we are thrilled to welcome

acclaimed senior correspondent for time magazine, simon schuster. simon has reported from russia and ukraine 17 years his coverage of the war began in 2014 when he was the first foreign journalists to arrive in as russian troops took over peninsula in 2019, he met and interviewed volodymyr zelenskyy for profile of his presidential campaign, then continued covering his administration in the years that followed, first traveling to the war zone with the president in april 2021, as the russians gathered their

armies at the border when, the full scale invasion began the following year. simon spent months embedded with the president's team, securing unparalleled access to their compound in kiev, where he wrote the showman. his first book, we're excited to share that. the showman is now on the new york times bestseller list. in conversation with simon schuster is the beloved journalist for the post and hometown hero david von drehle. please give and david a warm welcome. good evening, everyone. thank you for coming out. the david von drehle now of the washington post.

but for ten years of my life, i editor at large at time magazine when it was my privilege to work with an incredible and intrepid young foreign correspondent named simon. we worked together at time for eight years. tonight is the first time i've ever met five because because while i was sitting in a comfortable. sipping tea and preparing write up the simon was out on a battlefield in war zones. the sleeping on the ground chasing down difficult interviews and, risking his life for. our readers he under incredibly difficult circumstances send me notes which that i could from the comfort of my easy chair, go

through and choose just choices. details that i was going to put into the finished story. i thought it was an excellent partnership. you got all the glory. i got the glory and simon got the experience. i like to write. so it's a tremendous treat to be here with one of the great foreign of his younger generation. i have so much admiration for him. think in the introduction you heard that simon was the first western journalist into crimea ten years ago when this horrible conflict of we'll say started. although i think unpack the fact that it's been hard to beat ukraine a long time. but i wonder if you'd start just

by telling us a little bit about yourself and how you came to this, of being the greatest journalist in russia in ukraine. oh, stop stop. no, it's an enormous treat to meet you finally. and to be here. thank you all for coming out. thank you for that introduction. i'm a little bit dizzy from it. so about myself. yeah, i, i had the gift language that that is what my, my whole career is kind of built on. i was born in the soviet, born in a suburb of moscow, and we immigrated to the united states when i was years old. and i grew up speaking russian. as soon as i finished university, i, i moved back to moscow to work at a little paper called the moscow and my, my first job interview was about 10 seconds long. the editor me do you speak russian? i said yes. and he said, okay, move to moscow, teach you the rest. and that's basically how it

went. and so i arrived 2006 and have been covering putin's russia and and the former soviet union ever since. before we get to the subject of your book and this fascinating individual, vladimir zelensky, talk to us a little bit about putin and because he seems to be the driving force in this global catastrophe unfolding in. what do you know about him and how has he changed in the 17 years that you've been covering? yeah, it's been quite, quite a transformation. i arrived, as i said, in 2006 and already then, you know, russia had had taken a turn toward authoritarian under his leadership. but i think he was still very

much trying to win a seat as an equal at. the table of international decision makers that's kind of been an obsession with him for four throughout his career. maybe that stopped arguably it stopped with the invasion ukraine when he just said, that's it, i'm kind of fully going rogue and beginning this kind of never ending forever war with the west. but when i arrived 26 and for some years after that, he was he was, you know, trying to win the respect of the west and of the united states in, you know, time, he he felt slighted, felt disrespected. he felt like he wasn't getting the seat at the table, that he deserves. as someone who has the largest arsenal in the world and so on, and all the oil and all the the gas he supplies to europe and and i think those grievances know slowly piled up and 2008 two years into my stint in moscow he the famous munich

speech at the munich security conference in 2008 where he essentially declared the start of a new cold war and declared that was going to challenge you know what he described as the american hegemony over international affairs the the state of the world that emerged from the us victory essentially in the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union, that he was going to start pushing back on that. and slowly we've seen the evolution of him doing that and more aggressively that year invaded georgia and its tanks right up to the capital tbilisi. so, you know, he he showed clear intentions to use force then and you know i think the evolution has his has shown us that he's just become more and more aggrieved more and more willing to use egregious levels and horrific levels of violence to to as he describes mission to to challenge the west to break the west's dominance over world affairs try that into the then i

