A Conversation With Former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko

Petro Poroshenko discusses Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia and the role of U.S. and NATO support.

FIX: So, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this Council on Foreign Relations meeting on Ukraine and the future of Ukraine, especially after the U.S. elections. And we could not be more delighted and honored to have former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with us today for this discussion. Thank you all for joining us.

My name is Liana Fix. I am the fellow for Europe here at the Council on Foreign Relations. I will be presiding today’s discussion, which will be on the record and will be available later on our website. And you will also have the opportunity to ask some questions later in the conversation.

You all know Petro Poroshenko. He was president of Ukraine from 2014 to 2019, a crucial period for Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity and ahead of Russia’s full-scale, renewed invasion in 2022. But his political ambitions are not only in the past. You’re also the chairman of the political party European Solidarity. And you have already said that after Ukraine’s victory, in future Ukrainian presidential elections you aim to be a candidate.

So we are very much looking forward to hearing from Petro Poroshenko—hearing from you—your assessment of the situation in Ukraine. And perhaps I will start just right away with the most important topic at the moment and the most hotly debated, which is the future of U.S. Ukraine policy. You know the incoming president, Donald Trump. You have worked with him. Your terms have overlapped. You have spoken in positive terms about your work with Donald Trump. You talked about action and result-oriented policy that you have experienced with Donald Trump. So can you tell us a little bit more about what do you expect from this incoming U.S. administration, especially with Special Envoy Keith Kellogg appointed as special envoy for Ukraine? And especially from Ukraine’s perspective, what are the red lines that you would want to set out for Ukraine at the beginning? What are the red lines that Ukraine could not accept in any negotiations? And what are things where Ukraine could be more flexible, especially when it comes to shaping the conversation here in D.C.? Over to you, President Poroshenko.

POROSHENKO: Liana, first of all, thank you very much indeed for the invitation. I’m really happy to see all of you. And thank you very much indeed for being together with us now.

I really very much appreciate for the enormous support we have from the United States all eleven years of the war. Just want to remind you that this is not just 1,000 day from the wide-scale aggression; we have a(n) exhausting, very difficult, very heavy eleven years’ war—war not only for Ukraine; war for freedom, war for democracy, and war with a disastrous monster we should stop in Ukraine. It would be more efficient. It would be, at the end of the day, cheaper than try to stop him in Poland, in Baltic states, or somewhere else.

Point number two, I just want to make short comments and be more accurate. I am really now the leader of the European Solidarity Party, the second-biggest party in Ukrainian parliament, have a very large and high level of support now in Ukrainian people. But I never told that I am planning to participate in this kind of the election. Answering on the question are me plan to participate in the future election, I said definitely yes, but in the election to European Parliament for Ukraine as a member of European Union. And all eleven years, I do my best for Ukraine to sign up association agreement. And I am proud that it is my signature which I signed one week after my inauguration with a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement; with a visa-free regime; and at the end of the day to change the constitution of Ukraine, make it obligatory for European and Euro-Atlantic integration for my nation.

And that’s why my dream is—I really dream to be a member of European Parliament, and maybe European Commission, from Ukraine, with your assistance. And that is important. It seems to me this is important and accurate position.

FIX: Thank you for that clarification.

POROSHENKO: Why I am now here in United States? Because I really consider that today is a very decisive day, next fifty days, not only after 20^th of January but before 20^th of January. This is vital for Ukraine. Sorry about that; this is vital for United States and this is vital for the world. And that’s why my meeting with the—in Congress, in State Department, in DOD, with the White House, with the team of president-elect, from my point of view is vital.

At the same time, I do my best to keep bipartisan support of Ukraine, same way like I do five years of my presidency. This is also—Ukraine should unite United States people, Ukraine should unite United States Congress, because we in Ukraine paying an enormous price. Every single day in front of my house I see Shahed which flying 200 meters from my house. Every single day from two a.m. to four a.m. I have a—I hear the blast of missiles. Every single day Ukraine losing innocent civilian people and children because of the disastrous Russian attack. And we should do maximum we can that these victim(s) should not be useless.

With that situation, my appeal: Please, we should stop wasting the people, we should stop wasting the territory, and we should stop wasting the time. And if you make a configuration for the effective action—United States, all NATO members, the European Union, and the whole democratic world—to stop the aggression, I am an optimist, and I am absolutely confident that it is possible for us to win the war.

