The U.S. managed to break Ukraine and Europe, but not Russia: an interview with Viktor Medvedchuk

Chairman of the “Other Ukraine” Movement, Viktor Medvedchuk, talks about the causes and consequences of Ukraine’s catastrophe, the “political Frankenstein” Zelensky, Russia’s mission, and the destructive influence of the West, as well as his family’s fight against obscurantism and satanism.

Viktor Medvedchuk shared his thoughts in a large interview with an EADaily correspondent.

Viktor Vladimirovich, some say Russia should have dealt with the Ukraine issue in 2014, not in 2022. At that time, the sentiments in the country were different. What do you think?

First and foremost, I believe that history has no conditional mood. If Yanukovych had justified the trust of the Ukrainian people, which he gained in the elections, and the trust of the majority of the Russian-speaking population, which was against the armed state coup and the seizure of power by the Nazis, and had remained in Ukraine—in Donbas or Crimea—and had asked for help from Russia, everything could and should have been resolved in 2014.

Therefore, I consider Russia’s policy at that time to be correct. The point is that it acted not as an aggressor but tried to negotiate peacefully. The Minsk Agreements, which were concluded, were not broken by Russia but by Poroshenko and Zelensky under the direction of their Western masters.

Was the so-called “Maidan of Dignity” a failure of Russia or a success of the West? Or something else entirely?

Let me remind you that the Maidan occurred in Ukraine, not Russia, whose sovereignty Russia respected. So, it cannot be Russia’s failure by definition. The legitimate Ukrainian government was the one that suffered from Maidan, which is undoubtedly its defeat. And it lost not only to the marginalized but also to the collective West, which it didn’t dare to call an enemy at the time.

In color revolution technology, the collective West tries to remain above the fray, acting through proxies. But this didn’t work in Belarus or Kazakhstan. In Ukraine, it succeeded twice. The first time, it was bloodless, and Yanukovych, ousted by the first Maidan, won parliamentary elections, became prime minister, and essentially took power from Yushchenko, who was installed by the Maidan, thanks to the 2004 constitutional reform. Later, he became president, and the first Maidan quickly fizzled out.

By 2020, there was a real chance to democratically neutralize the second Maidan of 2014. The “Opposition Platform – For Life” party led all political rankings and won local elections. But Zelensky launched illegal repression against the opposition, which few expected of him. Only later did Ukrainians realize their mistake in him.

So, I maintain that had it not been for the criminal actions of Zelensky and his cronies, the second Maidan could have been neutralized, and there would have been no war. But Zelensky maniacally clung to power, which he had already effectively lost in 2020. His thirst for power and wealth led Ukraine to a terrible disaster.

Some say there might not have been a Maidan under Tymoshenko, and things could have turned out differently. Does this theory hold water?

We shouldn’t confuse political technology with the country’s development trajectory. Maidan is just a political tool. No one would claim it arose spontaneously; it had sponsors, organizers, and overseers. Tymoshenko was not a key player in the first Maidan, and in the second, she was more of a bystander. She couldn’t influence Maidan since the major decisions didn’t depend on her.

Had she won the presidential election, nothing would have changed. As president, she would have led Ukraine toward NATO, militarizing the country, and the situation on Russia’s borders would have escalated even faster. It wouldn’t have mattered whether Tymoshenko or Poroshenko headed the pro-Western forces that gave up Ukraine’s sovereignty; it wouldn’t have affected the country’s trajectory.

Why didn’t anyone in Ukraine implement the Minsk Agreements? Was it the West’s will, Kyiv’s authorities, or simply the weakness of the Ukrainian leadership?

We should distinguish between the interests of the EU and the U.S. The EU benefited from the Minsk Agreements, but it couldn’t force Ukraine to implement them. The U.K. and the U.S., eager to provoke a war, interfered. As a result, EU leaders were dominated by Washington and London. Merkel and Hollande, followed by Macron, spoke of a “cunning plan” they had presented to Russia.

In reality, the cunning plan was to destabilize the situation on Russia’s borders and, eventually, within Russia itself. The first goal was achieved; the second was not. The U.S. managed to break Ukraine and Europe but not Russia. There weren’t enough agents of influence for that. In Ukraine, besides the liberals, the “Sorosites,” the agents of influence were the Nazis in the form of the Right Sector and other street thugs. Zelensky was ordered to fear the Nazis and eventually decided to lead them, which is why he pulled out of the Minsk Agreements.

