Zelensky: will NOT use long range weapons to attack civilians in Moscow - and says Trump has a system he can sell to the Ukrainians to liberate occupied Ukraine WITHOUT using it - won't be nukes
First the headline story in the sensationalist press about officials needing to know where the bomb shelter is - this is NOT about attacking the Kremlin or civilians. This is just normal in a region under attack by drones, cruise and ballistic missiles, which Russia is - however precise the weapons - you go to a bomb shelter if you get an alert.
This is for:
missing a military target somehow
confused air interceptors from the Russian air defences hitting civilians
shrapnel from mid air interceptions.
collateral damage such as explosions when a military target is hit.
Crimea does get air raid sirens. It’s had alerts and signs to bomb shelters since 2022
https://meduza.io/en/news/2022/08/22/signs-to-bomb-shelters-to-be-placed-in-sevastopol-crimea
But Russia doesn’t have this yet. See search results found by Perplexity AI to find more.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/do-russians-go-to-bomb-shelter-bXGyMFJVQmKI3hCbu5uTsg#1
Then the news isn’t even mentioning it yet - Zelensky hints once more at a mysterious system that can end the war without even being used and end it with Russia giving up all of occupied Ukraine. He says Trump understands and he is working on it (so he hasn’t yet approved but might).
Most people seem to read this as just hyperbole and say that no such system can exist. But in my experience Zelensky has been very straightforward about such matters. He does NOT want to give Ukrainians false hope. So such a system must exist, so what can it be?
That led me to the idea of a military psychological lever. I haven’t seen anyone else share this idea and Peplexity AI couldn’t find it but it’s the only thing I can think of that fits what Zelensky says. Nobody else has suggested anything that fits it literally and straightforwardly.
What could Ukraine possibly get that would lead Putin to consider giving up all of occupied Ukraine without a fight, after 3 and a half years of fighting for it?
Well the only thought I have is that the US conventional Tomahawk missiles could sink the entire Black Sea Fleet - and the Caspian Fleet - about as prestigious for Russia as the Royal Navy is for the UK and centuries old, established in 1787. For him with his sense of history - to be the first Russian leader without a Black Sea fleet since 1787
Perhaps he would in principle give up occupied Ukraine to avert that. And it is a legitimate target as the Russians use it to fire missiles at Ukraine. .
It wouldn’t take many of them and Zelensky could say to Putin “Let’s have a ceasefire now or this will happen”. Ukraine can surely do it with the Flamingo too once he has more of them but could do it right now with the Tomahawk.
If this is what it’s about, my guess is it would likely be the opening gambit in a negotiation to bring him to the table. With both Putin and Zelensky expecting Zelensky to settle for less during negotiations, for an immediate ceasefire.
Other ideas like ending the war by removing funding so that Putin can’t pay for his soldiers or eliminating the fuel for the war are different they are things you use. The only system you wouldn’t use to achieve the effect is a military psychological lever (my term for it as I don’t know of a standard term).
Contents
Other levers - example military psychological lever of the Black Sea Fleet
A capability Putin doesn’t have - and developed by Ukraine itself not NATO
Why the Black Sea Fleet would be an effective military psychological lever
Will NOT attack civilians in Moscow
When asked
“will you attack Moscow”,
Zelensky says
“Look it’s not about that. We are not terrorists”.
It is very against the law of war to attack civilians or civilian objects or non-combatants in government (such as Putin) and Ukraine doesn’t do it.
Zelensky is then asked if officials need to know where the nearest bomb shelter is. He says “yes”.
But that is simply because if you are involved in a shooting war and you are in the war zone, even with the bombs only fired at military targets and refineries, you still need to go to the bomb shelter because of the risk of drone debris, air interceptors that go off course, explosions and so on.
Zelensky himself has to know where the nearest bomb shelter is. Anyone does who lives in a war zone. Russia may be targeting civilians but it is not deliberately targeting Zelensky - but he still needs to know where the bomb shelter is if there are air raid sirens and to go to it.
This would be true for any war even if Russia wasn’t targeting civilians in Ukraine. If you hear an air raid siren or nowadays get an alert on your mobile phone, you go for shelter.
From the context it is very clear that this is what he means.
Zelensky: To be very honest, I think that if we have such long-distance weapons from the United States, we will use them.
Q. So you will.
Zelensky: We will use them.
Q. Against Moscow?
Zelensky: Look, it’s not about that. We are not terrorists.
Even our people today hate the Russians because they began the war and they kill us. But all our people understand that we don’t need to attack civilians.
But if you know what the rules of this war mean, we will attack their military. But if they make a blackout for us and we have long-distance, stronger weapons from the United States, we will attack their energy.
Q. And they attacked the Prime Minister’s office.
Zelensky: Yes, they attacked.
