Our first topic today is, of course, the reaction in the United States and the European Union to the major corruption scandal unfolding in Ukraine. We’ll also look at the broader fallout from this crisis. And this isn’t just about how Ukraine itself is responding. How strong a response can we expect from our European and American partners to what has happened?Well, we need to distinguish now between American reactions and EU reactions. The U.S. is basically out of Ukraine. Trump has no interest in supporting Ukraine, and he has also stopped all anti-corruption efforts in and around the U.S.For example, enforcement of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has completely stopped. So, the U.S. couldn’t care less.This case has been reported by The New York Times and The Financial Times. It was also published in Britain. But for the U.S., this is not an issue.If the allegations made by NABU and SAPO prove to be substantiated, it could set off a chain reaction. We could see a response from U.S. federal law-enforcement agencies as well. How far might this go? And when I talk about a potential reaction from American federal authorities, I’m referring to the possibility of additional investigations and the prosecution of those involved.I don't think the U.S. will do anything because Trump has complete control over the Department of Justice and the FBI, which are the two relevant bodies, and they are not going to act. But let me move to the European side. That is much more serious. "You can say that there are two main actors genuinely concerned about corruption in Ukraine. One is, of course, Ukrainian civil society, and I’m not going to elaborate on that. The other is the European Commission."When Ukraine limited the independence of NABU and SAPO in July, the European Commission reacted just a few hours later, saying, “Okay, if you don’t want to fight corruption, then you’re not meeting our conditions, and we are now suspending funding for Ukraine.”I think this was a major alarm bell for Ukraine, and it will happen again if these corruption cases are not properly addressed.I would argue that it’s actually a strength of Ukraine that this major corruption story is now coming out into the open. However, it is vital that the Ukrainian government genuinely follows up, investigates the suspects, and takes real action, especially since at least one of them appears to be closely linked to President Zelenskyy and Chief of Staff Andriy Yermak.I’m not trying to minimize the responsibility of anyone accused of this massive corruption and outright looting. But there’s another crucial point — the risks this creates for Ukraine as a state. There are anti-Ukrainian groups in several European countries and in the United States, and now, when Ukraine turns to its partners for support, those voices will inevitably grow louder, saying: “They’re thieves, don’t give them money.” We’ve dealt with accusations like this before, and this scandal does not change the fundamental fact of Russian aggression or the reality of the Russian-Ukrainian war.Of course, you’re right. And the strongest voices in this regard are, first of all, Vladimir Putin, who complains about corruption in Ukraine. Yet Russia ranks 154th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.Ukraine, on the other hand, has improved significantly, rising from 142nd to 105th place over the past decade. It’s still not great, but it’s a major improvement. Another frequent critic is Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Hungary has now fallen below Bulgaria and Romania, making it the most corrupt country in the European Union, according to Transparency International. "So, the most corrupt countries are often the ones complaining the loudest about corruption in Ukraine, precisely because they want Ukraine to remain corrupt. And these narratives are echoed in the U.S. as well."Most of all, Tucker Carlson, the right-wing extremist who is strongly pro-Russian. You probably remember that he went to Moscow, interviewed Putin for four hours, and spoke admiringly about how wonderful Moscow was. We all wish he had stayed there.There is clearly a pro-Putin, pro-Russian faction within the Republican Party that is loud and influential. These are the people who helped Trump block all U.S. aid to Ukraine. However, I don’t think they are very significant within the United States overall.In Europe, though, we are seeing two countries particularly negative toward Ukraine: Hungary and Slovakia under Robert Fico, though the situation there is less clear. And now we have a third government, the Czech government under Babiš.These countries are problematic, and they will, of course, use this situation to try to block EU aid to Ukraine and EU sanctions on Russia, as they have done repeatedly.You’re absolutely right to mention those Central European leaders. I’d like to ask you about the Orbán precedent,  the “Orbán case.” In effect, Donald Trump gave him an extraordinary exemption on purchasing Russian energy. And this could strengthen pro-Russian voices elsewhere: if Orbán can do it, they’ll ask, why should we damage our own economies by refusing to work with an aggressor state? In your view, what was Donald Trump’s calculation in essentially granting Orbán unprecedented privileges, allowing him to continue trading with Russia despite the war and the bloodshed?President Trump has repeatedly stated how wonderful he thinks Viktor Orbán is, and he is trying to do in the U.S. what Orbán has done in Hungary.Trump is now moving against the media even faster than Orbán or Putin did. He wants the media to be obedient, controlled by people he likes and trusts.There is a major shift in ownership taking place within the main U.S. media outlets, and they are becoming increasingly compliant toward Trump. This is essentially the model of how to impose authoritarian rule after being democratically elected, by ensuring you can no longer lose power.Trump admires Orbán and everything he does, so it would hardly be surprising if he offered him certain benefits. The real surprise would be if Trump did anything against Russia, given how positively