Zelensky was terrified of the Nazis and the riffraff united under their criminal slogans, afraid of the consequences if he crossed them. Out of fear, he started playing the role of a superhero, always dressed in military gear, trying to appear menacing, a sort of militant Jew. He continues to play this role today because it allows him to conceal his weakness and cowardice.

Was it difficult to be an opposition politician in Ukraine after 2014?

Given the numerous attacks on my family, the arson of my house, and the Nazis’ destruction of our “Ukrainian Choice” movement’s offices, yes, my political path wasn’t strewn with roses. But I can be honest with myself: I did everything to bring peace, restore law and order, and create decent living conditions for people. They didn’t intimidate me then, and they won’t stop or scare me now. Evil must be opposed, and I have extensive experience resisting the forces currently at play in Ukraine.

Why couldn’t the pro-Russian opposition unite after 2014?

Because not all of it was truly pro-Russian. Many saw the benefits of pro-Russian rhetoric and tried to use it for personal gain. When these slogans became dangerous, they quickly abandoned them. Politicians with low integrity exist in every political spectrum, and, unfortunately, pro-Russian parties were no exception.

Was the start of the special military operation (SMO) unexpected for you?

Yes. At that time, I was under house arrest, under surveillance by the SBU, so much information didn’t reach me. I publicly called for Ukraine to abandon the NATO course and implement the Minsk Agreements. Had the government followed this path, I’m confident the SMO wouldn’t have started.

By this time, you were already under investigation for allegedly organizing the transport of coal from the DPR and LPR to the territory controlled by Kyiv. In Kyiv, they claimed that you had escaped house arrest. Then there was a supposed capture and later an exchange. What actually happened?

In reality, the situation developed as follows. The current Zelensky regime began a fierce and unlawful persecution of opposition and dissent in our country long before the armed conflict. In 2020, our party, Opposition Platform – For Life, won first place in local elections after having come in second in the 2019 parliamentary elections, and we were leading in all sociological ratings in the country. The path from opposition to power was fully open for us. Therefore, in February 2021, Zelensky’s regime illegally blocked the broadcasting of three opposition television channels: 112 Ukraine, NewsOne, and ZIK. Then, on February 19, 2021, my wife and I were placed on Ukraine’s sanctions list, even though such a thing was not provided for under Ukrainian law. In March 2021, a criminal case of treason was illegally opened against me, and in May, I was placed under house arrest without any legal grounds.

I was accused of advocating cooperation with Russia, which had been declared the program of our party, with which we won the elections and were leading in all the country’s ratings. I was also accused of negotiating with the Russian leadership either at the request of the Ukrainian authorities regarding the exchange of detained persons or on behalf of my constituents as a duly elected official, which is entirely legal. I used my mandate as a member of parliament to negotiate a 25% discount on gas for Ukraine, which the authorities rejected—first Poroshenko, then Zelensky—despite knowing this caused serious damage to the country’s economy. I also negotiated the priority supply of the Sputnik V vaccine during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when no vaccines were available. When the government did not respond, we found a facility in Kharkiv that could produce the vaccine, and Russia agreed to transfer the technology for its production in Ukraine. Additionally, I negotiated the lifting of sanctions on the supply of Ukrainian enterprises’ products to Russia. As a result, sanctions on certain enterprises were unilaterally lifted.

I sought peace and de-escalation, doing everything possible to prevent conflict, resolve issues through diplomacy, negotiations, and agreements. As seen from election results and ratings, this political stance resonated widely with Ukrainian citizens. But Zelensky’s regime declared such activities criminal. Zelensky did everything to push the conflict into a hot phase. During this time, investigative actions were taken regarding one criminal case, accompanied by searches of my home, my colleagues’ homes, and my relatives. While I was under house arrest, without any legal basis, a second criminal case was opened. Everything possible was done to ensure I was not released and was maximally isolated from further political struggle. When military actions began, my house arrest ended, but I was then illegally detained on April 12, 2022, and placed in SBU custody.

