Михайло Подоляк

Виходячи з публічної риторики, РФ вирішила, що в них знову ж таки зʼявилось «вікно можливостей». І що можна продовжувати жити всередині війни, масштабно вбивати цивільних в іншій країні та тотально закручувати гайки в себе. Тому що… США начебто надовго ув'язнуть на Близькому Сході, з усіма репутаційними наслідками; глобальні сировинні ринки буде довго лихоманити, що, у свою чергу, продовжуватиме «гнати» ціни й лякати уряди та обивателів; ще сформується якийсь суттєвий профіцитний потік грошей, щоб докупити «живе м'ясо» на війну та худо/бідно закрити деякі соціальні проблеми. Чи це так? Ні, звісно. Але вийти з примітивної логіки війни РФ (і особливо суб'єкт Путін) фізично не здатна. Тому знову повертаємось до класичного: тільки примус і ще раз примус…

Коли знову треба поговорити про карти, які є на руках… Субʼєкт Шойгу (секретар Радбезу РФ) на пʼятому році війни прямо заявляє, що в Росії більше немає безпечних регіонів. Україна може своїми далекобійними засобами досягнути будь/які російські території і випалити там всю мілітарку… Водночас інший субʼєкт (міністр Лавров) прямо говорить, що Росію не обходять переговори, переговорні ініціативи США і взагалі РФ хоче продовжувати війну, бо Сполучені штати для них не авторитет… Висновок простий: єдине, що розуміє РФ - це більше війни на своїй території…

Жодних сумнівів немає в тому, що Росія бере якнайактивнішу участь у війні на Близькому Сході. Як мінімум вона явно забезпечує Іран максимальною розвідувальною інформацією про цілі в регіоні - американські (союзні) бази та об'єкти нафтогазової промисловості в ряді країн… Головні завдання РФ надто банальні, щоб їх не помічати: руйнування глобальних ринків нафти та газу (глибокі цінові кризи та відповідні нафтові дефіцити), максимальне затягування війни з подальшими провокаціями та дестабілізаціями різних регіонів, жорстка блокада країн Перської затоки та різке скорочення уваги до Європи та України. А також (неявна, але дуже конкретна ціль) – репутаційне обнулення США та особисто пана Трампа. Занадто очевидно й надто демонстративно…

By provocatively disqualifying Ukrainian skeleton racer Vladyslav @Heraskevych before his first start, the International Olympic Committee has once again proven that reputations mean nothing and humanism is a complete fiction. For sports officials, potential Russian sponsorship cash weighs more than Russian mass murders. They’ve decided that silencing aggression and atrocities is more profitable than honesty, confirming that hypocrisy is, unfortunately, the cornerstone of the modern Olympic movement. Silent consent with the aggressor and a timid turning away from its victims will undoubtedly lead to the further erosion of global values. But this is the IOC's choice – absolute and absurd. In contrast, Vladyslav Heraskevych’s choice was flawless. His performance was a powerful manifesto: appearing before millions in a "Helmet of Memory" featuring athletes who fell victim to Russian aggression – his friends who will never realize their sporting ambitions. Heraskevych has turned the page on the old IOC tradition of "see no evil, hear no evil, welcome the murderers." He elevated the issue of "sporting neutrality" as deliberate, monetized hypocrisy to a new level, proving that strength of spirit and loyalty to true ideals are more important than the "here and now." Heraskevych has made the reality of Russian genocide and the mass killing of civilians in Ukraine the defining theme of the 2026 Olympic Games. Whether Ms. Coventry liked it or not is irrelevant. This is a priceless result that offers humanity a second chance and leaves the hypocrites in tracksuits on the sidelines of history.

Well… Unfortunately, everything is entirely predictable. Russia sees no reason whatsoever to stop the war, halt genocidal practices, or engage in diplomacy. Only large scale freezing tactics. Only deliberate missile and drone strikes against major urban agglomerations with the aim of causing mass suffering at the peak of extreme winter cold. This is what a Russian “ceasefire” looks like: during a brief thaw, stockpile enough missiles and then strike at night when temperatures drop to minus 24 Celsius or lower, targeting civilians. Strike civilians in Ukraine while simultaneously demonstratively damaging the reputation of American mediators. This is what the entire concept of the “Russian world” has always been about.

