#Natalia Vlaschenko

[summeroffice]

Власть vs Влащенко

33:05 I like the person who works there [in the Ministry of Culture] Микита Потураєв. 

37:20 What mass media or Telegram channels or platforms do you read every day, what do you start with? 

I read everything, a lot, I almost always have a gadget in my hands, and I constantly look at everything. I look at accents, I look not so much as accents as I look at all these social networks and this is a lot of Telegrams, a lot of media, including Western media, and I look at it in the morning. I look at psycho-emotional moods first of all, that is, the tonality of how people speak and what conclusions they draw. Is there logic in what they give as a fact and how they draw conclusions based on this fact.  

Well, the last thing is about, you know, it is often said that a lot of people have fatigue. I want to ask you what you are tired of and I have a lot of friends in Israel, they tell me, well, I make a lot of broadcasts about the war in Israel, and I also wonder how much there is common in some things.

And here they say that their state takes such a position, all who want to go to a restaurant, or drink a cup of coffee, everyone who wants to relax somewhere, it should be done because it supports business, it supports people's morale and so on. How do you feel about people who really need to well, take it easy, I don't know, go somewhere to the cinema, to a restaurant with a family, somewhere else? 

Ms Natalya, I have a positive attitude towards the fact that people have needs to go to some places, to restaurants, cafes, to the cinema, and that's normal, absolutely normal. It's a reboot, a mental reboot, it's extreme. The only thing is that it is necessary not to manifest, you know what I'm talking about, large-scale celebrations and so on, it's annoying and so on.

But everyone needs a reboot, it's normal. And in principle, two years of war does not mean that everyone should sit in a bunker and do nothing, right? They all have to do and work and give the opportunity to the service sector to also earn because it's again taxes. You are right, it is blood in the economic system. It is right.  

About fatigue, again, it is clear that psycho-emotionally a person simply cannot live constantly in such an adrenaline-fueled state, and to constantly be accented, and that's why it's normal. The main thing is not whether you are in it or not, the main thing is whether you have the ability to manage this process, can you keep yourself in check, can you draw the right conclusions and can you calmly go in and out of depression.  

I'm sorry that I am talking about this with a little irony, and it seems to me that in Ukraine many people know how to properly moderate these processes, the processes of fatigue, but everyone gets up and does their work. So, it's obvious to me, despite everything, it's necessary to reach the only correct ending. Well, otherwise all of this will seem to us just the beginning of a great tragedy.  

You did not answer about your personal fatigue. And then I will additionally ask you. Who do you call when you have, well, some temporary despair [he smirks] or fatigue? Are there people who you need in this period [he smiles briefly]? 

There are people who are necessary to me, definitely. This is my family and definitely I always communicate. But I don't have periods of despair and I don't have periods of fatigue because there is a need to go to the end. And because there are people who perform much larger volumes of important work, including at the forefront, and nevertheless, they stay there. And therefore, I always look not at myself, when you look in the mirror, you don't see yourself there but see everyone who at this moment are doing a huge amount of important work for today's historical moment.  

After the war when everything is over, will you write a book? 

I will definitely do it. This is not even discussed. 

[summeroffice]

Наташа Влащенко for Фабрика новин 

27:51 I want to ask you a few more questions about information policy, which is no stranger to you. The law proposed by Mr Княжицький on the restriction of Telegram. What is your position in principle about the same Telegram, TikTok and any others? What is your attitude in principle to restrictive laws in the information sphere and how do you evaluate this law in particular?  

Well, let's see what they will vote on and discuss, what amendments will be made. What do I think? I think that social networks still must work carefully in the direction of legalisation after all. If someone wants to use this or that social network, and in this case, we are talking about Telegram, it is still necessary to get rid of anonymity, because anonymity gives rise to all these defamatory dirty wars and everything that is inherent to the politics of Ukraine. 

That is, we have competition, for example informational competition, you understand this very well. It is not through a discussion about what is better, but through a discussion about who is dirty, who is bad, who to compromise, who to pour some selected non-existent fake information. And this anonymity just makes it possible to scale it, and therefore it would be desirable in the Telegram segment, if it will still be used as such a powerful media platform.  

And today we see that there are many Telegram accounts that have a million or two subscribers, well, that is, a large audience. But it would be desirable that there should be no anonymity, that they should be, let's say, registered as editors that the structure of the owners is clear, that the editorial policy is clear, and so on.  

So that there are opportunities for influence if these or other key regulatory acts are violated. Well, for example, there is the distribution of pornography or the distribution of some other discrediting materials. This is the first. Second, why only Telegram? No, I believe that it is necessary to follow this path on all networks, but while, for example, ? has a representative office in Ukraine, at least you can talk to them from the point of view of regulatory actions within the framework of social networks, I mean Facebook, right, then with Telegram, there is no presence at all, there is no one to talk to and there is no possibility to influence and restrict. For example, there are some criminal pages there, even pages that distribute drugs or something else. So, it is definitely necessary to introduce some regulatory acts from this point of view.  