Was this the hardest period of your life and your family’s? Your wife mentioned torture.

I was constantly under severe psychological pressure, with constant threats of violence. I endured it all by thinking about my family—my wife, children—and how important it was for me to be with them again. What sustained me was the confidence in the rightness of my chosen political path in defending people’s interests. I have always been principled and consistent in my stance throughout my time in politics, which began in the late 1990s. I stood for friendly, partnership, and good-neighborly relations with Russia, but pro-Western political forces and the collective West were preparing for war, investing massive amounts of money and resources into it.

As for my family, it was a terrible ordeal for them. I was fully aware of how much suffering I had caused them through my actions in recent years, and I am sincerely grateful that they understood, supported, and believed in me. They awaited my return from the SBU dungeons, hoping for my release, knowing that anything could be expected from Zelensky’s regime. The joy of reuniting with my family is indescribable in words. We, as a family, have endured serious trials that we will never forget.

Do you see a future for an independent Ukraine, or as a state at all?

No, I don’t see it. An independent Ukraine no longer exists—politically, economically, or legally. The country is ruled by an illegitimate president who has usurped power, becoming a dictator. It’s no secret that Zelensky’s Ukraine cannot exist without Western funding. It cannot pay pensions, salaries, or maintain state infrastructure. Businesses are destroyed, and economic ties are severed.

Zelensky, along with his Western masters, claim that Ukraine exists to protect the West from Russia. Such a state is not needed, not by its citizens and not by Russia at its borders. Why should Ukrainians be in perpetual war with Russians? Zelensky has erased any prospects for Ukrainian statehood in the future.

In your opinion, what would be the ideal option for Ukraine’s future after all that has happened?

For me, the priority is to protect as many Ukrainian citizens as possible. The key to their protection is understanding the actual situation in Ukraine and the world. The foundation of any Nazi regime’s power is to brainwash the people so they obediently carry out criminal orders. The ideal future for the Ukrainian people is for them to build their lives in peace, stability, and prosperity. Under Zelensky’s Ukraine, this is impossible. And the problem isn’t just Zelensky; he’s a political freak, a clown. The situation is much more complex. Ukrainians need to wake up and begin building their future, which is what I am working on through our public movement, Other Ukraine.

Today, we are witnessing the process of historically Russian lands returning to Russia. Paradoxically, it is precisely the policy of the Ukrainian Nazis—the criminal regimes of first Poroshenko and then Zelensky—that has contributed to this process.

Already, six new regions have joined Russia: Crimea and Sevastopol, LPR and DPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, whose citizens voted for this decision in referendums, exercising their right to self-determination as provided by the UN Charter. This is the objective, real path, in full compliance with international law, for the citizens of Ukraine to secure their future—a path of reunification with Russia.

Do you think there are still pro-Russian forces and sentiments in Ukrainian society? How strong were they before the SMO?

Pro-Russian sentiments have always existed in Ukraine. These are not just sentiments but views, beliefs, conditions, and ways of life. For more than 30 years, the collective West has actively fought against this, investing billions of dollars. They have stimulated anti-Russian sentiments, helped rewrite history, and revived Nazism.

Take the 2019 presidential and parliamentary elections—our pro-Russian force, the Opposition Platform – For Life, came in second. The incumbent president, Poroshenko, ran his campaign on anti-Russian hysteria and lost miserably. It’s worth noting that Crimea had joined Russia, and two independent republics had formed in Donbas, and they did not participate in the elections. Despite this, Ukrainians voted for pro-Russian forces.

Moreover, Zelensky and his Servant of the People party positioned themselves as moderately pro-Russian in 2019, contributing to their electoral success. So, in 2019, the majority of the population supported pro-Russian forces. But then Zelensky was bought off and made an agent of Western influence. How did the electorate respond? The Servant of the People party’s ratings collapsed, and Zelensky’s power was threatened. He then began repressions, shut down opposition media, initiated criminal cases against the opposition, and banned parties—all with the agreement and guidance of the collective West. So, pro-Russian views have always been, are, and will be present in Ukraine. People need to recover from the shock of the war, and they will become even stronger—strong enough to make the historically justified choice for the Ukrainian people. Donbas has been in flames since 2014, and their choice was made in the struggle for survival. As for the choice made by the residents of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions in the referendums to join Russia—that is the result of pro-Russian sentiments. But it’s not just sentiments; it’s a necessity for survival.