mean i appreciate you mentioning georgia because ukraine. one in a series as is it the last in the series if were to achieve his aims in ukraine would he be or do you see this more of a line that if it's not successfully enforced he's going to move on to his next targets because there's a lot of soviet former soviet republics that he doesn't dominate right now. that's right and a of them are members of the nato alliance. so the united states is treaty bound to defend them. i think, you know in questions like this we don't to guess very much i think we should just take take the russians and take putin at his word listen to what he says. you know, i already mentioned the munich the munich. he declared his intentions to fight the americans, you know,

in hybrid warfare and actual whatever it takes that he's sick. the american dominance he declared that intention many ago yeah more than 15 years ago and now you listen to what putin says and what the russian say more generally. i it's horrifying. they very clearly declare their intentions to go after the baltic states to attack poland, to bomb berlin. i mean, if spend an hour or so watching kremlin propaganda channels, channels, there are some great services provide translations into english of those you know i wouldn't recommend for your sake watching too much of it they say. i mean, it's horrifying what they say. they're preparing the russian public for this this, you know, not a cold war, but a hot war with with the west for basically of europe. and they declare their stated intentions very clearly to to attack further once. once ukraine is is taken, they

say we'll we'll continue on. you know, one of the people who who says this with with extreme force and real, you know, venom is putin's protege, dmitry medvedev, who for a time was sort of seen as the hope for democratic awakening in russia. if you remember those few years when he was kind of pretending to be president, now become just this absolute warm anger and the things he says, you know, threatening to use nuclear weapons, almost like it's a joke. i mean, it's really startling and, horrifying. but i think we do have to listen the russians and pay attention to what they say and take them at their word. so against you, enormous threat, terrifying threat stands. this former television comedian. zelinsky of remind us how came to power remind us who he was

before. he was president of ukraine in the middle of a of a substantial war. and and talk about paint the picture for this individual who maybe wasn't planning be global figure in the middle of a war wasn't planning on being churchillian figure when he decided to for president. yeah no not at all. that was not his stated intention. i guess the best way i can i can paint that picture is to just describe the day that i first met him. it was backstage of his comedy show in and in march of 2019, he was was a few months into his presidential campaign. and comedy shows kind of doubled as campaign rallies. he would it was difficult to tell difference his comedy was his campaign. i mean we have someone that here and a little bit yeah yeah and

it was know yeah and and donald trump was in the white house at the time so anyway, we can go back to the comparisons between the two men there are some to be made so i went backstage, you know, the way i pitched the story to my editors at the time was, you know, hey, there are these elections coming up in ukraine. they're sort of up in the air. this comedian who's gaining in the polls, maybe should take a look and. they said, okay, yeah, weird story. let's do a few pages on the comedian running for president sounds sounds like a fun one so they sent down there at the time it was quite easy to get access to his team. they weren't getting a lot of attention from the international media some, but it was more kind of, you know, page three stories about kind of quirky, quirky news from on the other side of the pond. so i met him that backstage before the show hung out with his comedy troupe. very fun group of people. i mean, they were, you know, they were drinking in there to eat, to eat and take out, you

know, joking around. one of them was like kind of musing about what job he might get in in the president's office if his friend won the elections and like, i think i'd make a great defense minister, you know, i don't know. maybe he was kidding. maybe he wasn't. i wasn't sure. anyway, so after show, i went to talk to zelensky backstage, went back to his dressing room to talk. that was our first interview, and i was him, you know, about his motivations, his plans. and he was exceedingly vague his answer to pretty much everything was more or less. we'll figure it out. and if we can't figure it out, we'll hire some professionals. we'll get some experts to explain to me, how the economy works and all this stuff thought. scott simon don't worry, we got we got this. we'll figure it out now, that was kind of those it i mean, it was a very vague when it came to the very difficult grave challenges and issues that ukraine was facing. it was very optimist kind of

happy go lucky and promising that this this group of outsiders would come in and drain the swamp and breathe new life and bring blood into the political elites. and so on though, that was sort of his his approach. there's a wonderful picture in the book he's performing on stage as all the and he's in a pair skintight leather pants and you have a very droll caption on there that he was frequently seen and skin tight leather pants at the time and that to me just paints picture is this kid who is the class clown? he had created a show where he was portraying a person who accidentally became president. right. that was the premise of the

sitcom. and then everybody looked at each other and said, well, maybe you should become president. what was state of ukrainian government that the public would at that point where they would. yeah, maybe guy from tv should be president. well, there was a very interesting gallup survey came out during the elections that that really answered this question quite well it was an international survey asking in their own countries how much trust they have in their government. ukraine was dead last of all the countries, 9% said they trust their government. there was so much frustration over corruption mismanagement that disappointed of two revolutions that had taken place in the previous 15 years in ukraine. to that point, each revolution promising a total renewal of power and ending up with the same oligarchic clans, basically trading places for control of the country.