In any case, the “20 point peace plan” fixes the fundamental status quo of all parties and mediators. 1. The United States genuinely wants an end to the hostilities and is actively working in a moderating role. 2. Ukraine is extremely constructive in defining a truly workable formula for ending the war. 3. Europe is fully a subject in its own right and proactive in understanding the risks that Russia poses to the European continent. And only Russia once again demonstrates complete disregard for any agreements and continues to play an informal but obvious game aimed at undermining the global leadership of the United States.

President Zelenskyy confirms Ukraine's readiness for elections and calls on Parliament to prepare changes to the Constitution and laws. However, three basic questions must be solved first. No missiles or drones can fly during the vote. The only realistic path is a ceasefire. Hundreds of thousands are on the front lines or in frontline zones. How do they elect and get elected? A ceasefire is essential. Millions of displaced persons make the process complex and costly. This burden cannot fall on Ukraine alone. If these conditions of security, voting rights, and funding are fulfilled, we are ready.

Today we have a factual occupation of Ukrainian territory. Russia conducts an openly repressive policy there by destroying Ukrainian identity, deporting and killing people. All actions of the aggressor on these lands are war crimes or crimes against humanity. That is exactly why Moscow clings to the "final solution" of the territory issue. It wants to escape eternal legal responsibility for mass crimes. Factual occupation is one thing. Forcing nominal recognition of these lands to claim "no legal problems" exist is another. Russia essentially proposes writing a new doctrine into international law: any occupation can be legalized and consequences for the aggressor lifted. It is difficult to imagine many willing to sign up for such logic.

The diplomatic process takes place mostly behind the scenes. But even through the veil of rhetoric and disinformation, the positions are clear. • Ukraine seeks to end the war and is ready for talks. We rely on facts, maintain our agency, and will not accept imposed conditions that limit our security, territory, or right to a future. • Europe understands that "peace" on Russian terms is a direct threat to its security and the continent's future. • The United States wants a pragmatic process and a quick end to the war, expecting compromises from both sides. • Russia tries to combine two tracks: endless war and sham "peace initiatives" aimed at sanctions relief via a fake desire for peace. Any territorial prize at Ukraine's expense will signal to the Kremlin that violence works and can be repeated. The only acceptable peace conditions are those that decrease, not increase, the probability of a new war in Europe.

Subject Putin mockingly claims that he is ready to fight not only against Ukraine but against all of Europe. Four years of war with a non-NATO country brought him no victory. Yet he allows himself to threaten the EU as a weak and shaky structure. This is exactly how he sees the European Union. Mock drone and missile attacks, maneuvers in the Baltic Sea, political assassinations, surveillance of military logistics in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands. This is a test of Europe's patience. Putin is genuinely convinced that this limit can be pushed further and further. I disagree. Over the last two years, Europe has changed radically. It is strengthening its defense industry, reforming security architecture, and investing in support for Ukraine. Berlin, Paris, London, Warsaw, and other states of the North, East, Center, and South of Europe look politically sovereign today. Until Russia feels force, it will continue its expansion. Therefore, Europe's readiness to complete the deterrence system is key. A system where Ukraine and its Armed Forces become the base element of the eastern flank defense and the security guarantor for the entire continent.

An acute geopolitical crisis is forcing Europe to stop outsourcing security and build real strategic independence. Yet organizationally, the EU is too focused on following rules and reaching consensus. This creates an inability to respond quickly and forcefully to threats. Ukraine offers Europe a ready strategic asset to bridge this gap. Our military is the most combat-capable force on the continent with unique experience in high-intensity warfare. Our defense industry is a living innovation lab where every solution is battle-tested. Waking up from decades of dreaming about "eternal peace," Europe has a ready foundation for rearmament. But it can only begin this process together by realizing the common threat. Overcoming pro-Russian blocs within the Union, supporting Ukraine, and accepting our offer of help is a difficult task for European leaders, but they no longer have an alternative.