he views Putin, as we saw when he invited him to Alaska and welcomed him personally with a red carpet. When President Zelenskyy arrived in Washington, there was no red carpet and no one from the administration to greet him except the head of protocol from the State Department.Meanwhile, Orbán received a full red-carpet welcome from Trump – because he represents corruption and authoritarian rule, precisely what Trump wants to establish in the U.S."No president has made as much money from being in office as Trump already has. We’re talking about several billion dollars in personal gain. So why would he oppose corruption anywhere else? Moreover, Trump views the European Union as an enemy."He has repeatedly said that the EU was created to “rip us off,” and he wants it to fall apart. He strongly supported Brexit and continues to strongly support Orbán, as shown by this red-carpet treatment.So, this is not surprising. Still, it was relatively limited; it was only a one-year extension of Hungary’s right to import from Russia. I’m not surprised that the benefit Trump gave Orbán was so modest.Sadly, I agree with you. I would only add that Viktor Orbán is a convenient tool for many outside players. He serves the interests of China, Russia, and even the United States, particularly when it comes to weakening internal European processes and preventing the EU from forming a united, coherent position. But Orbán himself is not a global figure. He is simply an instrument. The real global figure in this picture is Donald Trump. And now, if we look at Anchorage, Alaska, his meeting with Putin, and the series of events that followed, I would like to ask you this: do we have any clearer sense of Donald Trump’s position on the Russian Ukrainian war? How is he prepared to act, and how threatening might his approach be for Ukraine? Or could it actually present an opportunity?I think it is more of a threat than an opportunity. But it seems to me that this threat has diminished. The main thing about Trump is that he values incompetence and ignorance, and he is very skilled at creating an image.He wanted a beautiful photo opportunity, like the one we see here, Trump meeting Putin on the red carpet in Anchorage. That is exactly the kind of thing he enjoys.He admires leaders like Putin, Xi Jinping, and those in the Persian Gulf, people who are ruthless dictators and embrace corruption. And if they are imperialists, that does not bother Trump in the slightest.From what we have heard about Trump’s conversations with Putin, they have mainly revolved around supposed investment opportunities in Russia, which, of course, is complete nonsense. But that is the kind of talk Trump likes. He even sent his associate Steve Witkoff, who knows nothing about Russia or Ukraine, to Moscow five times to meet with Putin.Putin has realized that this is a person who is easily manipulated, so why not spend a few hours taking advantage of that? Witkoff went to Moscow without his own interpreter, without any assistant, and without any contact with the U.S. Embassy while meeting Putin in the Kremlin.He either misunderstood everything or was deliberately misled by Putin. We do not know which it is. But he believed that Putin was making concessions, even though Putin and Lavrov have made it clear publicly that they have not made any concessions. They still want their maximum program, which is the destruction of Ukraine."It now seems that Putin has overplayed his hand. He thought he had Trump completely under his control and that Trump would push for whatever Putin wanted. Now Trump seems to have become irritated because Putin has not made any concessions, and as a result, he has pulled back. He is no longer fighting wholeheartedly for Putin as he did during that outrageous attack on President Zelenskyy in the White House on February 28."Trump wants the Europeans to buy U.S. weapons and deliver them to Ukraine through NATO. And why is that? Because the major U.S. arms producers, who are very influential, are losing out in the war in Ukraine since the U.S. itself is not directly involved.The arms industry is extremely important for the U.S. Last year, the country exported nearly 320 billion dollars’ worth of weapons. That is a huge amount of money, and now they are almost completely cut out of the market.I think the Europeans should instead cooperate with the promising and innovative Ukrainian arms industry and help it grow.We can already see that the stock market value of U.S.-owned defense companies has barely increased this year, while major European-owned companies have seen their stock prices rise three or four times."Trump’s interest lies in protecting U.S. industry, not in helping Ukraine."The situation is even more serious than it appears at first glance. At the same time, Ukraine still stands on the strength of its own courage, the bravery of its soldiers, and the resilience of its civilians. But Russia continues its bombardments and its war crimes against us.The situation on the frontline remains extremely difficult. And any delay in supplying Ukraine with heavy, long-range weapons only plays into Russia’s hands.There is no single, unified position among our partners. Different global power centers are sending different signals, and none of them fully align. But despite this, any deep internal fragmentation within Ukraine will only make things worse. The public’s reaction is also entirely understandable. The key question now is what exactly is shaping the situation and what narratives may be imposed on us in the weeks and months ahead.First of all, I do not think there will be any real negotiations. Most wars do not end through negotiations.The First World War ended with a change of power inside Germany. German troops were still far beyond the country’s borders, both in the East and the West. Then revolutions broke out in Berlin and Munich, and the Germans capitulated."This is the ideal scenario for how the war should end now – that Putin falls as a result of an internal coup in Moscow, something he is clearly very afraid of."The U.S. has no role here and no leverage. It has only an ignorant president who has