so people were extremely with this. and the very clever strategy that zelensky's came up with to to, uh, to work in that environment, to, to campaign in environment was just don't take positions, just, just don't get into the political arena campaign in from the margins. campaigning comedy campaign through entertainment but don't get into debates about these really divisive issues. you know his campaign strategist told me if you take a if you start taking position on the issues at least in ukraine i think also in the united states, you alienate side or the other. so they just said we're just not even going to leave him a blank slate, sort of as. they write in the book a canvas onto which voters could project their of the perfect president. that was his that was the idea and also this tv that you mentioned invited viewers in ukraine to to confer use the real zelensky with the president

that he played on television which was you know an imaginary world in which this high history teacher stumbles into the presidency by accident and hey, turns out to be much more effective and good hearted and not corrupt than than the than political elites. so as one diplomat told me, a german diplomat during that campaign, who kind of based in kiev at the time he said people clearly want to vote for. the president from the tv show, but we don't know if zelensky will that kind of president crucially he can't write the script of reality. right. like he could for the show. right now. one of the one of those deeply divisive, as i understand it, that they tried to avoid because alienate one side or the other was question of to what extent are culturally russian? to what extent are we ukrainian? right. that is a regional, as i

understand it, reality of of the area in the east there's a would you say a majority of strong plurality, a vocal minority of people who identify with moscow than what kiev? i mean, i would add somewhat differently in in the previous, you know, two or three presidential elections before, the ones that put the linsky into the electorate was pretty well divided. yeah. between east and west, where as a rule know the election, the electoral map that you saw on election night was kind of split down middle along the dnipro river that from north to south, across the country, the to the to the eastern south of that river were generally russian speaking as opposed to ukrainian speakers. more to the west, you according to polling the western regions of the country were more passionate about plan to join the ambition join nato and the

european union was the regions that were closer to russia i think largely well for reasons but also economic reasons. there their economies in those cities, factories that sustain many of the cities in the east were very deeply intertwined with. the russian economy, they did trade across border all the time. they relied on good relations with russia for for their livelihoods. so there was that divide. zelensky grew up on on eastern side of that divide. he comes from a russian speaking family, his his all of his tv shows, his entertainment, his comedy was always in the russian language. indeed, he only really learned to speak ukraine, ukrainian fluently when he ran for president in 2019. yeah, but before that, his ukrainian was rusty and he made a lot of kind of funny gaffes and mistakes in trying to speak ukrainian. so he i think his his popularity was even in those eastern regions because, you know, he he kind of portrayed himself in

many ways as someone has a cultural historical linguistic connection more to the eastern in that national divide. but by the time he was running putin started this started war he'd annexed crimea and then the green men were as you so well early on. and one of the great files that i got to read, russian soldiers with no insignia, were all over eastern ukraine. and there they were fighting. they were shooting each other. they were killing each other all all this was going on. what? why then why did why did putin take the offensive in 2014 and 2015? well he saw that, you know ukraine by that point. it was it was clear was was moving very swiftly toward

western integration 2014. there was a revolution that brought to power a strongly pro-western set of leaders and he just was fed up with trying to bribe, cajole or blackmail ukraine into staying in russia's sphere of influence. and he decided to use force. so he he snatched crimea and then began trying to chop off other pieces of the country in the east. you know what? the hero of the book, zelensky that was kind of the the breaking. so if before he was either a kind of neutral on the question of east versus west russia versus europe after the of crimea, you really began to take a very strong political stand and to speak out against, you know, russian aggression influence. he began cutting off his business ties with.