If you were to meet Zelensky, who stripped you of your citizenship, what would you say to him now?

Everything I need to say, I demonstrate through my struggle, and I will continue to fight until victory. Zelensky will face other meetings and other conversations. Not only he but his entire gang will not escape the responsibility and wrath of Ukrainian citizens for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and for the destruction and humiliation of the country.

Your opinion: Will the Special Military Operation (SMO) last for a long time? Months or years?

The SMO has strategic goals. Unlike Zelensky’s criminal regime, Russia is not trying to occupy territories or kill as many Ukrainian soldiers as possible. Russia is not fighting against the Ukrainian people; it is liberating them from the state criminal Zelensky and his criminal gang, who seized power, from Nazi ideology, and from the lawlessness of the authorities. The more Ukrainians understand this, the less blood will be shed. The SMO is also happening in people’s minds, and I can say that there is positive progress.

People’s awakening is accelerating geometrically. Today, it can be asserted that Zelensky is already politically dead to most Ukrainians. If not for the hundreds of billions invested in him by the collective West, such a politician would not exist in Ukraine. Zelensky is a political Frankenstein, revived by Western infusions. Once these infusions stop—and they are not endless—the international situation will begin to heal. The SMO is not just about Ukraine; it is about a new multipolar world with security guarantees. This world is being born right now.

We are living at the turning point of eras. The new era will change not only Ukraine but also the U.S., the EU, and the whole world. You cannot deny that the world is changing rapidly. Of course, it would be better if these changes occurred without suffering, destruction, or loss of life. But this depends, first, on how quickly Ukrainians, with Russia’s help, remove the Nazi regime and eliminate Nazism in the country. Second, it depends on how long Western support will last because it is entirely pointless—the collective West is pouring gasoline on the fire and complaining about the losses it suffers. That means their views and leadership will also have to change, and we can already see this happening. Third, it depends on how successful BRICS countries are in building their economic and political pole. It is strengthening rapidly, and the stronger it becomes, the less the collective West will want to continue fighting, even using Ukrainian hands. As you can see, there are many factors, but they are all developing in the right direction. We have passed the equator of the Ukrainian conflict, so I believe this year will be decisive and will set many things straight.

When and under what conditions do you think Kyiv will genuinely seek peace negotiations?

In Kyiv, and in Ukraine as a whole, people have long wanted peace negotiations. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology recently published data showing that 57% of people believe that Ukraine should enter negotiations with Russia to achieve peace. That’s just the official data; in reality, the number of people who want this is higher.

As for Zelensky and his cronies, they don’t want peace—they fear punishment for what they’ve done to Ukraine. Moreover, they are handling billions in Western aid, from which they profit greatly. While the people die and sink into poverty, they don’t care because they don’t consider the people to be their own. This gang will never want peace, even if the collective West orders them to negotiate; they will wriggle like snakes on a frying pan. Zelensky and his cronies are the real obstacles to peace and de-escalation. Most importantly, peace and de-escalation would mean the end of their power, which is why peace is impossible under them. Only the capitulation of Zelensky’s Nazi regime can lead to peace.

Do you see yourself in Ukrainian politics or state management after the SMO ends?

I never left Ukrainian politics. There is no doubt that I am a Ukrainian politician, the bitterest enemy of Zelensky and his criminal regime. Today, my main goal is the liberation of the Ukrainian people from him and his gang, to provide Ukrainians with a future and a decent life. These goals have never changed for me in politics.

In this context, seeking positions or titles has never been my aim. I don’t have a lust for power, like Zelensky the clown. What matters to me is that as many Ukrainians as possible are saved today. I don’t care where I sit tomorrow or whether I’ll be in power at all. For a limited person, power is a drug; for a normal person, power is a heavy burden of responsibility.

You now live in Russia. What are you doing, and what plans do you have for the future?