From the point of view of limiting freedom of speech, well, that's not so. Freedom of speech cannot be limited today, taking into account the time we live in, we live in the information age today. There are many opportunities to function again. And this is nonsense. Through the restrictions we see that Russia... 

New sites just appear.  

Absolutely [he wipes something off from his lips]. You are absolutely right. It is nonsense to try to ban something, to introduce some kind of censorship and so on. It does not work. But I emphasise once again, on the contrary, it seems to me that the regulation should go along the path of deanonymisation. Well, that is, there should be no anonymity. For example, you work under your last name, that is, you are responsible for what you do. And this is the right approach. Then you can always say, look, this is a violation of such and such legislation, please take responsibility for it. And you are ready for it.  

But if the anonymous Telegram channel, for example, will pour dirt on you, then through whom will you work with this? Well, that is, how will you get rid of these negative fakes, and therefore, of course, there must be certain regulation, and it exists in European countries. That is, if we are talking about the media component, then there must definitely be certain regulations here, rules, and I emphasise once again that there should be no anonymity. Let's look again at this draft law, let's see how it will be discussed, what amendments it will have and what it will be in the end, already at the exit to the vote. But once again, anonymity is evil.  

38:40 Well, finally about information policy in general [Podolyak touches his forehead as if he has a headache. He then proceeds to touch his lips and looks at his hand. He's restless today]. Arestovych, when he was in power, well, close to power, let's say, he was not in power, but he was an adviser. He spoke then that he had to tell some untruth in order to appease everyone, to appease the society and so on.  

What do you think, now it seems to me that Ukrainian society has matured in these 2 years. Maybe now, well, I don't know, there is a point in correcting the information policy, to make it tougher, more, well, let's say in short, today there is no need to reassure anyone [Mykhailo wants to interrupt]. It is possible to speak as with adult. It is already necessary.  

Well, first of all, anyone can say how he worked. This is his specific position; did he reassure or was he lying and so on. Let's say this, accordingly, we have a normal information policy in general. Yes, there are certain nuances, we need to constantly work on it. It is not a question of whether it is tougher or more reassuring to speak, it is a question of objective information. But if we continue to depress ourselves, that is, to speak that everything is lost. Is that good? No. Especially since it doesn't correspond to reality.  

Nobody today, and let's take President Zelenskyy and other representatives of state institutions. He doesn't say, they don't say that everything is hurray, everything is very good at us, there are no problems, there is nothing to solve, everything is well in relations with our partners, they understand absolutely clearly how many weapons we need, and we don't need to work with them any longer. And that on the front line, everything is just great. It's not like that.  

Look, a discussion cannot be built only on negative or only on positive. This has never existed and didn't exist from the start. But at the beginning, at the beginning of the war, well... You know, everyone thought that Russia was invincible, let me remind you, that it is impossible to fight with it at all, and if then in the first months of the year we had said that oh, we were attacked by such a powerful country and we have no chance to resist, well, in principle, this would quickly have led to a psychological coma. Well, that is, to a psychological pit, you can say.  

No, Ukraine resisted. Today, absolutely exactly the same way, Ukraine understands: here we say more complicated things, here there are problems, the same drones, they need to be increased, military production needs to be increased, mobilisation, there are difficult issues, see, the Ministry of Defence constantly communicates that there are problems, ТЦК, there are problems, Syrskyi says that they conducted an audit, who is where. That is, difficult issues are being discussed. The issue of corruption is being discussed at different levels. The issue of certain relations between law enforcement agencies and businesses is being discussed.  

Is everything functioning ideally? No. Definitely not. Not only in Ukraine, in any state it is not ideal. But again, I don't quite understand what the tonality is. That is, everyone works in that tonality that he is comfortable with. Well, look, I feel comfortable answering any questions. Why? Because I believe that if you are deeply immersed in the problem, then you should answer difficult questions, simple questions, well, that's your job. If you don't feel yourself comfortable with questions, then it is better not to answer any questions and you may not communicate at all. That is, it all needs to be learnt.  

Look, our energy experts. They go and talk about complex issues. The same Mr Kudrytskyi, well, he's just a great conversationalist. He does not say that everything is great, or vice versa, everything is gone. He says, yes, there are problems here, we will solve them in such a way. Yes, these problems may drag on for a week or two, but we will solve them, there will be no blackouts and so on. But he does not say that everything is great, we are simply fantastic people and so on, we control everything. He says that this is work.  

The same Mr Syrskyi comes out today and says, yes, there are questions regarding, for example, the provision of shells, yes, the shell famine has not disappeared, the shortage has not disappeared, everything related to logistics we are trying to correct it, everything related to rotation, yes, today, accordingly, there are already rotational, let's say decisions that allow you to change these or other brigades.  