On the resignation of Mr. Yermak. This is standard democratic practice. Critics often claim Ukraine is becoming a "mini-Russia" due to wartime limits on rights. However, our democracy remains alive. This is proven by real accountability: the resignation of ministers, the government reboot, and now the Head of the President's Office. During a full-scale war, when people sacrifice so much for the army and recovery, any suspicion of corruption hits public trust harder than in peacetime. Even before legal verdicts, the government cannot ignore serious public concern. This is a classic democratic mechanism. When an official causes public doubt that hinders the President's strategy, they take political responsibility and resign. This is how tension between the people and the state is reduced.

It is important for us to distinguish between official documents and everything that happens around them. There is the position of the United States administration regarding the peace plan, which we are discussing on several platforms with the Americans and Europeans. This relates to an attempt to establish a realistic mechanism for ending the war: security guarantees, the role of allies, and the consequences for Russia in the event of renewed aggression. It is a complex and fragile discussion in which every word matters. Separately, there is the story of informal contacts, recorded conversations, and leaks. It is obvious that these episodes will primarily affect domestic politics and internal debates in different countries, including the United States. Ukraine, of course, has nothing to do with the organization of these publications. We act directly, within the framework of partnerships, with transparent logic and with red lines that are absolutely clear to our allies. The most sensitive issues, such as territories, troop numbers, and alliance related capabilities, require a conversation at the highest level between Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Donald Trump. The President of Ukraine is ready for such a meeting at any moment. It is clear that without a personal conversation between the two presidents it is impossible to respond correctly to the most sensitive questions. It is equally clear that Russia is not yet showing any willingness to end the war.

Russia is not offering a diplomatic settlement; it is offering Ukraine unconditional capitulation. There is no “conflict between two sides.” There is a classic occupation, when a foreign army comes to kill the citizens of another state and take their property — both communal and private — their land and their washing machines. In the Kremlin’s imagination, after four years of bloody war, Ukraine is supposed to disarm its military down to the level of a police force, abandon missiles and drones, hand over its information space to Russian propaganda and cultural trash. In other words, we are being asked to turn ourselves into a vassal. But Ukraine is built differently. We are about creating, building, trading, and earning together with our neighbors. Russia, by contrast, exists like a swarm of locusts: to come, destroy, and carry off everything of value. The border between us lies not only on the map but also in our value systems. That is why forced Russification will not work; on the contrary, for Russia to return to the community of normal states and nations, Russians will have to — paradoxical and strange as it may sound — Ukrainianize themselves. Or Europeanize themselves. Or disappear in their current form as a non-competitive relic of the past.

The NABU tapes were published on Monday. Today is Friday, and there are already corresponding personnel decisions as well as firm legal and political reactions. This indicates a certain maturity of the system. European states operate in the same way: we often see cases in which an official first resigns, and only then does the investigation continue for years. Several fundamental things matter for Ukraine today. First, we understand that we cannot withstand Russia alone. Ukraine must be part of an alliance. An alliance means rules. Second, Ukraine wants to belong to an alliance in which these rules include transparency in law enforcement and the judicial system, and the fight against high-level corruption. Third, Ukraine’s reputation as a country ready for swift anti-corruption action is critically important. Most importantly, the President personally, and the Ukrainian government as a whole, are demonstrating readiness for such rapid action regardless of informational or reputational risks. For me, this is a sign of a healthy society — one that is not afraid to respond firmly to corruption even during wartime.

Nagrania NABU zostały opublikowane w poniedziałek. Dziś jest piątek i już pojawiły się odpowiednie decyzje kadrowe oraz zdecydowane reakcje prawne i polityczne. To świadczy o względnej dojrzałości systemu. Tak samo działają państwa europejskie: widzimy wiele przykładów, gdy urzędnik najpierw podaje się do dymisji, a następnie śledztwo trwa latami. Dla Ukrainy dziś ważnych jest kilka podstawowych rzeczy. Po pierwsze Ukraina rozumie, że samodzielnie nie zdoła oprzeć się Rosji. Ukraina musi być w sojuszu. Sojusz to zasady. Po drugie Ukraina chce być w sojuszu, w którym te zasady dotyczą między innymi przejrzystości systemu ścigania i sądownictwa oraz walki z korupcją na najwyższym szczeblu. Po trzecie dla Ukrainy krytycznie ważna jest reputacja państwa gotowego do szybkich działań antykorupcyjnych. Najważniejsze jest to, że Prezydent i władze Ukrainy jako całość pokazują gotowość do takich szybkich działań niezależnie od wszelkich ryzyk informacyjnych i reputacyjnych. To dla mnie oznaka zdrowego społeczeństwa, które nie boi się zdecydowanie reagować na przejawy korupcji nawet w czasie wojny.