russia, which were substantial, they made up about 80% of his income for his television and movie production company, the russian market. so he began to cut off those relationships. he stopped performing in russia. you know, he experienced the annexation of crimea the way that so many millions ukrainians did as a stab in the back as your brothers coming to your home and stealing from you a piece of your land. you know, it was deeply insulting. it was it was horrifying. you know, he had performed throughout his life in crimea. family had a summer home there where they would holiday to him. it felt like as much a part of ukraine as kiev, the capital. so he was deeply wounded by that. that changed forever. his his, you know, maybe his his belief in the idea, indeed, russia and ukraine on, some level are brotherly nations. i think he gave up on that after the invasion began say the first invasion with crimea and he was, as you say, such a such an

embodiment of that idea of of a shared culture, of and for him go from that to the strong ukrainian nationalist, cultural nationalist that had to with putin. he didn't see in other words he didn't see zelinsky necessarily as a negotiating partner or someone who was going to he'd arrive at a an understanding with or what do you think he made of that 2019 election. yeah i putin was willing to see how how he could go in manipulating this young inexperienced guy. he didn't zelensky seriously but he's he sensed that he might be able to squeeze out some, some concessions from him and really

know, get the upper hand in any negotiations in relation to, you know, various issues that were under discussion especially so putin more autonomy for these eastern regions he wanted them to be free to have their own police forces to develop their own economic policy, to be able to make their own decisions in terms of building stronger and stronger ties with russia and breaking their bonds with the the capital kiev, so that, you know, over time, those regions would kind of drift closer to russia. that was putin's goal. and he thought that he could muscle out this inexperienced young comedian into agreeing some of those things. zelensky for his part, had a very high confidence in his to break the ice and get through to putin and kind find some pragmatism or humanity him that he could he could turn in his favor in ukraine's favor, you know, up to that point in his

life zelensky had rarely found the limits of his skills as a communicator. he's extremely charming. he's extremely good at winning people over, you know, this this back to his history as an entertainer. you know, he could make you laugh. he could make you smile. and in those first negotiations with putin, he tried to do that and he he failed. giving a out of putin. there's an interesting idea idea. i want to get to and i promise we're going to get to the events of two years ago but one more in our sort history lesson that you're giving us 2014 2015, 2016, 2019. was there any time there that the west could have proved the catastrophe that's unfolded if we had taken a stronger line

with russia in 2014? and if had i'm just throwing ideas out there or does this feel more like a historical inevitable to you. yeah, i mean, thank you for the questions. it's certainly something i think about, you know, well, while studying this history, those forks in the road as, i like to think of them. the book lays out a number of points that i think, you know, a reasonable would look at that and say hey you know biden or trump zelensky or or some european leaders could have taken a different approach to that particular at that turning point in this story and maybe something else would happen. i generally try avoid, you know, giving my opinion on those things. so i write about the reality we have not alternative realities that may have happened. but i think, you know, it is reasonable. i think, you know, the book has already stirred some debate in ukraine and among people who

kind of studied this conflict about the possibility of those kind of forks in the road. you know, there was certainly steps that zelensky took in the year, year and a half before the invasion started that really angered putin. one thing that he did, which really putin was he closed the three television channels that were pumping russian propaganda into. and for putin, that was critical. that was his leverage. that was his way of trying to win the ukrainians over through through politics, essentially to maintain a strong voting bloc of pro-russian people inside ukraine once cut off those channels, you know, putin reached for other means of maintaining influence. and one of the pro-russian politicians who whose party controlled those told me, he said, you know, simon, putin either gets the influence he

wants over ukraine, through politics or he gets it through force. there. no third option. he said. so your book begins with an absolutely extraordinary description of the opening hours of the offensive in february. 2020 to we are there with zelensky as he learns of the fact the country is being invaded. there are russian paratroopers coming to kidnap him or kill him. right. and he's you you've gotten showering and getting ready to? go to work. talk a little bit about access that you clearly had to zelensky early on and you kind of take us

inside how close you've been to him and does that continue to continue you get back and spend with him any of that backstage stuff you can give us of great reporter at work. thank you. yeah. i mean i would say that that so did six interviews with president zelensky. you know, starting from the beginning of his political career and his his memory works strange ways he's very much he focuses on the present day he's he's not he doesn't have a good recall of details so trying to squeeze out descriptions of like okay take me back to describe morning is is usually a pointless exercise his memory doesn't work that way so what i had to do was talk to everyone everyone around him. and for that particular morning, the most useful source was wife the first lady with whom i with whom i spent a lot of times was very generous in helping in some

ways correct her husband's memory of events and to to point out that's not how it happened. this is the real story. so and and her memory is very sharp and very good. and she she was able to describe for me, you know what? that day like so it's we see it in the very earliest moments her eyes where she wakes and says you know what's going on and think what that really one thing that tells you that's just incredible is just how unprepared zelensky was that they didn't have a suitcase, they didn't have their documents together. they found out that the invasion that the russians were attacking kiev. the bombs were already exploding. you know, even with all his access to the intelligence that he has, the american intelligence the european intelligence, he did not believe the russians would go for kiev in the opening hours, the baselines was some kind of escalation from the east.