That's all correct communication. It cannot be only positive or only negative. It can be more or less objective. But through whom does it go? This is already subjectivisation. Someone is more optimistic; someone is less optimistic. This is subjective interpretation of this or that fact. Look, the president changes the rhetoric periodically, I change the rhetoric periodically, well, that is, it is tougher somewhere, less tough somewhere. Some cannot rebuild so quickly. But I emphasise once again, in Ukraine there is no such thing as wow, everything is only good, or wow, everything is bad, we have already lost.  

45:35 You are sometimes blamed for the fact that from time to time you give interviews to Russian opposition journalists. Why do you do it and what motives are you guided by? 

[Sighs deeply] Well, audience expansion. Well, let's be honest. It's a global media space. If you're not there... I also work with foreign journalists, as well as foreign media platforms and with certain, I emphasise, certain Russian opposition platforms that work for the Russian environment, that is for people who otherwise have a different vision of where the Russian Federation should go. Also, the Russian Federation that takes an anti-war position, an anti-Putin position.  

Well, let's isolate ourselves from everyone and work exclusively for the Ukrainian audience. Well, that's nonsense. We need to scale our positions, we need to scale our narratives, let's put it this way. We need to talk about why Russia looks worthless, including in the environment that in this way or another speaks Russian. This is work. It does not mean that we support or not support someone. No. We just have to not allow certain niches to be occupied, that means the English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, French-speaking, Russian-speaking niche occupied exclusively by Russian propaganda. That's obvious.  

Well, look, Russia constantly invests a huge amount of money in propaganda in various markets. That is, it uses, for example, the Russian language for active work with Russian speakers in former Soviet space. Well, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Tatarstan, well, Tatarstan is still the territory of the Russian Federation [smiles], but meanwhile. Uzbekistan. Well, many countries. Plus, Russian emigrants who are in the territory of European countries.  

On the other hand, Russia invested a huge amount of money for the creation of this network that works in English, French, Spanish languages, in the countries of the Global South, including Europe. Well, let's not work with all this. That is, we need to use tools. Look, if you are responsible for certain directions, you have to use any tools. That's not a question of my personal attitude.  

I have a very radical attitude towards the Russian opposition. By the way, this seems obvious to me. I believe that the classical opposition in incapable, except for the Freedom of Russia Legion and other paramilitary structures. I believe that these are rather dissident movements, they do not systematically influence what is happening in Russia. They do not have an extensive infrastructural network that would allow riots to start in the Russian Federation at one point or another.  

But meanwhile, this does not mean that I do not have the opportunity or the right to use a tool called platforms in order to scale our position. This is obvious. And once again, self-isolation is always a limitation of oneself from the point of view of the influences that you can exert on a certain audience. 

[summeroffice]

Interview with Natalia Vlaschenko in a restaurant called Prague (Ресторан «ПРАГА»)

3:48 Conspiracy theories are of course an interesting science. When you lack intelligence, you always use conspiracy theories to explain something you don't understand. It's like before, right, they believed that lightning is of divine origin. In exactly the same way now conspiracy theories allow you to replace the reluctance to learn, the reluctance to read literature, conduct analysis work and so on. We will not get rid of it anywhere.

12:43 Mykhailo, forgive me [she's using the informal form] for interrupting, but what makes people decisive in general? When shells start exploding right outside the window, or when someone is already knocking on the door?

A simple example. You are walking on the street and a group of gopniks attacks a girl. How many men who are walking down the street at this time will want to intervene in the conflict?

One out of ten.

It's a very large number. Yes, one in a hundred. This is a determined person. This is the problem of the world. And god forbid this girl is lucky if this man in one of a hundred is passing by at this moment in the gopnik attempt to exert an aggressive influence on her. The world is very simple. Mathematically, it's counted exactly. Decisive people are a few. 1, 2, 3 per cent.

The United States is exactly that man?

[Sighs deeply] The United States is the man who waits and compares for himself, should I really intervene? But the United States is one of those men who can still intervene, unlike many other countries which, in principle… You know, there's also a paradox in that as a rule, the person who intervenes does not always know martial arts. But he intervenes. But nearby there is a person who is brilliant at this, he will turn away and step aside. This is the paradox.

24:11 My least favourite Musk compared to them [Russian entrepreneurs] is a genius. Fundamental genius of the 21st century who really added to humanity--

He really did do something, yes.

-- a lot of new technologies. Who is Мельниченко? A subject sitting on raw materials.

25:20 To try and to help, there's a fundamental difference. Trying does not mean wanting to help. Trying means creating the illusion.

To promise means to marry?

Of course.

29:22 Values of democracy is in fact the middle class. The middle class in the world. Not the elite class but the middle class. For them, the values of democracy are all based on this. And in general, the world holds on because there is a middle class for which the words 'competition' and 'freedom' have a specific definition, very important, personal. For the sake of this, they will give everything. They're just not as influential as the elite.