Q. So what would you tell someone who works at the Kremlin today? Would you tell him to make sure he knows where the nearest bomb shelter is?
Zelensky: First of all, they have to know where the bomb shelters are. They need it.
If they do not stop the war, they will need it in any case. And they have to know that we in Ukraine, each day, we will answer.
If they attack us, we will answer them.
Of course whatever it is, Zelensky knows, and Trump and those who have very high security clearance on both sides. Zelensky says about the Oval Office:
Q. What was the number one lesson you had from this meeting back in February in the Oval Office? What was the lesson, other than wearing a jacket?
Zelensky: I can’t tell you [now], but I will. Yes. Not now.
Q. Okay,
Zelensky: not now. After a little bit later.
Q. After you finish, after you retire, or after Trump retires?
Zelensky: No, not after me. It doesn’t matter. I mean, a little bit later, but I will tell you.
A system Trump can give Ukraine that will let them liberate all the territories - WITHOUT BEING USED - or they are ready to go to an immediate ceasefire
The most interesting part. Zelensky says
If Ukraine doesn’t have the power to take back those territories, then they are ready to speak about them and to get them back later by diplomatic means
There is one thing that Trump can give them that will let them get back occupied Ukraine
This is something that they would NOT use. Just by having it they can force Putin to the negotiating table. And force him to give up occupied Ukraine
Trump didn’t say no. He said “We will work on it”.
So there seem to be two options for Trump
Enable Ukraine to liberate all of occupied Ukraine or
Enable a ceasefire.
Both can be done very quickly. For 1. he needs to give Ukraine some system that the US has that will persuade Putin to give up all of Ukraine without a fight.
That is the most straightforward way to interpret this.
Zelensky: Between us, if you look at today’s situation, if tomorrow will be a ceasefire—everybody stands [stops fighting?].
If we don’t have the power to bring back these territories, we are ready to speak about it. We are ready to get them back sometime in the future, by diplomatic means, not with weapons.
I think this is a good compromise for everybody. We have to decide such things now, in dialogue, and with fewer losses.
Q. What is the one big thing, tangible thing, real thing—not a post on Truth Social—the one thing that you need President Trump to give you in order to win on the battlefield?
Zelensky: I think President Trump knows. I told him yesterday what we need—one thing. I already told him.
Q. Which was?
Zelensky: I will not tell you which it was, but I will tell you that he said, “We will work on it.”
Q. Was it a weapon system that you feel you need?
Zelensky: We need it. By the way, we need it.
But it doesn’t mean that we will use it, because if we have it, I think it’s additional pressure on Putin to sit and speak. There is only one thing that President Trump really can give us, using any kind of systems. But he can stop Putin. He can pressure him to stop the war, to go to diplomacy.
So as I read that
There is a “system” (Zelensky’s word) that Trump can give Ukraine that would not just bring Putin to a ceasefire but let Ukraine liberate all of occupied Ukraine - without even using it.
If he doesn’t give Ukraine this system, then Ukraine is ready to go to an immediate ceasefire which Trump can achieve by (likely economic) pressure and diplomacy
How Zelensky could get concessions from Putin with the Tomahawk without using a single missile - Putin would NOT want to be the first ever leader of Russia to lose the entire Black Sea Fleet - likely done secretly and only leaked or revealed after a ceasefire
The only way I can see it myself is as a psychological lever to threaten to sink the Black Sea and Caspian sea fleet.
It has to be
Something of such huge prestige value that for Putin it is as valuable as all of Occupied Ukraine that he has been fighting for, for over three and a half years
A legitimate target, so must be something that is involved in fighting the war - Zelensky wouldn’t threaten a war crime with US weapons or indeed its own weapons
Something that Ukraine would be able to use to get concessions WITHOUT damaging it at all.
The only thing resembling this that I can think of is the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Sea Fleet - both at once.
Legitimate target because it fires missiles at Ukraine
Huge prestige value, no way that Putin would want to be the first president in Russian history to lose the entire Black Sea fleet - after such an embarrassment he’d have to resign
It is as important to Russia as the Royal Navy is to the UK.
This is my own hypothesis.
Click bait media suggest that Ukraine would target the Kremlin but there is no way it could or would do that. The US would only supply them for legitimate military targets and Ukraine from its side is careful to stick to the law of war and would never target the Kremlin or Putin himself.
But the Black Sea Fleet is legitimate target in this war because it fires missiles at Ukraine.
And it isn’t that big. US has hundreds of Tomahawks. 100 would be more than enough. It’s less than 50 targets to sink all the biggest ships in both fleets at two tomahawk’s per ship.
Ukraine is producing its own Flamingos and will likely have the capability on its own by the end of the year. At 7 a day it would reach 100 in two weeks by the end of the year. But right now it is 100 in 100 days or over 3 months. Presumably it doesn’t have a big enough stockpile yet.