And if anybody said that the election in the United States create—I don’t know—problem or difficulties, again, I am an optimist, and I think that election in the United States and Trump victory give us challenge and opportunities. And I have a right to say that because me as a president of Ukraine since year 2016 until year 2019 during three years’ work with President Trump. And I want to remind you that the first lethal weapons Ukraine received in year 2017, after three years of the disastrous war, that was the Javelin, and we receive it after my meeting in Oval Cabinet for two hours with President Trump. The first sanction were introduced, independently from Europe, against company who contracting Nord Stream 2—which was extremely dangerous for the whole energy situation in the world—was after my meeting with President Trump. And many other things make an evidence that the Trump team is opportunists, not risk. That is my position.

FIX: Thank you, Mr. Poroshenko. You are not the only one who is in town today, in Washington, D.C. Angela Merkel is presenting her book memoirs with Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., too, and there’s also a large part that is talking about Ukraine, talking about the negotiations with you about the Minsk Agreements. You said you’re an optimist. You also said you don’t believe Trump will cut funding for Ukraine. How would you want to make sure that any negotiation outcome in the future will be different from Minsk to—how would you, from your perspective, lobby and want to make sure with the incoming administration that this will not just prolong the war for another period of perhaps an entire generation? What should be the difference to the past negotiations?

POROSHENKO: Liana, I have a very bad mission: Violating your hospitality. First time I said that you are wrong about my future candidacy. Now I am—you are wrong about that I will insist that new negotiation would be different from Minsk. Believe me, I would be more than happy that this negotiation would be same positive and result-oriented as Minsk.

First of all, I really appreciate role of Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande in the Normandy Process. I just want to remind you what was the plan of Putin. Immediately after my overwhelming victory in the first tour, what was the plan of Putin? First, not recognize Ukraine, not recognize Ukrainian election. And if I am not winning in the first tour in all the region of Ukraine, who knows what would be the results.

What are the results of the first meeting in the Normandy Format? First, Putin, when tried to avoid, Angela said him—(inaudible). And we agreed that this scenario of Putin would be ruin.

Do you know what I said to Angela before we start Minsk negotiation? When she asked me if I can—my first principle was nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. Everything about Ukrainian future should be decided by Ukrainian people. Second, I said I have five red lines that definitely should be part of the Minsk Agreement. By the way, they are extremely actual today on all negotiation about Ukrainian future.

Point number one, Angela and Francois: No compromise on the Ukrainian sovereignty and national identity. Ukraine never return back to be the part of the Russia. Under no circumstances, with you or without you. No compromise on Ukrainian sovereignty.

Second: No compromise on Ukrainian territorial integrity. We never give one piece of Ukrainian territory to Russia. And you have a confirmation of that in Minsk Agreement: recognition of our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Point number three: No compromise on Ukrainian Armed Forces and their ability to defend Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. No limits and nothing. And this is the main difference Minsk Agreement and Istanbul capitulation.

Point number four: No compromise on sanction, because only effective, state-of-the-art, tailor-made sanction can cut Putin ability to finance the war, and this is the way to bring him to the table of negotiation. This is not only limits for oil/gas, but also reducing the oil prices, destroying or liquidate shadow fleet, closing their channels including the Suez channel for the shadow Russian vessel who is not insured by proper insurance company as a question of security, and many, many others.

And point number five: No compromise on Euro-Atlantic and European integration, because without that you never reach the sustainable security situation on the continent. Euro-Atlantic mean full membership in NATO. European mean full membership in EU. NATO—this, it seems to me, Landsbergis said once upon a time—NATO, this is about to live or to life; and European Union is about a better life. Without that, I just want to remind everybody Budapest Memorandum. I want to tell you that next day, after my inauguration, on the 8 of June, year 2014, under the Budapest Memorandum I called for the urgent consultation about security danger for existing of Ukraine to four countries’ guarantees. No answer. That means that no—we can give all the security guarantees we have, including 32 security assurance about military supply we signed last and this year, and finishing with the Budapest Memorandum just for one signature, for one article, and the number of his article is Article 5 to the Washington Treaty, and I am proud and happy to tell about that in Washington, D.C. That’s why Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande, they can say that they fully agree with that.

And we sign up Minsk Agreement with sovereignty, identity, territorial integrity, no limits for armed forces, with a process of returning back of occupied territory, and keeping in mind—because I hate the idea to agree future membership of Ukraine in NATO with Putin—just deliver Putin can no veto right, and this is the sole decision of Ukrainian people and NATO member states.

