now we have now seen different steps from the Trump administration. For instance, on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion, the U.S. voted with Russia and North Korea within the United Nations. What did you assume while you noticed that? 

They’re exhibiting that they’re within the center. However I believe that performs to the advantage of the Russians. 

Have you ever tried expressing that to Trump? How does he react to such arguments? 

Because of the media, to journalists, I current these arguments. Once we speak with President Trump, it seems a little bit totally different, as a result of we speak concerning the realities that we will create proper now. For instance, we speak about methods to achieve a ceasefire. And there I defined to him that the Russians [have not surrounded Ukrainian troops] in Kursk. I’m very glad that the establishments labored, and that the CIA confirmed there is no such thing as a encirclement within the Kursk area. They formally confirmed that data. [The encirclement] may have occurred if we had advised the troops to go deeper, past the boundaries that had been ready. We’d by no means have stated that. In order that was unverified data. However the Russians stated, ‘Look, tomorrow we’re going to destroy them!’ For what? In order that Trump would inform Putin to cease. So the Russians perceive what to say to the Individuals.

And the response was clear. Trump printed a press release on social media, saying that he’s attempting to save lots of 1000’s of surrounded Ukrainian troopers. 

Sure, as a result of he was advised a falsehood. 

Let’s speak about potential eventualities for a way the warfare will finish. In a latest interview I had with Petr Pavel, the president of the Czech Republic, who visited you right here in Kyiv yesterday, he advised me to think about a number of eventualities as precedents. For instance, the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, which went on for many years. Or the thirty eighth parallel on the Korean Peninsula. Whenever you think about the battle line after a future peace settlement, does it appear to be any of those historic examples? How do you see it? 

You possibly can see for your self that every one of those dividing traces are totally different in each case. In Berlin, for instance, there was a line within the type of a wall, and you know the way that ended. The explanations are at all times totally different. What appears essential to me in these traces is that they aren’t everlasting. In circumstances the place they final a very long time, there’s battle in all places. There may be warfare or frozen battle that results in army actions of assorted sorts. It’s at all times been that means. 

So I advised President Trump: Do we wish many Berlins? I stated that, once we divide individuals, there shall be no peace in these cities, and in the end they may all return to the aspect that was proper all alongside. From the viewpoint of worldwide regulation, we’re in the suitable, and the whole lot will return to Ukraine. It’s a matter of time, and a query of how many individuals might want to undergo hell. That’s the worth. 

You stated just lately that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are your nation’s greatest safety assure. What’s your evaluation of how lengthy they will maintain out with out the assistance of your companions, the Individuals, the Europeans? 

It is dependent upon our capability to rotate the troops. If there’s a ceasefire, some sort of pause, how lengthy can the military maintain out? So long as crucial. However they want relaxation, rotation, reserves, salaries. That’s an actual drawback, I believe, as a result of the military was at all times smaller than it’s now. And when the military is thrice larger than it was, then it must be financed. The finances of Ukraine is not going to be sufficient. There should be separate applications. Europe must finance it. Ideally Europe and America. However within the current circumstances I might rely extra on Europe. They really imagine, and it’s true, that our military is a part of the safety of all of Europe. That’s a truth. Our individuals is not going to run away if one other warfare kicks off. Whereas Europe, usually, just isn’t able to act like that. 

What do you anticipate to occur if Russia violates the ceasefire repeatedly? 

We don’t even have one but. However ever since 2014, they always broke the peace. Right here’s the way in which I see it. They’re going to violate it on a regular basis. That’s the reason the window of alternative could be very brief between the purpose when we have now a ceasefire, and the purpose at which we attain a deal to finish the warfare. It must be a really brief interval. One month, two, three, and that’s it. After that will probably be a query of morale inside the army. We have 800,000 at arms.

It’s not simply concerning the funds. If we don’t have an settlement to finish the warfare, it turns into a frozen battle. And we will’t simply preserve residing in a state of warfare. We have to open the borders. We have to liberalize many issues. And we will do this if we signal an settlement. If the interval between the ceasefire and the settlement just isn’t lengthy, then we could solely see a number of violations right here and there. That might not be a complete collapse. But when the method drags on, it’ll all crumble many instances over. And we don’t understand how that may finish. 

If we do see an settlement, the post-war interval shall be extraordinarily laborious. There shall be a demographic disaster, the issue of reconstruction, infrastructure, the wants of veterans, and lots of different issues in addition to. How do you see your self on this interval? In what position? And have you ever been tempted to achieve this level, to signal the settlement, after which stroll away out of your place as president? 

A very powerful factor for me is to seek out an settlement that may unify the nation moderately than dividing it. That must be an settlement on a simply peace. Most probably we can have the sorts of challenges you simply talked about. But it surely’s essential for this settlement to unify the nation. Then the nation will have the ability to remedy the following query, which is the query of the right way to rebuild in a good means. I believe we are going to see a surge in morale. The necessity to rebuild is not going to be an issue, however the reverse. We are going to know that we have now saved the nation, saved our independence, and now we will construct all of it again. And that shall be a extremely huge supply of positivity. We can have discovered the social contract on the place issues stand and the way the warfare ended. Then, with regards to the demographic query, if we have now this constructive second to encourage us, then individuals will return.