This would be now and also with a system that Russia knows is proven in combat since the 1980s while the Flamingo is new and not so easy to use as a psychological lever until proven in combat with Russia.
The Tomahawk can be used as a lever without ever even sinking a single ship with it.
Ukraine wouldn’t even use them so it could sell them back to the US if needed after making the threat.
It is not to gain an advantage in the war.
It would not win the war or even make much difference as Russia could fire the same missiles from the ground or air.
Only some of the missiles are fired from the fleet.
But this makes it a legitimate target so they can legitimately threaten to sink it.
And the way it works is psychological not military.
The Black Sea fleet is of immense prestige value in Russia, part of their history back to the eighteenth century and Putin has a keen sense of history.
He presents himself as a strong leader.
He can’t maintain that image if he loses the Black Sea Fleet
It’s like the UK losing its entire Royal Navy.
Imagine a UK prime minister saying:
“look how strong we are, oop, I just lost the Royal Navy, vote for me in the next election!”
Although they don’t have free and fair votes in Russia the president IS vulnerable to loss of confidence by the people around him and the public.
It is my own idea. I got it from a comment by General Petraeaus a couple of years ago now.
Nobody else is suggesting it.
The truth is top secret whatever it is, this is the only thing I can think of that makes sense of it.
But would Putin give up the entire occupied region to secure his Black Sea Fleet?
I don’t know but Zelensky is careful with his words and doesn’t bluff and he said that it is about regaining all occupied Ukraine without a fight.
Putin can shape public perception with propaganda.
He can explain losing all of occupied Ukraine he’d tell his people that he accomplished everything he set out to achieve and is now withdrawing, mission accomplished as he did in Syria.
He can never explain losing the Black Sea Fleet.
He has already lost a third of it - but hides that from his people -he couldn’t hide losing ALL of it - he needs the warships for naval parades for his people and they’d say “where is the Black Sea Fleet this year?”
It would take a long time to rebuild - a frigate or
I don’t think Zelensky seriously expects Putin to agree to this but rather that Putin would know privately that he would rather give up Occupied Ukraine than lose the Black Sea fleet.
So he’d come to the talks knowing he can’t afford to lose it - and would be amenable to some concessions short of giving up all of occupied Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t want a war with NATO.
And it would likely be done secretly he won’t want his people to know he can lose the entire Black Sea fleet. And Ukraine and the US also would want him to make concessions in the ceasefire deal so have reasons to keep it quiet too.
If this is what it is, I expect the details wouldn’t be released publicly officially only leaked until it is over and then Russia would deny it.
It is just my guess 🙂.
Whatever it is, Zelensky thinks it can bring Putin to the ceasefire negotiations quickly if he gets it.
He says clearly it would NOT be used.
What can this mysterious ”system” be? To end the war and liberate all of occupied Ukraine without ever use it? How the Tomahawk can fit that bill if used as a psychological lever rather than as a weapon in combat
So what can this mysterious thing be that Trump has that he could give to Ukraine that could let them end the war and not only that, liberate all of occupied Ukraine without fighting?
Note Trump has NOT said he will give it to Ukraine but he said “working on it”.
So it also has to be something that is not so way out there (like an F-35) that it is just out of the question for Trump to give it to Ukraine.
Most commenters just dismiss this - it HAS To be used and they then work on what Trump could give Ukraine that would eventually maybe by attrition end the war.
But Zelensky is very clear now - and also in the fall last year - that it is a way to win WITHOUT using it.
So what could it be?
0% chance it’s F-35s - would win the war in 24 hours likely
by taking over Russian air space over occupied ukraine and border regions of Russia
Putin would have to just agree to withdraw
but no way Ukraine’s allies give Ukraine or sell Ukraine a fifth generation fighter jet until long after the war is over
Doesn’t fit the description anyway as it wins by being used
NOT NUKES. Zelensky has been very clear he does not want nukes and no way Trump would give them either.
That leaves the Tomahawk cruise missiles with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Zelensky mentioned them already in the fall 2024.
But experts discussing it can’t make any sense of that at least in open source discussions. How could Ukraine end the war with tomahawks? It is a workaday weapon for NATO. They used it against Iran for instance with the Iran strikes.
It’s just a cruise missile with
high levels of stealth, easily gets through most radar systems
a range of 2,400 km
able to deliver a payload of a 450 kg (1,000 lbs)
It is
Useful,
workaday for NATO but major for Ukraine
but how could it end the war?
Especially now that Ukraine has the Flamingo cruise missile
possibly just as stealthy,
range 3,000 km
payload 1,250 kg (2,755 lbs)
It out ranks the Tomahawk in almost all respects. The Tomahawk may be more stealthy but the Flamingo is more sealthy than it seems, built from the ground up with radar absorbing materials, and it doesn’t take much to get through the Russian air defences.