That’s why—again, terribly sorry.

FIX: No, please. I mean, that is interesting. (Laughter.)

POROSHENKO: But if you said that how we should do that new documents should be different from what we agreed with these five non-compromise, please be more realistic. Thank you.

FIX: Thank—no, thank you, Mr. Poroshenko. That’s—

POROSHENKO: And once again, Angela, if you see me. (Laughter.) Thank you.

FIX: No, that’s an interesting take—

POROSHENKO: I was told that, first of all, she is in Washington today.

FIX: She is speaking with Barack Obama in the evening at the end.

POROSHENKO: She is speaking with Barack Obama, Mr. President. And if you have an opportunity to visit, Obama and Merkel presentation of the book or—is it allowed to be an advertising agent? (Laughter.)

FIX: As long as I’m not advertising it.

POROSHENKO: If you have no objection, I highly recommend to buy this book and to read that because—this is not a memoir. This is not only about the past. This book is about the future. Please do that. Thank you.

FIX: It’s 736 pages—(laughter)—which I’ve spent reading the last two weekends. It’s actually worth having a look at it.

Thank you, Mr. Poroshenko. That was very interesting, especially your more positive views on the Minsk Agreements than many have these days.

Perhaps we talk about one issue before we open up for questions, and that is the question of timeline, especially with the current battlefield situation. How much time does Ukraine have, both sort of on the military side—slow retreat that we see right now—on the political side—

POROSHENKO: Time for what?

FIX: Time for influencing the Trump administration, time for achieving a political settlement if that is in the interest, and time for using what you called opportunity with Moscow. Is there a window in which opportunity should be used? If yes, how long is it, especially given that Ukraine will need support and a new supplemental from Congress at the beginning of next year. So what—if you look at the next year, what is your instinct in terms of timelines for talks, for political debate?

POROSHENKO: I prefer to share this question to two parts. When we should starting contact with President-elect Trump and his team, and if you ask me exact day, my answer would be yesterday. I hate the idea that we lose one single day because situation is critical.

Again, in the next fifty days, it is decisive for the future of the world—not for the future of Ukraine. Every single day when we waste the time, dozens of innocent Ukrainian civilian killing. Do you know how many attack drones of Iran—Shahed—produced in Iran or produced under Iranian license in Russia? Those attack Ukraine in September—1,700. Do you know how many Iranian attack drones—Shahed—attack Ukraine in October—2,070.

Can I tell you the truth? If in any NATO member states 2,070 Iranian big attack drone attack, no matter Poland, Romania, Baltic states, nobody protect them. This is the new quality of the war, and this war is different from the year 2014, and this war is different from the year 2022. Do you know how many missiles, including ballistic missiles, including Korean missiles, we have seen just in October? More than two hundred. Do you know how many air defense missiles we receive at the same time? One hundred and thirty.

How we can—(laughs)—with 130 missiles, air defense destroy this type of things. And that’s evidence that this is not war Russia against Ukraine. This is the war of Russia, this is the war of Iran, this is the war of Korea because 40 percent of these missile was Korean. And who knows where these missiles goes after Ukraine.

Do you know how—what is the price of the artillery shell which produced in Pennsylvania for Ukraine now? More than $6,000. Do you know the price Putin paid to North Korea for each artillery shell from North Korea for the Russian artillery? Four hundred and fifty (dollars). And what necessary to do?

Point number one, define what does it mean victory, and I really appreciate when Ukrainian president delivered a position of Ukrainian people to explain our partner what does it mean, victory. I am ready to explain my approach, which I already mentioned. Five, non-compromise.

We should switch economy on the military rail, and we should be competitive with the Axis of Evil—North Korea, Iran, and Russia. Sorry, our artillery shells should cost $500, and that’s why we need to produce it more. We need to produce more missile, but we should not win only by the quantity. We have a technologically advanced nation, and we should learn how to win this battle by technology.

Ukraine cannot overman Russia because we have a 1-million-people reserve mobilization and Russia has 27 million. But the whole NATO coalition is strong economically and stronger technologically. And we should be over-smart and over-technology.