30:09 But the decision is made by the elite nevertheless. Here I can't help but ask you what you think of, I don't know, about the intellectual level and patriotism and many other qualities of the Ukrainian elite today. To what extent are they ready to bear responsibility for everything that happens, happened?

Individual representatives of the elite are ready to bear responsibility corresponding to the status that they occupy. Individual, I emphasise. The bulk… We see many manifestations of corruption, don't we? Well, this is probably not from a great mind. Corruption is not from the mind, corruption comes from an internal lack of education. And the elite is poorly educated, little intellectually, ours, low intellectual, not competitive internally, not ready to discuss seriously, not ready to discuss painful topics with society. It has been like that 22, how many, 33 years practically. And it's not becoming different. It can become different if society puts pressure on it. But it doesn't put pressure on it due to hate, the jackal express.

31:28 It's impossible to stop the nightmare on social networks when you don't have the competence to dicuss professionally. Then you replace it with emotions, aggression. That is, aggression appears when you lack enough competence to place emphasis right, in order to conduct a quality dialogue in order to dominate in this dialogue. This is the most difficult thing, well, to be so deeply immersed in the problem so as not to say that you're a fool because you are a fool, but to clearly explain why you are weak in assessing this or that phenomenon.

This is a common problem but the problem of our elite is that they consider themselves chosen by God due to the fact of belonging to the elite. And accordingly, they consider that like any subject chosen by God they have the right to rob, plunder, corrupt, talk nonsense, suffer from populism and so on and so forth. Not be responsible for wrong decisions, after some time return to your career, have no reputation and so on. This is the problem.

And it stems from two main factors. The first is the unwillingness to learn, unwillingness to be an intellectual, the unwillingness to look at oneself critically. And the second is upbringing. Family, parents, environment, it's all exactly the same. Well, he can't grow up to be a quality person if he has brilliant parents who give him the opportunity to be internally free.

We are now moving on to what a family is. But a person, if the parents understand, who, if they see I [the child's self], well, as soon as the child appears, they already see I in him, they talk to him as equals, they do not try to put their painful feelings into him, they give him the opportunity to comprehend the world by conducting a dialogue with him.

And at the same time they show an appropriate example: if dad steals, then the son will also steal. If mom tolerates it, then the daughter will also tolerate theft as such. It's all continuity. Yes, sometimes in families there are renegades in the good sense of the word, children who are superior in moral qualities to their relatives, and the world is built on them. The quantity must be critical in here. Then the practice and theory of politics as such will change.

34:42 What do you think, should the state give some signals to society that this is a value, but this is not a value, and this is generally unacceptable, for example?

It should. In ideal design. But we are now going through the path of creating a state. And so far, there are no rules. The society radically wants to immediately get the most effective product called the state as institutions. Well, the state is institutions. But the society itself is not ready to say the rules that build it.

Well, someone should be the first in this sense.

Try. Try. Try to come up with an unpopular proposal. That we should be tolerant of this, or on the contrary, we should be tough on this. And look at society's reaction. The society always wants to immediately get the ideal thing.

So are you saying that now is not the time to formulate new--

No, it's time to formulate and they must be formulated and live through a certain period of hate and conflict. If they survive, then they are important for the society. If the society hates it and it turns into an anarchy, a chaotic process, then the state will always look fluid. Well, it will always be changeable. It will always try to make changes to the constitution as I call it. Because for some reason immature people believe that if we fix something in the constitution it will necessarily be effective.

They don't understand that the main thing is an internal pact. A social pact. Spoken, but not written down. And when society and the state as institutions are synchronised in this pact, then everything works and then, of course, you can make 12 points of the constitution, add a few more bills that will regulate certain key areas of freedom, for example, entrepreneurship or freedom of speech or religion, and so on. But we have not yet come to this point.

36:58 I have another question. What is a state? Who? Who forms the state today? The fact is that in young societies, a person always tries to sell his self. When people start to clean up their self and understand what's important. This is a collective agreement where your self should be one of others, and not dominant and your self should not necessarily be the main one, and so on, then it will be formed. Unfortunately for us, self is sold, narcissism is sold too brightly: I know everything. I understand, I'll do what's necessary, and you either listen or…

That's the problem of young societies. Namely young ones, because in mature societies, the self is already in the background, and in the first place is collective agreement. First we agreed on the rules, and then you, within these rules, realise your self. At our place, on the contrary, everyone is trying to realise their self the way they understand the world.

I emphasise once again. What is a state? It is a reflection of the society. But people do not appear in the positions of deputy ministers, head of the management, I don't know, throughout the entire vertical of the state. They don't appear from nohwere. Deputies do not appear from nowhere. They are the children of this society. Therefore I explain: you are fighting with the state, that is, with the children whom you gave birth to. I understand that you want to follow the path of Jupiter, the one who should devour his children, but think. What about your other children? Are they not like this? And then ask yourself a question. Why do your children behave in such a way? What did you do wrong? And then lead the dialogue in a different way.