The one advantage the US has here now is that it has thousands of Tomahawks and Ukraine likely has only a few Flamingos.
I think it is what I call a military psychological lever. I can’t find the military terminology.
Here are some graphics to summarize the idea.
First Zelensky already used this technique on May 9. By NOT USING DRONES he got a three day lull in hostilities a new meeting of Ukraine with Russiain Turkey (which led to a prisoner exchange so it did have some benefits for Ukaine and got them talking again)
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: A perfect military psychological lever is one you never need to use
Significant progress towards peace
- many more levers Ukraine and its allies can use
Zelensky levered Putin to
- do a 3 day truce
- which Ukraine respected though Russia didn’t
- and then arrange a meeting in Turkey of great signfiicance even if it never happens
All by NOT even flying drones over his parade.Putin now HAS to decide where he stands on a truce in Ukraine
With many more levers Ukraine and its allies can use.
Zelensky and Trump levered this to force Putin to arrange a meeting in Tuirkey - and then challenge him to show up himself!
Graphic from this point in the victory parade with the photo of Putin and other leaders from another point in the video nearby.
Other levers - example military psychological lever of the Black Sea Fleet
If Putin responds by raising taxes or finds a way around the sanctions again - we get to the other levers, the military psychological levers and the possibility of Ukrainian plan B
I use the Black Sea fleet as an example of another military psychological lever that Ukraine could use to lever Putin without doing ANY harm to Putin’s Black Sea fleet beyond the 1/3 of the fleet they have already sunk.
Whether or not Ukraine actually considers this, or has something else in mind, it’s a great example to illustrate the concept.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is of huge national pride to the Russians. Ukraine has already sunk its flagship and a third of its ships with the ATACMS, stormshadows and its own native Neptune but most have retreated out of reach to the far side of the Black Sea.
If Ukaine had the Tomahawk cruise missile it could sink the entire fleet - gone from the Black Sea for the first time since it began in 1783
A major lever for negotiations with Russia from a position of strength.
Black Sea Fleet - just before the start of the Crimean war of 1853-6
Graphic: Ivan Aivazovsky. Black Sea Fleet in the Bay of Theodosia, Crimea, just before the Crimean War
Ukraine could win very fast if Ukraine had the Tomahawk cruise missiles that the US uses to fire at the Houthi rebels in Yemen - the war would likely be over tomorrow.
Zelensky would say to Putin “get your army out of Ukraine or I’ll sink your Black Sea fleet in its entirety”. He knows he can’t protect his fleet from the Tomahawk cruise missiles - and he’d leave Ukraine.
The US uses these against the Houthi rebels in Yemen for instance.
Any NATO country would have access to these on day 1 but Ukraine’s allies feel they are too powerful for Ukraine.
Ukraine uses similar weapons with a much shorter range against Russia in Crimea (such as the UK Stormshadow and its own Neptune) and Russia is unable to stop them.
Map shows 2,400 km circle centered on Zaporizhzhia, a safe city in Ukraine that Russia is never going to take. That’s the range of the Tomahawk.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
NATO will remain very strong even without the US.
The Allied Response Force can ramp up to 300,000 , no longer depends on US for coordination.
Steadfast Dart tests a rapid response by 10,000 in days to Article 5 without any help from the USA.
Thousands stationed permanently in the Baltics with air patrols of the borders.
Range of Tomahawk cruise missile, 2,400 km.
Ukraine has sunk 1/3 of Russia’s Black Sear fleet with missiles with a range of 300 km. They now all stay out of range of those missiles.
With the Tomahawk it could threaten to sink every warship in both the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Putin would likely leave Ukraine to avoid that happening.
It has 5 frigates, 15 corvettes, 8 attack submarines and various landing ships, patrol ships etc.
UK has nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise mmissiles US has thousands of them.
NATO VASTLY OVERMATCHES RUSSIA.
Ukraine is able to send slow ppropellerdriven drones for hours through Russia to hit its oil refinery in Moscow. Russia can’t shoot them all down.
This war in Ukraine would be over tomorrow if it had just the Tomahawk never mind the near radar invisible F-35 with radar cross section of a supersonic baked potato.
Russia will never attack NATO because the war would likely be over on the day it began because of vast overmatch of CONVENTIONAL power.
https://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm?lat=47.768868&lng=35.050699&r=2400000
But now Ukraine has the Flamingo. Even greater range than the Tomahawk. It seems to be very stealthy too. But not so many yet only 1 a day. Increasing to making 7 a day by the end of the year.
So here is why Putin might be nudged more in the direction of a ceasefire by this new announcement - look at all the high value targets - that would be a huge embarrassment to Putin if Ukraine was to damage them.