The main plan is to continue fighting Nazism in my homeland. I aim to open as many Ukrainians’ eyes as possible to the reality of what is happening in the country. To achieve this, I initiated the creation of the Other Ukraine public movement, which unites comrades in Ukraine, Russia, and around the world, where half the country has fled from Zelensky’s criminal policies.

If it’s not a secret, what do you live on?

Of course, it’s no secret. I have always declared my income, never hiding it in Ukraine, and I don’t hide it in Russia either. I am involved in business. Everything is legal and transparent. Moreover, all of my family’s assets, including those in Russia, were always listed in declarations that were publicly available in Ukraine.

Your wife was a famous TV host in Ukraine. What is she doing in Russia? Does she want to return to television?

As I already mentioned, just as I never left politics, the same goes for my wife, who never left television. I met Oksana in 1999 when she was already a well-known TV host, and over time, she became a famous TV star. She was repeatedly recognized as the best entertainment show host in Ukraine. She even won awards in categories where the then-host of the 95th Kvartal, Zelensky, participated… but she never ran for president. Though with her talents and charisma, she could have done it better than the West-worshiping traitors—Poroshenko and Zelensky. Ukraine needed a modern Princess Olga.

Oksana had to part with the shows where she truly shone due to my opposition political activities. The TV channel owners—oligarchic scum like Kolomoisky, Pinchuk, and Firtash, who acted as henchmen for the authorities—could not show Medvedchuk’s wife. But that didn’t stop her.

Oksana, a historian by education and a devout Christian, was one of the first in Ukraine to recognize the deadly threat looming over canonical Orthodoxy. She dedicated herself to defending Christian values, popularizing Orthodoxy, and opposing evil, obscurantism, and satanism. This is how the idea for her series Pilgrim came about. The project was born at a time when fratricidal war had already begun in Ukraine, when godless people were storming and seizing Orthodox churches, and when holy sites were being destroyed by neo-Nazis.

Ordinary Orthodox people desperately needed support and sought answers to questions that could only be answered by turning to God. The first season and part of the second were filmed while we were still in Ukraine and aired on opposition channels before they were shut down. She continued this work in Russia, completing the second season, which aired on Russian TV. Currently, she has finished filming the third season, which will also air on Russian television. So, her professional journey, which began in her youth on television and to which she has dedicated her life, creativity, and knowledge, is successfully continuing. I have always believed, and still believe, in her success.

Do you meet with the President?

Yes. Ukraine doesn’t have its own Vladimir Putin, which is why the population of six Ukrainian regions has already chosen Russia and Vladimir Putin, and this is only the beginning. Perhaps one Putin will be enough for both Russians and Ukrainians to ensure that the tragedy of Ukrainians becomes a thing of the past and that their future is secure and dignified.

You’ve been in Ukrainian politics for over 30 years. In your opinion, which years were the best for Ukraine, and was there a chance that the country wouldn’t become a geopolitical battleground? On whom did this depend?

Of course, there was such a chance, and Vladimir Putin spoke about it. After all, we were building Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. In this Europe, Ukraine was to play an honorable and highly advantageous role as a bridge between Europe and Russia. But the collective West decided to encircle Russia with NATO bases and spent billions of dollars on promoting primitive anti-Russian hysteria and Russophobia, creating in Ukraine a political elite of national traitors—not to Russia, but to their own people and country.

Ukraine was turning from a bridge into a wall behind which preparations were being made for an attack on Russia. And this wall is now being torn down—it should not exist. The collective West is throwing hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up this wall, but it will still collapse. Those who turned the country into a wall, instead of a bridge, on orders from outside, led to Ukraine becoming a geopolitical battlefield. They got what they deserved.

Zelensky promised a bridge during his election campaign. Now, he takes contracts for supposedly protecting the West. He lies cynically and brazenly, hoping for destabilization in Russia. In reality, he threatens the world and Europe. But the destabilization is not in Russia; it’s in Ukraine, where the economy, statehood, and country have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people have died. Half of the population has fled Ukraine to escape lawlessness and violence, while the remaining ordinary citizens are doomed to a miserable existence and survival. This is the destabilization that Zelensky hoped to see in Russia but has created in his own country.

As for Ukraine’s best years, they were always tied to Russia. All of Ukraine’s history shows that its best years were always with Russia. Those good years are now returning, both literally and figuratively.