Because if society always tries to put its own self in the foreground, then the state tries to put its own self in the foreground and the problem of no agreement appears. And it will be there for some time. Now the war makes it possible to rethink it all. But again, how? For now I see aggression, mutual aggression. You are to blame for this. You are to blame for that. I'll take corruption out of this. Corruption is all clear. But again, it seems to me that until the law enforcement system-- This is the simplest thing that can be done. Until the law enforcement system starts to think--

40:46 I like Umierov. We know each other well, to put it mildly. He's a strong-willed person. Well, let's see.

Yes, I've been told that he's a very strong-willed, tough person.

I really like strong-willed tough people who fundamentally adhere to a certain position. He definitely adheres to a certain position, but we are talking about the question that indicatively yes, the role of the individual in history is always important, but on the other hand, institutions. Institutions first of all. Because tens of thousands of people work in a system that gives temptations. Can he keep this system under control so that at different levels these temptations are stopped and unrealised?

I will return to the law eneforcement system so that it is clear. What is our problem? Our problem is that law enforcement officers think a little differently than we would like them to think. On the one hand, we have carte blanche, we can take any person under white hands and then we will either put him in prison for 10 years, or we'll get something that will provide us with a high level of personal income. And secondly, when they think, we'll take this person, and then they realise that there is no reputational capital in the country and tomorrow this person can - we know dozens of such examples - after he was accused, absolutely thoroughly accused of corruption, in a year or two or three he can again make career as a minister. And the law enforcement officer thinks, why should I punish as cruelly as possible today, tomorrow these people can come to power but I want to stay. That's the problem.

The problem is not being ready to go to the end. Remember at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, an interesting Italian film "Octopus" [perhaps TV series, La piovra, 1984], 12 prosecutors of the Republic practically tore it apart, yes, not completely, but tore up the Italian mafia. The film is definitely a fairy tale but nevertheless--

There is a real example of this Romanian prosecutor…

Certainly. Laura Kövesi. So it can be solved. The question is, personally, do you want to solve it? Having achieved a certain social status or career status, personally you? What do you prioritise? The quality of life of your family, the quality of your personal life or the implementation of some fundamental point? And we move on to decisive people, everything is the same. One out of a thousand decides for himself that values are more important.

43:20 You are an informed person from the point of view of how exactly people are selected by state bodies for political appointments and so on. According to what principles from your point of view, what is important for the assignment of a person during the war?

Two things. Sincerity from the point of view that you understand that people behind pay a high price, you understand, and you want to pay the same price as they do. It doesn't matter where. Someone gives the last, someone gives their son who goes to fight and so on. And the second is functionality. Well, that is, you should not assume that a minister is from God, the specialty given by God. You must be functional. Two things: sincerity and functionality. Other things don't matter.

Well, professionalism can be assessed in some way, I understand this. But sincerity, this is somehow ephemeral.

Well, look. Declarations are not public, are they? [smiles]. Look at how well he matches his intellectual potential because the level of life in which he is, has he surely earned it all? And that's it. Public declaration is a very important parameter. This speaks of the honesty. Our political elite, unfortunately not only are they often incompetent, not only are they often cowardly, not only are they often not ready to take responsibility, they are also not honest, absolutely definitely. They do not correspond to the level of profitability that they try to hide. Their quality as an intellectual, professional and so on. Everything is very simple. The world has already gone through all this.

You can also say, Mykhailo, that people correspond to the situations in which they find themselves. People are very plastic in this sense. How much space they're allowed to take, as much they take. Both in good and bad sense of the word. Perhaps it's necessary to change this Procrustean bed a little.

Two technologies. Either you invest in external factors, discipline people, then tough laws, tough anti-corruption actions, ineffective but real, Laura, who will really break everyone and at the same time she herself will look like a person who breaks everyone and doesn't make money out of it. Or internal. Barriers that you build for yourself.

For me internal barriers are much more significant because they definitely say that a person is mature. The person understands the limitations that he imposes on himself. You are the only one who can determine who you are. And you can provide yourself with an understanding of how you should live further. If inside you are ready to steal while another person dies for 18 months on the battlefield, no Laura will do anything for you. You will find the opportunity to steal because you want to do it inside.

46:24 Unfortunately, the war showed that there are a lot of people who help the army and a lot of people who make money from this like mad.

Yes, and then? Did you not know this about Ukraine [he uses the polite form]? That's exactly what Ukraine looks like today.

It seemed to me that blood should be an obstacle to many things.

No, blood is not an obstacle if it's not your own. Someone else's blood is common. It's nothing like that. That's what I'm talking about. You must understand that someone else's blood is the same as yours, but few of those who are ready to rob consider someone else's blood as their own. This is not so. It's fiction. Again, delusion. Unfortunately, blood does not stop people from having a twisted worldview. On the contrary, it encourages.