The
brand new high tech Yaluba factory for making Geran 2 / Shahed drones
Engels base with its strategic bombers which are either irreplaceable or immensely expensive which are valid targets because they are used to fire conventional cruise missiles at Ukraine
The Black Sea Fleet and Caspian Sea Fleet - these are centuries old, and no Russian leader has ever lost its entire Black Sea Fleet - not the sort of record in history Putin would like to have for himself.
Drawn using free online map tool here, set Kyiv as center and radius 3000 km, for Yeluba and Engels base 2, I set the radius to 1 km just to get the markers
A capability Putin doesn’t have - and developed by Ukraine itself not NATO
Also it is a capability that Putin doesn’t have and to make it more embarrassing, it’s a capability that Ukraine developed by itself, not NATO. Ukraine developed it during the war, had nothing like it before only the much shorter range Neptune cruise missile at a tenth of the range.
But Russia has nothing like it. It’s Geran is nowhere close. And its cruise missiles don’t have the payload or range.
Not even its ballistic missiles - apart from the ridiculously expensive ICBMs (not designed for a conventional payload anyway) and Oreshnik (only used once as a propaganda stunt, very expensive and not much use).
They are in such short supply that Russia has only ever used one of them once - probably just a scheduled test that they decided to use against a city instead of a test range. They are not practical for a war like this.
To be fair - Russia was limited by the INF treaty from developing missiles like the Flamingo from the ground before the US withdrew from the INF treaty. But it could have developed them air or sea launched and it has never got close. Especially sea launched it’s almost identical to launching from land.
This table shows the Ukraine and Russian ballistic missiles and the longest distance cruise missile for each party. It includes the ATACMS since it is pretty close to ballistic in its path.
Even when you include ballistic missiles, Russia has nothing like the Flamingo. Nor does Ukraine have anything else even close to it.
I made these charts with Perplexity AI.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/if-it-is-true-that-ukraine-s-f-4xAlr9j9SqmoBJos2Ae0eQ
I’ve checked most of the figures or knew them already.
Also - these are just preliminary figures for the Flamingo - but the Ukrainians tend to be accurate about such things.
Why Ukraine could build the Flamingo - it has plenty of expertise and technical equipment - and now has the finance too
Ukraine now has several billion dollars a month which is a debt set against the interest on the Russian frozen foreign reserves. That is why they can do something very major like that this year, they have the funding to do it. They have always had the ability - it’s the Ukrainians that built the silo based Soviet Union ICBMS and had the maintenance contract for them through to 2014 when Ukraine cancelled it from their side - and Ukraine also built the Soviet Union aircraft carriers. It also built Soviet Union tanks and it was involved in the Soviet Union nuclear weapons industry too - it was a defense hub of the Soviet Union much as East Germany was.
There will be many people in Ukraine still alive who were involved in those projects. So they have the knowledge. They have kept a lot of the technology. They have been boosted by technology transfer from Western companies investing in Ukraine and they now have the money to do really big projects.
Why the Black Sea Fleet would be an effective military psychological lever
Highly unlikely that Ukraine would be as unsubtle as to threaten Putin to sink his Black Sea fleet - that is something he can figure out for himself. If necessary they could demonstrate the capability - but his advisors would advise him of the vulnerability just from the specifications.
The Black Sea fleet is very important to Russia historically and culturally as well as militarily.
The 1000 km for the long Neptune was already enough for the Black Sea because the frigates and even the corvettes couldn’t realistically be moved to the Caspian sea because Ukraine has fire control over the Kerch strait.
But now Ukraine can realistically reach the Caspian sea too.
The Black Sea fleet goes back to 1783 and has around 50 surface warships, 7 subs and various other auxiliary ships and landing ships.
QUOTE approx 50 surface warships (frigates, corvettes, missile boats, minesweepers) plus landing ships, oilers, tugs, survey, intelligence and auxiliary vessels
7 submarines
The Caspian sea flotilla is smaller and goes back even further to 1722. It has
c. 14 surface combatants
8 landing craft
8 minesweepers
3 anti-saboteur boats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Flotilla
Once Ukraine has one month of supply of Flamingos at 210 a month it could likely sink all the larger warships in both fleets with two missiles to each ship.
So - surely Putin would agree to a ceasefire in October if the alternative is to lose both fleets?
Ukraine doesn’t have this capability yet but it will in the near future.
Also with the strategic bombers. In this case it was a psychological lever flip.
We later heard that Ukraine got intelligence that Russia planned to do a massive attack using cruise missiles launched from Engels base and others at Ukraine on the first day of the Istanbul peace talks - Putin thinks that this helps him get a good deal in negotiations - or seems to.