there had already been this war for about five years. at that point, they expecting kiev to be the main target from day one. so what we see that morning, this is a state of, you know, shock. but quickly, he you know, he starts thinking on his feet and figuring out how to be a wartime leader. that incredible line that americans fell in love with. i don't want to ride. i want ammunition edition. that's right. i need ammunition of pride that he was not going to run for his life life. so not rehearsed, not prepared in advance. it came to him. it was a great adlib. what's your what's your sense of that? if he wasn't ready, he wasn't ready. but made the decision in the moment that i'm going to stay here and i'm going to try rally this little country against as you put the largest nuclear

power in the world, which back then, we thought had a really strong, you know, mechanized cavalry force. we learned otherwise, but take us through that that first day, those first couple of days when he just seemed to invent this character, this new character. yeah. i mean, one thing that comes to mind in answer to that question is he described a kind of pep talk that he gave himself that i describe in the book that first morning as he was trying to come to grips with with the scale, the challenges that that he was facing of of a nuclear superpower coming to kill him, kill his family, take over his entire country. and what he what he recalls saying himself is they're meaning all of ukraine, the entire world, everyone everyone, all of us. you are a symbol, he said.

you need to act the way a head of state must act. so i think that's very telling. for one thing, you know, no one's really for that situation. give me one person who that who who has the the resume of to be to be like okay yeah we're attack from a nuclear superpower. i know what to do now you know there's just doesn't exist the everybody would to improvise you know so he did and i think his as i argue in the book and so far as there is kind of an argument his skills as an entertainer, his experience, his adaptability, his ability to take on new personas in his life not only as an actor, but also as someone who had transitioned from one career comedy into politics taking on a completely new role. he had shown a kind of mental flexibility in an ability to to imagine himself in new roles and to then embody those roles. i think that came came in handy. he didn't any kind of dead air on the radio on that first day. he immediately kind of stepped

into what he thought was the role of head of state and know what do people do in that in any situation totally unfamiliar. you look back to maybe movies, you've seen books you've read similar situations. i mean, his of staff said this to me the first day we had only ever seen such things in the movies, read about them in books. so you look for those kinds of precedent that maybe seem similar and you try act like what you read. churchill acted in world war two or, you know, maybe you're favorite action hero. what else can you do right right. the ukrainian people were similarly inspiring, i think, to. those of us in the west, the grandma was filling up molotov cocktails and. the and the, you know, townspeople confronting tanks, just, you know, announcing you're not going any farther.

and it seemed to me, surely some of that comes from the the tragic history of ukraine that not to be a smart alec but this is not their first rodeo that country has been fighting and caught up in for centuries. a beautiful place, but a little bit unlucky in terms of. real estate and neighbors of do you feel like when you go there, do you feel like you're in a nation of warriors or did you before invasion? do you now? yeah, i certainly do now. but i also have the impression that you that these historical world war two, you know these ten years of war now it's, you know, other other tragedies that they have lived through, had

kind of developed this this strength and inner strength, right. that they could call upon when they invasion started. i shared that that perspective with you i asked zelensky about that and got me a really nasty from him he was like no what do you mean it made us tougher that it broke us down. i mean each those historical blows has left scars that we are still healing from. so his response to that to my suggestion that maybe the historical tragedies had made ukrainians stronger was no, we need to break the cycle of oppression and colonial domination from russians that his generation after generation forced us to take these blows to the head from different leaders, whether it be stalin or putin or hitler. we need to stop this, we need we need to defend ourselves and end the cycle of these attacks and

tragedies coming generation after generation, because it's it's costing us so much in terms of our ability to develop. that was his response. i his point as you have watched these two years unfold you've seen zelensky change i would think grow change mature talk to a little bit about how he's different now from the person you describe on the. first day of the invasion, both in positive ways and perhaps in negative ways as well. yeah i think, you know, over the course of the invasion, there were a couple of moments that really that really changed him. one was the discovery of atrocities that russian forces had committed in butcher and other liberated towns that had been under russian occupation.