Many of us would like corrupt officials to receive life sentences immediately after being exposed. But there is the law, and it must be followed. The main thing is that the state is responding — not staying silent, not brushing things off. Those under suspicion are being suspended, and the President goes further by demanding their immediate dismissal. For individuals who do not hold official positions, sanctions are being considered. At the same time, the process of cleaning up Energoatom continues. The supervisory board will be renewed, and an audit is being carried out. Throughout all 30 years of independence, we have repeatedly faced major corruption scandals. The difference lies in how the state responds. It used to stay silent. It used to tolerate. It used to move people from one position to another. Today Ukraine demonstrates zero tolerance for corruption. Decisions at the presidential level are made as swiftly and firmly as possible. This is no longer the Ukraine of 10, 15, or 20 years ago. That is precisely why our international partners continue their support. They see real action.

The news about an investigation into a corruption scheme in the energy sector is, unfortunately, not surprising. It is a logical echo of the past, in which the Kremlin spent decades building a system to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence. Corruption was one of its main instruments, and remnants of that mechanism still exist. However, today’s situation is fundamentally different in nature. The real news is not the fact of wrongdoing itself. What matters is that the independent anti-corruption institutions established after 2014 are working. The very fact that such an investigation has begun, that extensive investigative work has been conducted, and that the highest levels emphasize the need for fair verdicts — all this convincingly demonstrates Ukraine’s transformation. Of course, Russian propaganda will try to use this as proof of Ukraine’s dysfunction. But the reality is the opposite: what we are witnessing is not the collapse of the state but a test of its new institutional foundations. Few countries could, in wartime, detect, investigate, and publicly discuss such cases. We are taking difficult, painful, yet absolutely necessary steps on the path toward integration with the European Union.

Ukraine is fighting a difficult war against a coalition of states. Russia is being helped to circumvent sanctions, supplied with recruits, missiles and shells, and components for electronics. The scenarios for the development of hostilities in winter may vary, and Ukraine is ready for them. Panic like "We need to evacuate a million people" is senseless. If there is a shortage of electricity, there are agreements on supply. We have additional stocks of parts and tools for repairing substations and transformers in warehouses. We are strengthening the passive protection of infrastructure facilities. It is necessary to significantly increase active defense with anti-missile systems – we received two additional Patriot batteries from Germany. Problems are being solved here and now. Ukraine has endured four years of war and has become stronger in many aspects of defense during this time.

Unfortunately, after 1991 the West gave Russia an advance in the form of control over Soviet resources and the nuclear arsenal. That was a fundamental mistake. At the moment of Moscow’s greatest weakness, the Euro-Atlantic elites for some reason were afraid to carry out the necessary and indeed obligatory deimperialization of a potential monster. Over time, a lenient attitude toward Russia’s attempts to restore the Soviet model became an informal political tradition. That encouraged Russia to attack those neighbors who did not want to return to the Soviet way. Today the myth of a “Great Russia” rests only on inertia and on the distortion of the map in the Mercator projection. The Russian Federation is certainly a patchwork construct of hundreds of peoples held together by extremely aggressive state violence. As a historical project Russia is dead: its reputation has been erased, its prospects have burned out, and degradation lies ahead. We are paying too high a price for dismantling the Russian empire, but there is no alternative. The West must draw the right conclusions: the mistake of the 1990s must be corrected not by returning to dialogue with Moscow but by liberating the subjugated peoples and territories and by eliminating the instruments of aggression.