Well - the Ukrainians instead used their hidden card to destroy many of the strategic bombers on the ground and Russia had to call off the attack.
So - it’s a thing that Ukraine does and this fits in very well.
Full interview
Full transcript (lightly edited to fix grammatical mistakes in Zelensky’s replies)
Intro Snippets:
Q. He is not my best friend, but he’s not an enemy. [This is about Vance NOT Trump]
Zelensky: I love my country. We are not terrorists.
Q. Donald Trump not very long ago said, Mr. Zelensky, you don’t have the cards. What changed? What changed?
Q. President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky. Thank you for joining us on the new Axios Show today.
Let’s do it, Axios style: smart, fast, to the point.
Zelensky: Like you want,
Q. Okay.
Zelensky: You said smart, fast, and to the point. So: smart from your side, fast from mine. I will try.
Q. If there’s one thing I thought before this interview, it’s that I really wanted to see the look on your face yesterday when you read President Trump’s post on Truth Social.
Zelensky: The face was happy.
Q. Were you surprised?
Zelensky: Yes, I was very surprised. First of all, I didn’t read it, and then all my team told me. I think that the President understood me totally.
Q. You met yesterday with President Trump. Take us into the room. How did it go?
Zelensky: Between us, much better than I could have estimated. I’m really happy that the President was deeply prepared about the situation on the battlefield. He understands that Putin doesn’t win today, has a lot of losses, thousands of losses.
That was good, that the President understood that it’s important to trust us.
For me, that’s very important. Putin lied to him. And that was my feeling yesterday, that he understood—that he understands.
He understands that Putin is playing games with him.
To my mind, President Trump gave him more than he deserves, because Putin was happy. It was his dream to meet with Trump, especially during this time of isolation from the very beginning, a full-scale war. That’s why the meeting in Alaska
—and, of course, President Trump did it, I think, because he wanted to have this window not closed, a diplomatic window for future negotiations.
I think the President thought that Putin would accept it. But Putin didn’t give him this.
Q. Another thing that I thought—and I don’t know if you agree—maybe it’s just Trump being Trump when he writes that kind of post. Maybe there’s no real change in policy here. Maybe he’s just, you know, writing this, and tomorrow he’ll write something different.
Zelensky: God bless, no. I don’t know. It depends on his decision. He’s the President, and it’s his own decision.
I think that he wants to finish this war, and he’s said about it many times, that he wants to finish this war.
Now he sees that the Russian leader doesn’t want to finish. But he already said that he’s mad. He said, “I’m mad about Putin. I’m disappointed about Putin.” And then he went and hugged him in Alaska.
Q. So do you understand where he really is? On one hand, he says, “I’m mad at Putin,” but then he’s hugging him in Alaska with airplanes, with soldiers, with everything. It doesn’t add up.
Zelensky: We saw everything. Between us, I think that Putin really just wanted images with President Trump—just images, and that’s all. He didn’t want a trilateral meeting in Alaska because, for him, it’s unsuccessful just to meet with me, because he needs an outcome, even for his society. Yes. So now you believe that President Trump actually finally wants Ukraine to win?
Zelensky: Yes.
Q. Donald Trump not very long ago said, “Oh, you know, because of Mr. Zelensky, you don’t have the cards.” Yes. So what changed? What changed?
Zelensky: I think it’s the situation with Putin, his relationship with Putin. I think President Trump understood that Putin will not bring him success, even if we look at this moment like that.
The American society, which is very important for the President of the United States—the support of society. For any kind of leader, this is very important. I think the American society doesn’t respect and doesn’t trust Putin. Mostly, they don’t trust that he wants to finish this war.
Q. What was the number one lesson you had from this meeting back in February in the Oval Office? What was the lesson, other than wearing a jacket?
Zelensky: I can’t tell you [now], but I will. Yes. Not now.
Q. Okay,
Zelensky: not now. After a little bit later.
Q. After you finish, after you retire, or after Trump retires?
Zelensky: No, not after me. It doesn’t matter. I mean, a little bit later, but I will tell you.
Q. Because your meetings afterwards with Trump—your recent meetings with him—were much better. I was wondering if you realized that the way to make him happy is just to suck up to him.
Zelensky: No. I think the question is that I am honest. I love my country, and I am very clear in my message. That’s why the White House was a lesson not only for me; I think for the other side also.
We understood each other, and it is better than just being very polite because you are afraid of the President of the United States.
I’m not such a person. I was very open, and I think that strong people respect the position, you know, even if this position is not very polite—even if you don’t like it, but you respect it.
Yes, if you’re a strong man with a clear position.
Q. And let’s talk about another person on the other side. Vice President JD Vance—is he your biggest enemy in this administration?
Zelensky: No, he is not my best friend, but he’s not an enemy. But he can be a good friend of Ukraine.