and when the russians withdrew from areas, you know, there were you mass graves uncovered torture chambers really horrible and very evidence of large scale war crimes you know zelensky in confronting was deeply, deeply hurt and changed i think carries that trauma very to his heart. you know, almost you could almost his physical features changing kind of wrinkles appearing in his face that hadn't been there before he you know saw the pain of those families and saw the victims and what the russians had done that that really. sapped a lot of the funny and the old comedian out of he he did not make nearly as many jokes after that experience and still he's become a much more serious tough stern figure after that. also i'd say the victory is that ukraine and the ukrainian armed forces have achieved on the battlefield also changed him as

one of his aides described it. you know, after one of those remarkable victories where they suddenly were pushing the russians back and the russians were fleeing the advance of this this country that had been written off, you know just, just weeks before zelensky started acting as his advisor put it, like napoleon, before a battle. you know, this he was enormous inner strength. again emerged in him he described it wants to meet zelensky, described it to me as he compared it to an arm wrestling match where, you know, wrist is just about to hit the table. and then he said and then you hear the applause, meaning he hears the the morale of his people rising up, you know, them them beginning to believe that victory is possible. and he said, you hear the and then you begin to push back. right. that's how that's how he kind of described those moments when he said, hey, you know, maybe we can actually win this thing on the battlefield.

we don't need to grant give away our land exchange for peace. maybe we don't need to accept accept peace on russia's terms that that changed him into a kind of wartime leader which is a very different zelensky. you know, he's he's he's he became much more involved in strategic military decisions of when to attack how to attack things that in the beginning of the invasion, he just wouldn't even he had no about those things. so he left it to the generals. but over time he became much more involved in those kinds of things. and, you know, that was that's also a different kind of mentality. it's an ability to, you use military power use use force, send men to kill and die and that that changes you you touched on this idea of which you you really well in the book that those first. 23456 weeks every the window is

the idea of a negotiated settlement was uppermost in his mind. yeah and then he did make this pivot to. not an inch of including crimea. and now two years in was he right to make that turn. it's another one of these questions of you know an alternate reality. i, i do try to leave that to the analysts and historians and military strategists to imagine. okay, maybe you i'll say this. there was certainly a point after ukraine had achieved a series victories on the battlefield. you know, ending with the liberation of the city of carson, which was the only regional capital, only really big city that russia had managed to seize in the beginning of the invasion. ukraine took it back in november

2022. and at that point, there was there was an interesting statement from general mark milley that the american head of head of the joint chiefs of staff the head of the american military, who'd been an enormous and very strong supporter of zelensky, one of the main individuals pushing president biden to give them more weapons. he gave a speech the day the russians withdrew from here. his on, and he basically publicly said to the ukrainians negotiate. now negotiate from a position of when you have the opportunity, seize it, seize the moment. and the response he got from the ukrainians, both zelensky and the top military commander in ukraine, general vali resolution. so general miller's counterpart was very forceful saying no, no chance, we are going to push, we have the momentum. what are you talking about? negotiate. we're winning. you know, now looking the trajectory of the war since then has been, you know, much, much.

there have been much fewer victories. it's been quite a slog since. so looking looking back, i think that was that was that was a something that general milley certainly pointed to as a potential turning point where there was this moment where the ukrainians maybe could have or should have taken a different course. so that's what i'd say. but, you know, as you can tell, i'm trying not to give my opinion here. i'm telling you what the experts say. the people that the people involved, they're the ones who have, you know, relevant opinions here, not not me, you know, it's it's it's my prerogative to push. but do you think do you think zelensky under what i might call the russian way of war? i mean, this is country that has and inconceivably high for

losses and. they said, by some estimates, over 300,000 casualties. this into a stalemate. and you think about what the united states went through over a stalemate. vietnam of 55,000 troops across a dozen years or something like. this this is 300,000 troops in two years. i certainly had a hard time picturing, even after watching chechnya, even after watching georgia, even after watching syria, i still really couldn't conceive that would send 300,000 russians to die or that the russian people would would sign up for that as well. hmm. yeah, that's right. i think the beginning of the invasion when the ukrainians and