I will say what the problem was even at the beginning of the war. Why then were laid down those fundamental internal mental disorders that today give such a rapid harvest of corruption as such. People didn't believe that Ukraine will hold on. Many who were in certain positions, at first they were shocked and frightened for several months and then they started to think, it will fall anyway, everything will be written off later, but we at this time will earn money. No matter what. And we will take them out illegally. That's exactly how people thought. What was supposed to stop them? Blood? That there's someone dying there? Why would he? What does this have to do with other people's blood?

That's what, I emphasise once again, is the problem of Ukraine. For 30 years it was structured, as you said, negative selective selection. That is, you should be as disgusting as possible in order to make a high-quality career.

55:42 Blitz. Very short. Will you go to the next elections? If yes, then with whom? If not, then why?

I am not pursuing a political career. I work in the president's team. If the president needs help, we will help. If not, I don't see a niche for entering the political process as such. Perhaps this will change. I'm not ready to say now. Perhaps this will change, perhaps it will be necessary to take part in the formation of new rules. Perhaps. But right now I'm not ready to talk about it yet because personally for me there is no purpose to make a political career.

We just discussed that you go jogging almost every day. If you are very tired, what can make you skip a jog?

Nothing. There is no reason why you should abandon the rules accepted for yourself personally. This is self-discipline. If you have decided that it is necessary to work physically to some extent or intellectually by reading literature, you must do it. It is a matter of will, determination. If you give yourself an indulgence, then why don’t you give others an indulgence?

If you have a choice to sit with friends or read a book.

I sometimes do it so that I sit with friends and read a book at the same time.

Is it not interesting with friends? [They're speaking at the same time so it's difficult to make it out]

I am getting distracted by them, yes. No, it happens imperceptibly when many friends are having a lively discussion, you can always read with one eye and and listen with one eye. Well, or listen with one ear and read with one eye.

The last time when was it scary, really?

[Sighs] It's always scary, basically, because the country, well, the country is in a difficult situation. And it means that the family is in a difficult situation, not only mine and so on. The question is, how much can you control the fear. Fear is a good emotion.

With the help of what methodologies? I have my own methods to control fear. What methods do you have to control your fear?

I control everything, all emotions by understanding these emotions. I don't need technology. I just give a report: are there risks? Yes. Are the risks increasing? Yes, they're increasing. Or vice versa, decreasing. And accordingly, can you do something to reduce these risks? If you can, do it. Lay out in components any problem, including emotion. Therefore, in principle, there's nothing difficult in this.

How do you imagine Ukraine in the future? Your personal opinion? Monocultural nation-state or multicultural nation-state?

If you want to be integrated into the global space, you will be multicultural in any case. If you want to have open borders, if you want to dominate the cultural space, well, in some cultural space, if you want to have a competitive cultural product, you will be multicultural objectively. You will use any linguistic forms for conveying a valuable product about yourself. It is a very important parameter. Once again, I am calm about these discussions today including around language, culture, and so on, because this is a question of a young nation. It is looking for its own subjectivity.

The world no longer has such discussions.

The world no longer has them but we are young. And accordingly, in many countries that were formed during the collapse of the USSR, including in Eastern Europe, there are still echoes of these discussions about who we are, what we are, what we give to the competitive world. Ukraine is simply going through this stage, and at some point it will understand that the main thing is the content part. To promote the content you need to use all possible tools. You must dominate the world to be heard. And you can dominate the world if you use, for example, the French language in a francophone environment. The main thing is the quality of the product.

One lawyer whom I know, she says that in the fight with the enemy, ? of the enemy is not important, but your successes are.

In the fight against the enemy the main thing is dominance. Intellectual dominance, physical dominance. Then the enemy at some point will realise that you are much stronger and will subconsciously be afraid of you.

1:01:00 Two more questions. How often do you communicate with Andriy Yermak now and have your relations undergone any changes during the war, during this year and a half?

No, we communicate regularly, certainly as before, trusting relationship, absolutely work-related--

Perhaps you have become friends, perhaps something else. When people communicate, these relationships still somehow…

I don't think that in adulthood you can form a new circle of friends as such. I generally have a neutral, cold attitude towards everything. Functionally.

If you [she uses the polite form] were released for three days or a day in any period of history in any country, just for an excursion, just to be in this, so to speak, environment, sometimes Hollywood directors love these plots, what would you choose? What time, what country, what period?

1930s in the United States. The Great Depression. Well, or the end of the 1920s.

It was very dangerous. But where would you go? Bootlegging mafia or somewhere else?

Yes, interesting would be to understand-- The stock exchange. In the moment when the bulk of unsuccessful traders where thrown out of the windows with securities. To see in reality, this feeling of dying and coming to life at the same time, that is when you understand that everything is over and at the same time you understand that everything is just beginning.

We are living in a time like this.