Q. How? Has he come to Ukraine? Because I think you invited him several times. You invited him. So why is he not coming?
Zelensky: I don’t know; this is a question for him. Maybe he will be on this path and answer this question. But I think it’s chemistry.
You have to come to Ukraine—love Ukraine or not. It depends on your point of view and your feelings, etc. I think that if he comes to Ukraine, he will love Ukraine.
Q. With everything Trump wrote yesterday, which was, again, a very big shift—you know, Ukraine is at the moment definitely not losing the war. But it’s also at the moment not winning.
Zelensky: Yes, it’s true. Yes, yes, it’s true.
We don’t have enough weapons. We don’t have a lot of things. We are not comparable with the number of weapons, drones, artillery, and missiles.
The biggest problem is that we don’t have enough air defence(s).
Q. So you don’t feel that today the US is giving you a green light to use US weapons for long-range strikes inside Russia.
Zelensky: To be very honest.I think that if we have such long-distance weapons from the United States, we will use them.
Q. So you will.
Zelensky: We will use them.
Q. Against Moscow?
Zelensky: Look, it’s not about that. We are not terrorists.
Even our people today hate the Russians because they began the war and they kill us. But all our people understand that we don’t need to attack civilians.
But if you know what the rules of this war mean, we will attack their military. But if they make a blackout for us and we have long-distance, stronger weapons from the United States, we will attack their energy.
Q. And they attacked the Prime Minister’s office.
Zelensky: Yes, they attacked.
Q. So what would you tell someone who works at the Kremlin today? Would you tell him to make sure he knows where the nearest bomb shelter is?
Zelensky: First of all, they have to know where the bomb shelters are. They need it.
If they do not stop the war, they will need it in any case. And they have to know that we in Ukraine, each day, we will answer.
If they attack us, we will answer them.
Q. But when it comes to getting the territory back, every expert I spoke to, including people in Ukraine, think that it is close to impossible to get all the territory back militarily. You will have human losses if you use only such weapons. That’s why it’s a mistake to lose so many people. Because land without people—what does it mean?
Zelensky: No, it’s not about territories. It’s about Ukraine, independence, our sovereignty.
First of all, it’s about our humanity, about our people. That’s why we will not lose people for kilometers. We will not lose our population.
Q. One of the things discussed as part of the diplomatic talks are some sort of territorial concessions. Are there any territory concessions that you will agree to in order to get a deal that ends the war? Or do you say never?
Zelensky: No, no, no, we will never recognize these territories which are temporarily occupied as the territories of Russia.
We can’t do it.
Q. But the question wasn’t if you’re going to recognize. The question is if you’re going to agree to say, well, this—the border was here and now it’s here, so what can I do?
Zelensky: Between us, if you look at today’s situation, if tomorrow will be a ceasefire—everybody stands [stops fighting?]
If we don’t have the power to bring back these territories, we are ready to speak about it. We are ready to get them back sometime in the future, by diplomatic means, not with weapons.
I think this is a good compromise for everybody. We have to decide such things now, in dialogue, and with fewer losses.
Q. What is the one big thing, tangible thing, real thing—not a post on Truth Social—the one thing that you need President Trump to give you in order to win on the battlefield?
Zelensky: I think President Trump knows. I told him yesterday what we need—one thing. I already told him.
Q. Which was?
Zelensky: I will not tell you which it was, but I will tell you that he said, “We will work on it.”
Q. Was it a weapon system that you feel you need?
Zelensky: We need it. By the way, we need it.
But it doesn’t mean that we will use it, because if we have it, I think it’s additional pressure on Putin to sit and speak. There is only one thing that President Trump really can give us, using any kind of systems.
But he can stop Putin. He can pressure him to stop the war, to go to diplomacy.
Q. You mentioned Russian air violations into NATO countries—the drones in Poland, what happened in airports in Denmark, in Norway and Romania also. Do you think the response so far has been weak?
Zelensky: Very. We decided that we will be very honest.
Yes, I think the response has been weak. That’s why he continued with other countries.
Q. So you agree with President Trump that NATO members should just shoot down the drones, shoot down the Russian jets. They have to shoot down everything.
Zelensky: If someone is on your land killing your people, you have to answer this person.
If jets are in your space, you have to block them.
Q. So you think they’re afraid? You think that NATO members are just afraid to do it because they are afraid of the Russian response?
Zelensky: I think mostly, mostly, yes.
Of course, there are some—I know some of them are not afraid, but most countries are afraid. They are afraid because I think they are right that Russia is crazy.
Q. In your meeting yesterday with President Trump, did you discuss with him the issue of security guarantees—US security guarantees?
Zelensky: I said we need bilateral security guarantees—it is, of course, the best way for our coalition. This is a great idea.