their western allies overestimated the power of the russian forces, you know, they they thought that these elite commandos, a, in the russian military, especially the paratroopers, special special ops, would be able to come in and seize the capital a few days. that was sort of the baseline scenario that the west was envisioning and those troops were killed by the many hundreds. they were decimated. those formations basically don't exist anymore. they were wiped out. the most elite troops in the russian military. so we overestimated their capacity to to seize a city like kiev who whose people have such a strong will resist. but think, yes, we did underestimate the russian tolerance for for losses putin's tolerance for losses generals, illusions the commander, the military. you know, i him at length for the book too and and he said you know this was this was a in june

of 2022 so there was sort of planning they beginning to push back, beginning this kind of series victories. and he said you know we have to basically bleed them white. we have to kill so many of their men that they they just give up. they can't take it anymore. and a bit more a little over a year later when he announced that it appears there's a stalemate on the front lines, we've sort of exhausted our ability to push forward. he admitted that he did not expect russia to be able to withstand such losses. you know, his troops were inflicting horrify and losses on the russians and more of them kept coming. they would send these convicts that they would empty out russian prisons and rapists and killers just to go after wave of as the russians cynically called meat storms moonshine mean you know to into line of ukrainian artillery and and the general the ukrainian generals listening was was shocked by this when when i talked to zelensky about this the way he thinks about it

is he's horrified by the power of russian propaganda, because he's amazed that russian propaganda has such a hold over the consciousness of the russian people that they don't pipe up. there is no antiwar movement, there is no committee of soldiers, mothers demanding bring our boys home. it just doesn't exist there are no street protests, nothing, of course people are afraid of repressions. but during the wars in chechnya in the 1990s there was there was a very active antiwar movement. there were soldiers, mothers, committees that would rally and put a lot pressure on the kremlin. now, zelensky looks looks at what's going on, and he says that's horrifying. the power of persuasion, the power of the propaganda that putin has at his disposal. he sees that as many ways. the scariest weapon putin has is that a function of the new communications technology charges? i mean, or how is it getting at

even as he's dragged country into an by any measure, a catastrophe, it's economic catastrophe, what is it done? russian natural gas exports or that has tremendously damaging. how can it be getting better? yeah i mean, it is a mystery to me. i think zelensky operates i think this is a plane or a dimension of the conflict where he feels particularly knowledgeable and skillful the information war so propaganda information persuasion so you know he marvels with horror, but he marvels at the way russian propaganda, too, has, you know, created this narrative of a fight to the end with the empire of lies. that is the united and its allies. and, you know that russia is standing up to the arrogant west

and all these things, you know, there's there's kind of a a list of grievances that are fed constantly through television. i wouldn't say that there's any kind of breakthrough technology in the information war that putin is using. that's the usual stuff. tv, tv, control over the airwaves broadcast and all media increasingly also social media in russia. it's just, you, the airwaves, you control the sources of information. you can control the minds of your people. so you brought up this question of the united states and its allies how can that is alinsky in the at this point. well he doesn't have lot of options you know he needs the west he's reliant on the west. i think in many ways. you know, one of my most telling interviews with him was actually earlier in his administration when he had his first run in with donald trump, then president donald trump in the scandal that led to donald

trump's first impeachment. some of you probably remember that trump tried to extort political from zelensky by using american military aid for ukraine as leverage and, you know, he was impeached at the end 2019. you know, i talked to zelensky at the time as the impeachment inquiry was was unfolding and in washington i met with in kiev and he he said know this this taught me a lesson can't trust any allies. i can't trust anyone. everybody just has their interests, have their political interests. they have their personal interests. they have their national interests. but all stuff about alliances and values and doesn't seem to count for much. so he was already quite, i don't know, cynical or clear eyed about that going into that was a painful lesson. but he took with him into the into the invasion and he know didn't have enormous faith the western allies abilities to to help him or their willingness to

help him. but he found ways to to pressure them to convince them to shame them into it in many ways. and also, i think what was quite clever and innovative is he didn't speak only to his counterparts in foreign countries but he spoke to us he spoke to the voters. he spoke at the grammy awards. you know, he spoke on these large jumbotron tv screens that were that were shown a large demonstrations in european. he would speak directly to the people to encourage all of us to to pressure governments and our leaders to help. this was. i think, very effective in making it politically dangerous for democratic politicians not to stand for what ukraine was fighting for, not to support that cause. so i think he pushed the west to help him. he didn't he didn't just trust them to do it. you know, now i think he's he's as he said in our last