Exactly. To compare. To compare and realise and then come here with additional experience to show here that all that died means the beginning of what is going to be tomorrow.

[summeroffice]

Interview with Наталья Влащенко

0:15 Mykhailo, the last time I saw you was before the war. I want to ask you, how do you feel? It's definitely not easier. It is not easier, on the contrary, much more difficult. Because people want to have a planning horizon certain. They want to understand when and how it will be finalised. Then they will be able to plan their personal lives specifically. Today, there's uncertainty and it is very difficult because your relatives may be on one side or another or abroad. Well, if they left, I mean wives, children and so on. Or they may be on the front line where the situation is very difficult. On the other side you don't understand if you will be able to make a career. What will happen to Ukraine?

14:19 Mykhailo, how to make it so that intelligence would sell better than the feeling of hate? Generation. First, second, third. It's a change that happens gradually. It is when people do not live by annual plans or for a month, it is when the institute of reputation appears and when the strategy for 10, 15, 20 years appears who we want to be.

32:14 It is very important to understand that if you want to speak on behalf of Ukraine, you must be deep in topic. You must create the impression of a highly intellectual elite in Ukraine. You have to create such an impression that they want to communicate with you, they want to believe you, and most importantly, they want to have a partnership or even a friendly relationship with you.

35:04 Power is about responsibility for ideas and about the operational capacity of ideas. Can you just say we can do something or do you really see the logistical possibility to do it?

39:53 If you will invest in your intelligence, in the development of your mind, then you will be able to control the processes and make the right choice, and when the right emotions, which should be given by parents, will be added to the mind, the cold mind.

40:14 The Mykhailo Podolyak that first came to the Office of the President, and the Mykhailo Podolyak that is now sitting before me, what's the difference between them? We change every day. If a person wants to develop…

How have you changed [There are no subtitles; I don't really understand]? Tougher probably and more sensitive on the other hand to [make?] human right actions. I believe that we have to speak right here and now right or wrong and not mask our real emotions. This is the greatest freedom for you if you can allow yourself to be who you are and give characteristics to other people and they will accept it because they will understand that you are objective. And today I can afford it because I saw many people in extremely extreme conditions and saw who they are. And many of them shocked me with the quality of their human qualities.

41:53 You are very lucky. It is a stellar time because you are so lucky to have seen many people who are the stars of world politics. Not only the president of Ukraine, not only Yermak but also world leaders. Who impressed you the most? Let's not talk about Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team but about those people whom you saw for the first time in Ukraine.

I was much more impressed by simple people. Our people. You know, to come here for a day or two and say something… Many of my friends from Lithuania or Estonia or Latvia take a very strong pro-Ukrainian position, they say a lot but they are in Lithuania and in Estonia and in Latvia but the people who were here in the first hours of the war are impressive. They made certain decisions for themselves to go to the east of Ukraine or to the north of Ukraine or to the south of Ukraine and actively work. Only a few know the names of these people. They are not stars of the world media but they are the real stars of this stage of the historical development of humanity because everything depends on such people.

I will tell you that I called many people in the first days and people picked up the phone 24 hours a day, they took on many more functions, including in this building, people who held the position of department directors or consultants there even, they took on many functions that are not theirs and performed them and none of them ever today says that look, we're heroes. No, they continue to perform certain functions. This is for me, these people are all…

You know, when I came here on the first day. Well, when the large-scale invasion had already begun on the 24th. It was in the morning, around 6:30, I was a little slow because everyone was leaving the city and it was difficult to leave in the oncoming lane, they were also driving. I had no doubt what kind of president I'll see, knowing his psychology, but I had certain doubts about whether there were many such people. There are so many people like this in Ukraine, and this is the key to this war. And if I have to write a book about them, I will definitely write it.

Because to write about Boris Johnson, for example, he is public and everyone has seen it and everyone has seen the pattern of his behaviour, everyone has seen what he says, or about Andrzej Duda, for example, and so on, it's all obvious, or about Emmanuel Macron. We can talk about it because it's public and everyone saw it. These people are famous. But many more opportunities for Ukraine were given by those people about whom few people know. There is a need to write about them, how they made decisions, how they were ready to go there or to another place, how did they take responsibility personally, I especially emphasise the first three months of the war.

45:32 Did you have a few minutes a day for this place? [I can't understand what it may mean] It's not my type. My type is quite pragmatic, I really like it when they say that you can recruit these people for money. I really like it, it's just that people don't know the type of my character at all. It is we who can recruit whomever we need. And it can't be pragmatic because you either do the work or say, that's it, I won't go any further.

46:51 You are saying that If you set certain tasks for yourself, then in principle you close the door for feelings, emotions, until you finish, no emotions, right? What tasks do you set for yourself as an adviser to the president all these months? Quite simple tasks. One voice that should still be among these or other state institutions, this is very important because it was easy enough to work in the first months and it is quite difficult today because there are many of those who voice their own self in their comments on behalf of the state.