We should—we have several stage of the war in Ukraine since 22^nd—since February 22. First, how we protect Kyiv—and I know what to do, and maybe all of you see me on the Fox or on CNN every day from Kyiv when I delivered the message with the weapons in the hand when we stopped the Russian. First, we stopped the Russian because of the Ukrainian bravery and unity; and American Javelin, NLAV, and Stinger. And I am proud that NLAV and Stinger that we receive from President Trump in the year 2017. And that’s why we destroy Russian column who don’t go to make a battle. They want to destroy Ukraine, deliver in their parade uniform, motivation flag, and prepared to have in two days parade. And bravery, Ukrainian people, Javelin, and Stinger stop and save Kyiv; very simple.

Do you know why we make a very successful operation in Kharkiv and Kherson since April? Again, one name. It’s not a Javelin or a Stinger because they don’t have any column anymore, but the name of our success of operation is HIMARS. And with a HIMARS attack, we destroyed completely ammunition storage and everything, and bravery of Ukraine deliver the great success when we make it free Poltava, Sumy, Kharkiv, and Kherson—significant part of the Kherson region, including the regional center of Kherson.

Then Russia is very quickly modernize this, and they make old version of HIMARS-lite. And now, again, we should win the battle against Russian attack drones, against Russian FPV drones, against Russian electronic warfare system. And if Russia attack Ukraine with 2,000 attacking Iranian drones, what should we do? We should have 3,000 attacking drones who will attack Russia.

And with this situation, the discussion about long-range missiles is simply—sorry about that—un-understandable in Ukraine. Why they attack object of the critical energy infrastructure, object of the hospital, the university, everything, and we have no rights to give a response on their legitimate military targets? We are in a boxing between who is a—we seek—but—(inaudible)—goes with the handcuff—

(As an aside.) (Speaks in Ukrainian.)

With tied hands, OK. And said, OK, this is a fair play.

No. No explanation. Ukrainian people don’t understand that. And those who said, OK, but it would be danger for the third world war, I have very positive experience to work with Trump but I have very negative experience to work with Putin for five years.

Do you know my recommendation and conclusion about Putin? First, you should find out the right language to speak with Putin and this is not English. From my practice he does not understand that.

Chancellor Merkel—we tried several times to speak with him on German. He do not understand. It looks like for me that he don’t understand.

FIX: Or he didn’t want to.

POROSHENKO: I speak with him on Russian. Same results. (Laughter.) The only language he understand is a language of our united strengths. When we can do that, when we can speak that, he signed Minsk Agreement, he stop offensive operation, and do many, many positive things.

So, please, let’s learn this language, and I definitely count that President Trump know this language very good. He don’t need any interpreter of that, at least (I count ?).

Point number two: Putin goes as far as we allow him to go.

And point number three: Don’t be afraid of Putin and don’t trust Putin. Don’t be afraid victory for Ukraine and don’t be afraid defeat of Russia.

Better, more efficient, and cheaper to stop Putin in Ukraine and for that we need internal unity in Ukraine. Key messages—Ukraine start to win in year 2022 because in the three hours after Russian missiles attack Ukraine I was with President Zelensky and that was the only time when I met him after the election.

He don’t want to dialog with me but we meet immediately when the war start and I tell him, Volodymyr, since you are not my opponent anymore and I am not leader of the opposition anymore and we have one enemy and the name of this enemy is Putin, and if you do not be united we lost Ukraine.

And he said, yes, Mr. President, let’s start with a tabula rasa. What do you need? I said, I need 10,000 Kalashnikov because in my office we have now after a couple of hours 2,000 volunteers and we need to train them, to recruit and enroll them in the battalion, and to protect Kyiv.

And point number two, we should be in Kyiv and stop attempt of some parliamentarian leave Kyiv because if authorities, government, parliament, to anybody leave Kyiv that would be very strong message to Putin that we are ready to capitulate and very strong message to the Ukrainian people we are not going to protect Kyiv and Ukraine.

We stayed. We understand. We shake hands. We bring the unity, and this has helped us to save Kyiv. Now we should meet. Internal unity, international unity, and believe me, the window of opportunity for the—President Trump after inauguration to speak with Putin also would be very narrow and we trying to do our best to prepare maximum possible way new administration for the very strong message to Putin, speaking on the language of strength and victory should be through the language of strength.

Thank you.

FIX: Thank you, Mr. Poroshenko. And you spoke repeatedly about the importance of national unity but politics do seem to be back in Kyiv these days and, perhaps, we can discuss this in more detail.