conversation and, you know, frustration or with the war is rolling along like a wave over europe and the united states he sees that he's always for for ways to to counteract that to find message that will bring the attention back bring back the support. but it's getting harder and as the war drags on, do you like it? i do, yeah, i do. you know, he's he's he's changed a lot, but he's he's he's still a very still, very human. i mean, one thing that comes through in the conversations with him that he he listens. he really listens to whoever he's talking to, he often begins our conversation by interrogating me about you. simon, what do you think about what's going on? you know, the news of the day what do you think we should be doing? and he does that with everybody, kind of his way to, make sure that he's getting he has his he has a clear awareness of the will of the people. so he talks to people, soldiers,

everyone he meets when he's traveling. he really listens to what they tell. it also allows him to check the information getting from his very narrow circle of advisers that they're not fooling him, that he's he tries to check the information he's getting from the top by speaking to everyone at the bottom. i think that shows a level of empathy and and just humanity that that really shines through. and when you meet the guy, he's he's not haughty. he's not he's he's he's not stand offish. he talks to you like an equal. couple of questions from. the audience on their way in you've mentioned the army chief of solution a couple of times he's been fired right or what's his status now there are contradictory reports he's still in his post it seems like there was a move to fire him but the

president seems to have backed off of that. now, that could change. could have changed, actually, as we were sitting here talking, not sure i haven't checked the news, but it's it's he's in a very precarious position. is that a measure of precariousness in zelensky's position as well that he doesn't feel enough to fire that? that's that's a very fair point. yeah. i think and he's right to be worried that firing him would be extremely destabilizing. you know, as i very clearly heard from my conversations with military officers and even some of zelensky's close friends, they see that the general is extremely popular with his forces and removing him from his post could could lead to a major backlash within the military. so that is something you have to weigh quite heavily, you know, in making a decision like that. but the tensions between them, you know, have really i that's one of the relationships i really describe in a lot of detail in the book. that's kind of the way it evolves and the tensions were simmering behind scenes for a

long time. now they've really started, you know, boiling over. so i think something has to give i don't know where it's going i know you don't like the predictions. i'm in. we have this terrible out of hand. i can predict anything. the future. but when i think about, i'm always struck by the fact he held. you know, held great britain together. and in its darkest hour and, you know, there's so many parallels. and then the war ended and victory came. they kicked them out immediately. does wolinski have a future as a president of or has you think this experience has changed him

or changed his relation on ship to the country in way that would make that difficult? it will be difficult. so so popularity has declined from around 90% about a month into the invasion to roughly 60% now. so still, you know comfortably the most popular in the country. bye by some measure. so think he still has a great deal of respect and admiration among his people, you know, for the way he's he's led them through this war. so, yeah, he definitely has a political future. i mean, i do end the book on a note of caution, though, about that transition that you're asking about. you know, power is a it's to part with and under martial law, which is enforced now the beginning of the invasion zelensky has extraordinary

powers to rule by decree. he has full control over the broadcast media. he has you know, there is no parliament the normal functions of parliament have been suspended. and, you know, generally politics is on hold. so that is an intoxicating level of power. have, you know, when i talked to him about this. he says, look, it's simple. we the war, we lift martial law, we go back to democracy as normal. don't about it. but historical you know makes me wonder and makes me concerned. i think it's something that we have to we have to watch for. i think his heart is in the right place, you know, with those kinds of issues. but i just think it will be hard to to suddenly, okay, you guys can all go back criticizing me now and, you know, day and night on your television channels and all the other political parties can can go ahead and criticize me. there are a lot of questions and

painful questions that he hasn't fully answered yet about his his failure to adequately prepare for the invasion, you know, certain other decisions that i think a lot of ukrainians, you know question why he did that. and those questions are sort of being. muffled at this point because the country and the leadership is so single mindedly focused on the war. but sooner or later questions will bubble up. and i think it will be tempting for zelensky use perhaps some of those powers or hang onto them as a way to to stay in power or, or, you know serious challenges to his authority. simon, i could go on for hours. i'm learning so much. i learned so much from your book. it's terrific. you should be very proud of it. thank you. i want to thank rainy day books and the truman institute for

making our meeting possible. after all these years. i congratulate patience. i hope you sell a million. and thank you for taking inside this incredibly important historic story. thank.

well, good evening