49:18 How many times did you change the location of where you spent the night? Constantly, and we won't discuss it. [He smiles]

49:27 When does your working day begin? To be honest, I don't even know when it ends. It's one big working day, a marathon. The only news [?] I have is that the marathon is going on, I'm saying this with irony, from the 24th 7:30 in the morning. But if we speak directly according to the schedule, well, from 7 in the morning as a rule until 10, 11, 12 [I guess 22, 23, 24].

49: 52 How often do you communicate with the president and Andriy Yermak? Constantly. It's work after all.

Every day? Well, the president and Mr. Yermak belong to the category of people who want to know the details, they want to be in operational information. You have to constantly communicate, you have to constantly answer certain questions and you have to constantly demonstrate understanding of these issues, they need it as expert evaluations.

50:18 How has the president changed? Explain in simple words.

52:10 Which book by which Ukrainian writer has made an impression on you lately? It's a bit difficult because I prefer to read classic literature or literature that…

All right, what are you reading right now? Do you have time to read? I definitely have time to read. Right now almost everything related to fantasy probably.

Is it your favourite genre? No, no. You're asking about now. I attempt to go to some, you know, illusory worlds to understand what people can think about this when we live in a fantastic time when the historical process as such is changing.

54:48 What about your personal taboo? What is not acceptable for you absolutely? Insincerity of people. Narcissism of people, insincerity, outright lies, anonymity.

55:03 Your friend, as I understand, Mr Arestovych, some people consider him a narcissist, some people consider him ironic. He's an ironic person. He played an absolutely positive role in the first half or even two thirds of the war, of course then the space was saturated with various speakers and certain nuances in his work occurred, but I emphasise once again that I treat the work that he did with great respect…

Do you continue to communicate with him? Definitely. I don't see… Again, when you speak about taboo, I said, insincerity is not possible. If you communicate with a person and you like him, then you are what you should be regardless of who he is, what status he has, and so on. Either you say that you are not a sincere person and you use people. I don't belong to the category of people, I don't like it when people behave like that. Either you clearly and concretely refer to a person or not. And Mr. Arestovych, I say once again, I want to fix it, I regard with great respect because of the very, very huge volume of work he performed in the first months of the war, had a very positive effect on public sentiment, and this is important.

56:32 Gratitude is a good human quality. I don't expect gratitude, I expect something different, professionalism from everyone. Please do your work professionally if you want to be thanked, please whoever can do it. But don't expect it. Just do the job.

58:05 The dictatorship of the law or the dictatorship of opinion? The dictatorship of the law. Definitely.

58:14 What is useless to ask you? I don't even know. You can ask everything, question is whether you get an answer.

58:29 Will you ever write a book about what you felt during the war and what happened to you that you can't tell about now? Well, it's not even discussed [it's settled]. We will definitely do it and in such a thriller style that it will be interesting to many people.

Do you like thrillers? Yes, of course.

58:51 Have you ever been jealous of anyone? No. It's normal. I'm not saying that envy is bad but it's just that in our country, unfortunately, everything boils down to envy with a negative context. But I don't, I think that if a person is successful, then on the contrary, you should say, you're cool. And if… Well, how does it prevent you from becoming… I just don't understand, what should prevent you from becoming like that, or even taking the first place and not the second, third, fourth. It's normal.

It's just talk but human nature, you know, is like Mozart and Salieri, do you understand? It's not so, it's not so, not everything is like that. It's slightly different. If you are self-confident and if you are ready to invest in yourself, I always say, if you are ready to spend time, effort and become someone else then you're successful because you understand why you do it. But if you want to sit on the couch and be told that look, you're a genius. Well, it doesn't work this way. And then you start to envy because someone runs and invests in himself. Competition is a cool thing. If you're a talent, then in any case it will be in demand.

1:01:36 What will you do after the war? Do you think about it or maybe you know it? Will you go to politics? Well, because you are involved in politics and you are ready for politics? It is definitely of little interest to me because politics is a slightly different composition and type of character, and as for what we will do, we know what we will do. We will not do anything except for remembering all the people, we will have to engrave all those who paid the price so that we could talk to you. And it's not one day, it's not two days, it's not three days. This is the time to visit the families of people who have lost their loved ones.

So you will stay in the game. And you do not have such a thing that when the surrender is signed, you will get on a yacht and go somewhere for a year? I will get into my car, my personal car and drive to other addresses in Ukraine. And by this I mean, we will have to look at everything that we freed, talk to people who lost their loved ones because of stress or who survived the occupation and it will be necessary to record all this. Because when you talk about a book, the emotion must be right in the book or in your memories of what happened, and in order for you to be correct you have to communicate with everyone, you have to feel that nerve of loss to the end, we have to hear it at the end, and not again, I'll repeat, how great we are. Great are those who today pay the maximum price.