But let me open up for your questions from the audience. Let me start over here, please, with the first question.

Q: Thank you. I’m Jeff Pryce, Johns Hopkins SAIS, and thank you for being here.

So with all the battles at sea—I’m sorry, on land and in the air we forget about Ukraine’s victories at sea in the Black Sea. When Putin took Crimea—

POROSHENKO: Sorry, a little bit louder.

Q: I wanted to ask you about Ukraine’s victory in the Black Sea. When Putin took Crimea in 2014, his number-one point was to secure Sevastopol for the Black Sea Fleet. Now, Ukraine has sunk a third of Russia’s fleet and what’s left has had to flee Crimea to other parts of the Black Sea, to Russia.

So I wonder if you had some reflections on Ukraine’s victory—Ukraine’s success—at this—in the sea.

FIX: Over to you.

POROSHENKO: Situation on the Black Sea, just a very good demonstration when Putin and Russian army is absolutely not as strong as it looks like. The very first week Russia planned to make a military assault from the sea to Odesa and to Mykolaiv, and was completely confident that that would be successful.

We ruined this plan. Ruined by keeping the Russian offensive operation in Kherson, not allow them to go to Mykolaiv. And ruined by attacking of the special missile brigade, which is under my—we make a special support of two brigade, 406 artillery brigade of Ukrainian navy and missiles brigade of Ukrainian navy which is destroying the Russian vessels including flagman of the Black Sea with the symbolic name Moscow, which was destroyed by the missiles which was produced under my protection and participation during my term with the name Neptune, and it was impossible to hit Moscow. It was bad weather condition, critical distance. There was very effective, as they think, air defense. Russians simply do not believe that the flagman is destroyed and our—(claps hands)—navy do that.

Then it was destroy of the Russian garrison on Zmiinyi Island where we have the very famous meme about the direction where should go Russian military vessel. After the meeting I give you the exact citation. (Laughter.)

Then we have a very effective they call it non-crew vessel, so drones, with—from 700 to 1,000 kilo of explosive which destroy several vessels, which even try to appear on the—(inaudible)—including the vessels which were the carrier of the Kalibr cruise missile. Make it impossible to attack us from this part of—(inaudible)—of the Black Sea.

That was the first part of the success. Second part of the success was when Putin start to blackmail us with the grain corridor, completely blocking our Black Sea Fleet. For us is vital. It is 40, 45 million tons of Ukrainian agri export and with the danger of hunger for the whole world.

First Putin said that they should make an inspection. Throughout the role of United Nation they attack verbally Turkey and we said no. We stopped cooperation with Russia. We do not accept Russian blackmail and now grain corridor is successfully working.

Why? Because of these sea drones, and that’s why I told you the program of the drones, thousands of the drones—attacking drones—against Russia, the program of the long-range missile against Russian air defense, this is the way. Not to put Ukrainian flag over the Kremlin. Not at all. To have Putin at the table of negotiation to sign up some documents, whether you remember five non-compromise. That’s the case.

FIX: Thank you. Another question over here. Perhaps, let’s take two at once so we have a little bit more time here and then—

POROSHENKO: Please.

Q: Thank you very much. Toby Gati. I worked in the Clinton administration on Russia, Ukraine, and then in the State Department.

I’d like to say that I’d like to believe—I would like to believe what you are saying but I think maybe the way I’ll put it is you need a short course in how the U.S. and the Republican Party has evolved in the last maybe six months, and I say that not to counter what you’re saying because what you’re saying sounds great.

But talk to the vice president. Look at public opinion. Look at the new secretary of state, whose experience is not Europe and will not be focusing on that.

Look at the language of the enemy within is the main enemy, not the enemy without. Look at how our military is going to be so busy rounding up 5 million, 10 million illegals that they’re going to have time for nothing else. And then look at the fact that Trump has no gratitude for past support from anyone. I think all that’s important.

So and then finally I would say look at the language of strength. Look how we talk about our own allies and we denigrate them and their ability and who they are and whether we’ll defend them.

So I’d like you to keep those things in mind when you’re talking to the administration. You can’t support Ukraine and give up on NATO, and my specific question to you is when do you think elections will be held, given that the constitution does not require them while there’s war?

FIX: Thank you. And let’s take another question if possible.

POROSHENKO: I think—if it would be two question I think it would be good, but if it is eleven question it would be difficult for me. (Laughter.)