But this is, you know, to strengthen and to give more support for Europeans, especially for those who are balancing—thinking to give troops or not, what’s on the ground, or just intelligence, etc. So a backstop of the United States will give them confidence. Yes.
But in any case, I said to the President, we need bilateral security guarantees—Ukraine, United States, bilateral security guarantees, legally binding. This is important.
Q. And you feel that the security guarantee from Donald Trump is something you can trust?
Zelensky: Yes, because he’s the President of the United States.
Security guarantees from the United States work in the world.
Q. Mr. President, I remember how on February 25th, 2022, we ran a story on Axios that said how you had a video call with leaders of the EU, and you told them at that call, “This might be the last time you see me alive.” Did you think at that time that three and a half years later you’d be sitting here in New York having this conversation?
Zelensky: Of course not. 100% not.
Yes, I addressed EU leaders, and you know that I had conversations with the American President. I addressed Europeans and a lot of leaders. I had conversations every five, ten minutes with different leaders from different continents. And, of course, EU support—Europe’s support in a wider sense, I mean, UK as well—was very important for Ukraine, because I understood that we needed very much to have close support from Europeans.
I addressed that without any papers, without any speeches, just shared all my emotions and thoughts. I understood it would be difficult for us. Of course, I didn’t know that I and my team would be alive three and a half years later.
I thought only about how to join my country now and how to give a signal that someone from Europe would help us. Yes, someone would help us from the world.
Q. There have been no elections in Ukraine for a long time because of the war. But don’t you think that maybe it would be a good idea—because you are facing historical decisions, whether it’s escalating the war or making decisions needed for peace—to go back to the people and get the mandate for those historical decisions?
Zelensky: Look, yesterday I said that to the President. Now everybody understands.
But, by the way, elections now according to the law are impossible. First of all, the security situation is impossible for elections. Yes, but I said to him, yes, I think that if we have a ceasefire, if we have a ceasefire, I think we can use this period of time, and I can give this signal to the Parliament, and probably I can think—maybe even it will be difficult, according to our Constitution, to go to the elections.
But parliamentarians can try to find a way to do elections. But we need a ceasefire.
Q. So do you commit that if tomorrow President Putin agrees to a ceasefire of three months, six months, whatever, you will push forward to go for elections in Ukraine?
Zelensky: Yes. Because during this period of time, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States have to find a way to really finish this war. I’m not against it if people want to see a leader who has a new mandate. Yes—if the security situation allows.
During this ceasefire, I think security can give the possibility to have elections. It can be so.
Q. And do you see yourself, after the war is over, staying as Ukraine’s president in peacetime? Or will you say, “I served my country at its most difficult moment in history, and now I’m stepping down”? If you finish the war with Russia?
Zelensky: Yes. I’m ready not to run because it’s not my goal—elections.
I wanted very much, in a very difficult period of time, to be with my country, help my country. That is what I wanted in all this.
So this is not my dream, just to have elections. My goal is to finish the war. Yes.
Q. There are thousands of Ukrainian children that are in Russia. If they or their families are watching you right now, what would you want to tell them?
Zelensky: Just that I want them to be happy. I want them, of course, to come back to Ukraine.
I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry that we didn’t have enough power not to give the possibility for Russians to steal them. But we will bring them back to their native country, to their relatives. It’s so important.
Of course, it depends on their will, of course, because we are fighting for freedom, but we can’t be near them now. It’s a pity, first of all, that their relatives can’t be there. This is a big tragedy. Because each year, it’s not even about thousands—it’s about each child.
Q. Mr. President, you are today the most important Jewish leader in the world. And the Jewish people are celebrating this week—Rosh Hashanah. What do you wish for yourself or for Ukraine for the new Jewish year?
Zelensky: Only peace. This is the... I have only one goal. I am, and I’m sure that all Ukrainians want this.
And I wish everybody in the world just peace. God bless that you never know the price of peace. It means that you will never feel what people feel during the war. So I wish just peace.
Q. And next week is, I think, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar—Yom Kippur. It’s a day of self-reflection, atonement. Is there anything or anybody you would wish to apologize to on this day?
Zelensky: My mother. My father. Because I am deeply in my job. Sometimes I don’t have time just to speak with them, just to come and to be thankful for what they gave me—everything that I have: my brain, education.
I think that family warmth is important. I apologize to my wife and my children again, because all my time is with my job, but I think that they understand that for each man in the world the priority is his family, his country, because it’s a part of your world, and your world is your country.
Yes. And for me, because of this profession, the priority is—the priority is Ukraine. It’s a pity that I have to recognize this: the priority is to finish this war, and only then, time for my family.
I’m apologizing, but this is what I am.
Q. Mr. President, I wanted to wish you l’shana tova. And thank you for being with us on the Axios Show.
Zelensky: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.