dismissed most people in the administration who know anything about Russia or Ukraine. There has never been a more ignorant president in the U.S. than Donald Trump. And it is not that he is interested in learning. On the contrary, he wants to remain in his own bubble because it works well for him politically at home. The less the U.S. does, the better.We know that Trump wanted to give away the remaining part of Donetsk oblast to Putin in exchange for something unclear. Putin wanted to gain territory he could not take by force, hoping to get it from Trump instead. This was the role Putin envisioned for Trump in the negotiations. Fortunately, Trump seems to have refused to do that for now. What this means is that Europe will have to finance Ukraine. The big question is whether Europe will provide sufficient funding for Ukraine next year when the European Council makes its decision on December 19, or whether it will not.For Russia, the key question is when the Russian people—or rather the Russian elite—will realize that Putin is not acting in the country’s interests. Russia’s economic growth has stopped. Inflation is around 8 to 10 percent, and it is likely to rise further. People can no longer travel much. The economy is stagnating, not only economically but also technologically. Putin is bad for the Russian people, and the question is when enough of them will realize this and decide that it is time for him to go."I see this as the natural end of the war, though it is impossible to say when it will happen."As you said about the Ukrainians, they understand that they must stand up and fight, because otherwise Russia will simply wipe out the Ukrainian nation. But this also means that Ukraine must deal with its internal corruption.I am actually encouraged that this corruption case is being exposed and handled so transparently. I spent the second week of September in Kyiv and heard about nearly all the details that are now being made public. So it was already known and discussed. I think it is very positive that it has now become public.Now it is up to the Ukrainian state to prove that it is strong enough to root out this corruption, which is, of course, unacceptable.I’ve spoken with many international experts, and British and Polish analysts often point out that Putin is drawing on tactics once used by Empress Catherine I against the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. There are clear historical parallels. Putin tends to act in stages, moving step by step. And when needed, he is perfectly willing to dial down the intensity of the war for a time in order to regroup and then push forward again.In your view, is Putin likely to ramp up mobilization, or is he instead prepared to take Western warnings seriously? Money does matter to him, but in this case I don’t think it is the decisive factor. Very few people believed he would be willing to start a war of such scale and brutality, yet he did. And now we have to factor in both the momentum of the war and the momentum of Putin’s own thinking. He is a vindictive leader, and he is remarkably consistent in his destructive ambitions.This is, of course, a very important question. There are three rulers Putin constantly refers to: Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Second.And there are two he never mentions: Alexander I and Alexander II. Alexander II, who abolished serfdom, was the most liberal ruler and came to power after the Crimean War. So Putin deliberately avoids the more liberal tsars.Catherine the Second clearly represents his ideal – imperialist, repressive, and personally living in immense luxury.What we know is that Russia is not officially planning any increase in military spending next year, after several consecutive years of growth. Officially, federal expenditures on the war now account for about 8 % of GDP.Ukraine’s expenditures amount to 50 percent of its GDP, which shows that for Ukraine, this is an existential war. For Putin, it may be existential personally, but not for Russia. He cannot increase military spending any further because people are no longer willing to make greater sacrifices for the war. This is quite significant."Another consequence is that Russia is now settling into a long war. The focus is on sustaining its current military efforts rather than expanding them."I do not think there will be another wave of mobilization in Russia. Putin already did that in September 2022, and as a result, the country lost around one million well-educated young men in their twenties and thirties.Since then, he has tried to recruit soldiers from poorer regions – low-quality troops paid with large bonuses. These payments have come from regional budgets, which are now under severe strain. From what we have seen, these bonuses have dropped to about one-quarter or one-fifth of what they were last year.As a result, Putin will face growing difficulties both in recruiting soldiers in general and in finding those of higher quality. He is now trying to recruit North Koreans, Indians, and various Africans. This is, of course, just a meat grinder. These are not high-quality soldiers he is mobilizing, or rather, recruiting.It seems that Putin realizes he cannot achieve victory, but he is determined to prolong the war for as long as possible. Why?Because for Putin, a bad war is better than a good peace. Any kind of ceasefire or peace would bring soldiers home who would start asking, “Why did you start this war?” More than 200,000 Russian soldiers have been killed, and between 600,000 and 800,000 have been wounded.This is an enormous loss for Russia. Many of the returning men are suffering from PTSD. We saw how the Soviet Union was destabilized by the veterans of Afghanistan in the 1980s, and what we are likely to see now will be far worse. In Afghanistan, according to official Soviet figures, only 15,000 soldiers were killed. Here, the number exceeds 200,000, while Russia’s population is only half of what the Soviet Union’s was at that time."Putin cannot afford peace or even a ceasefire. He must keep the war going for as long as possible. That is how he justifies his power and his repressive rule."