FIX: OK. Let’s give you the opportunity first to answer on the more—

POROSHENKO: OK. Please.

FIX: Let’s perhaps give—

POROSHENKO: With pleasure, but then the next one by one.

FIX: OK. I’ll recount the questions for you so that—

Q: Thank you very much. Jill Dougherty, Georgetown University.

Thank you, Mr. President. I have a pretty specific question. You laid out five points that you demand, many of them no compromise, on certain issues. There are those in the incoming administration who might even eventually agree with that.

But what they’re saying is in order to end the war now we should essentially freeze things in place and issues like NATO membership, et cetera, should be put off, maybe even for twenty years.

So how do you look—what’s your opinion on that approach? Freeze everything the way it is and then eventually talk about the future?

FIX: Yeah. Thank you.

Freezing the situation, the more pessimistic take on the incoming administration’s policy towards Ukraine and Europe, and elections in Ukraine. When do you expect those to happen? Over to you.

POROSHENKO: So I tell you something. Five years in one of the most difficult period of Ukrainian history I was the president of Ukraine. When I was elected as the president we don’t have an army at all.

The report of chief of the general staff was that we have 3,570 soldiers and that’s it, and I should protect my nation. And I have no money because in Ukrainian treasury was $120 million with necessary to pay a foreign debt with the 3 billion (dollars).

So we have one—minus 280 something million dollar. Empty pockets. And we don’t have a training center. By the way, we don’t have support of the United States—not because my negotiation with Obama; because it was a sanction against Ukraine introduced by European Union and United States against Yanukovych with a full prohibition to supply us anything.

That was the situation when I first entered to the office. I tell you something. What no one single day I have any doubt—I have no any doubts that we will win. Why? Because you never win the war if you are not an optimist. If you are not even—not an optimist, if you are not believing your own victory forget about that and this is completely necessary thing.

And you should create the plan of the victory realistic. When the plan of the victory depend on you and not on your partners and with that you should trust your people. You should trust your army. You should be very efficient to deliver the messages to the world.

If you compare the situation then and now, now we have an army, definitely one of the best armed forces in Europe or probably like Carlsberg beer advertising—probably the best in the world.

Second position. Stop presenting the—our cooperation in the defense sphere as assistance for Ukraine. This is a mistake. If American president, American congressman, or anybody else will think that this is assistance, which spending money of the American taxpayer that’s—OK, we can—after meeting I said what I think how can I call this process from all of my heart?

This is an investment, investment in your own security, and believe me there does not exist any more important spending of your money like investment in your security. And this is not giving money to Ukraine. This is investment in your defense industry, investment in your technology, training together and using the experience which completely changed the way of fighting the war. And if you explain like that to American people, no matter they are Democrat or Republican, they will support that.

If you are pretending to be, and I am praying for that, that America still keep the leadership in the global world you should do that. If you do not do that I just want to give you the dynamics.

Do you know how many nations support Russia in the year 2022 on General Assembly of United Nation? Five. It was Russia itself, Belorussia, North Korea, Iran, and, it seems to me, Eritrea or Nicaragua.

And do you know how many nations come to the BRICS summit last year? See in Wikipedia. And if we do not do anything or do nothing, tomorrow the new Russia-leaded to Chinese-leaded BRICS introduce sanction against U.S. because world will be completely different.

That’s why please make America great—(snaps fingers)—again. (Laughter.) That would be good idea. If you need an advisor what to do, I’m at your disposal. (Laughter.) And—

FIX: Let me follow up with a question on elections in Ukraine. I mean, you’ve clarified your political ambitions.

POROSHENKO: And if you wanted to know about the election, election is a(n) instrument of democracy and freedom. I am the leader of the opposition, and I have very good figures on the opinion poll. And from the political point of view, I am interested in the election as soon as possible. And that is a mistake, and that is the Putin narrative and Putin approach. Why? Because, you listening, I am telling you about the internal unity. Internal unity and the election, two antipode; completely impossible because election is fighting—political fighting.

We should have an election next sixty days after our victory. Victory means, for me? Key criteria is a NATO membership, or at least NATO invitation and launching Swedish and Finnish type of a security guarantee, not any others, with a future perspective with the light in the end of the tunnel.

But I hate the idea to win the war and to lose the peace, because for me Ukraine will winning because we are free and democratic nation. And that’s why parliamentary pluralism, protection freedom of press, freedom of civil society, fighting against corruption, and I’m proud that it was me who introduced the very effective anti-corruption infrastructure, by the way, together with President Trump and President Obama/Biden, and now we have a backslide of this reform.

No, because corruption is both factor which make it disastrous for Ukraine and inside the country make it disastrous for our partners abroad, and with that situation election should be immediate after our victory.

But even during the war, war is not the reason not to provide the reform exactly like I present. War is not the reason to make pressure on the opposition or limit the power of the parliament.

No, our strength is in the parliament and with that situation if you pick two priority, internal unity and election, me as a leader of the opposition, as a leader of the party who pretended to have a leading position in the election poll I’m choosing unity. That’s the case. Maybe quite unexpected for somebody.

FIX: OK. We’re running a little bit out of time. Let me take one more question. I want to come back to Jill’s question about the freezing of lines, which we haven’t fully answered yet. So we’ll take one more question over there.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I’m Kevin Sheehan, Multiplier Capital Investment Fund, former State Department and Army officer.

You’ve been a keen observer for Russia for a long time and I note when you refer to Russia you don’t refer to Russia as Russia but as Putin. And the question to you is are there any places within Russia where Putin can now be influenced?

Sanctioning oligarchs hasn’t worked. Democratic forces haven’t worked. The elites of Saint Petersburg and Moscow keeping their children out of the military haven’t worked. How can Putin be influenced within Russia, if at all?

FIX: We have a few more question—minutes for this question, and the freezing of the lines if you want to come back to that, Mr. Poroshenko.

POROSHENKO: OK. Thank you very much, indeed. This is very important question.

What is the purpose of all the sanction—personal, sectoral, all the instruments which civilized world has in their hands—and how we be effective when China playing pro-China role?

By the way, this is, again, question about optimism, if it is the war for Ukraine or if it is the war for including China. I have only one answer. What is the criteria of the efficiency of the sanction? Not number of pages we have on the table of the—for example, in previous time with Ambassador Fried, who is playing a great role in the sanction list.

Take one criteria, and this criteria is one KPI, volume of Russian export. If Russian export in year 2022 or 2021 was—do you know how much? Six hundred billion dollar, with enormous high price on the energy resources but with the record high Russian export.

What is the purpose? We need to have volume of Russian export below $200 billion and this is to cut Russian ability to finance the war. Otherwise, he will have a real big problem inside the country because he cannot support economy running.

How we can do that? I am at your disposal, and we should be efficient. Again, I hate that idea to—why we still not having a sanction against Russian nuclear energy? Why we present sanction against Russian liquid national gas only now? Why we close the Bank of Gazprom bank in Russia, only one bank, and not closing 300 additional? Why? Why? Why? Because we are—(laughs)—not decisive enough.

But Putin is decisive. Korea is decisive. Dozens of thousand Korean soldiers is already on the—on this war, and not because Russia have a lack of the soldiers, which is true. But do you know for what Kim Jong-un doing that? He will rotate them every three months. Why? For having hundred thousands of Korean people with a unique combat experience. And, believe me, I know what I’m talking about: Soldiers with combat experience is completely different from the soldiers without, and you cannot ignore that.

This is about U.S. This is not about Ukraine. Please believe me. And that’s why I still keeping my optimism in this situation when many of my colleague not because they don’t know what to do. Me? No.

FIX: Thank you very much, Mr. Poroshenko. We will have to conclude our meeting at this point but let me thank you all very much for joining us today. Let me thank you for coming to the Council on Foreign Relations. We look forward—

POROSHENKO: Next time let’s agree that it would be two hours meeting because I don’t see anybody who is tired.

FIX: We certainly had more questions in the room but we do hope to have you back at the Council on Foreign Relations. We do hope that not too far in the distant future we will also meet you in Brussels and Strasbourg—

POROSHENKO: Thank you. Thank you.

FIX: —as a member of the European parliament in the future. And in the meantime—

POROSHENKO: I just want it told that I very much happy to be here offline because when I remind you with the democracy of Ukraine, Ukrainian authorities last year do not allow me to go to Washington—(laughs)—and I have a unique opportunity to speak with you but only online. I can tell you offline is much better. (Laughter.)

Thank you. Thank you for this—(inaudible).

FIX: Thank you for the opportunity and all the best for you and for your country. (Applause.)

POROSHENKO: Thank you.

(END)

This is an uncorrected transcript.