It is difficult, if not impossible, to find an official in the current Ukrainian government who would have a more controversial image than Andriy Yermak, the head of the President's Office. Opponents usually complain that Yermak has very high powers and often has more influence on the formation of state policy than relevant ministers.
Andriy Yermak is also extremely active in the field of foreign policy. Contacts with the White House, "peace summits", presidential negotiations are just some of the topics where his de facto role is key. And although this does not raise any objections among Ukraine's partners (Western diplomats repeat that they are ready to work with anyone whom the president chooses), many issues have arisen in society, which "European truth» decided to ask the head of the OPU.
We also advise you to watch the video of the conversation, in which there is no shortage of sharp questions. And we hope that Andriy Yermak will also give an interview to the Ukrainian mass media on controversial issues of domestic politics.
And for those who prefer reading, "EP" also publishes a more concise text version of the interview.
"The chief diplomat of the country is the president"
- Why do you think I came to you to talk about foreign policy?
- I think you see that many events are connected with the President of Ukraine and, accordingly, with the Office of the President. I think your interest in today's conversation is related to this.
- I have no doubt that you know: there are questions in society, why the head of the President's Office deals so much with foreign policy.
- I will say this: in many countries, for example in the USA, presidents delegate a lot of issues to advisers on national security or foreign policy. This format has traditionally not been used much in our country.
Today, many such functions are performed by the Office of the President of Ukraine.
No one will argue that President Volodymyr Zelenskyi is the main diplomat of the country. Therefore, as the head of the President's Office, I take care of this while fulfilling the President's mandate.
In this sense, I work as a national security adviser – as a colleague of Jake Sullivan from the US, Jens Plötner from Germany, etc.
- So, maybe we should change the legislation, introduce such a position and write that it is held by the head of the Office or a deputy?
- It is not my authority to change legislation or even take legislative initiatives.
And now, when the war is going on, the most important thing is to achieve a result. And the main result is victory, a just peace, the restoration of territorial integrity, security guarantees against future attacks, and the return of our people.
In short, today there are more important issues.
- And what is the division of powers between you and the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba?
- First of all, I want to say that we have very good relations with Minister Dmytro Kuleba and with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in general.
But we must not forget that the big machine of the aggressor country is working against us. In every country of the world, especially in the so-called Global South, they have many agents of influence – both in diplomacy, and in the media, and those who communicate with regional elites.
Traditional diplomacy has its limits in confronting this machine.
I see no problem with the separation of powers between us. It's a collaborative effort. And I repeat: the main diplomat of the country is the president.
- You say that you do not interfere with the powers of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And where is the limit? What does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the minister do, and where do your tasks begin?
- My authority ends where the president's mandate ends.
- And they are very different.
- And they are different. And this is teamwork.
By the way, if you followed the president's last visit to the USA, his successful part was not only a trip to Washington, but also to the state of Utah, where he had a meeting, including with many US governors.
And one of them is Tim Walz - became a candidate for vice president, Kamala Harris.
"Trump understands what kind of war this is, America will support Ukraine"
- Since we have already moved on to the issue of the United States, it is logical to ask. Are you communicating with candidate Trump's headquarters?
- We communicate with both parties. We greatly appreciate the support of the entire American people and bipartisan support in Congress.
And of course, today we are working with the entourage, with the headquarters of both candidate Donald Trump and the candidate from the Democratic Party, Vice President Kamala Harris.
- You have already mentioned meeting Tim Walz. Are you familiar with JD Vance, Trump's vice-presidential candidate?
- No. We are not familiar with him.
But you know that President Zelenskyi started working when Trump was president. And you know, there was a recent telephone conversation between Zelensky and Trump. She was very warm.
And the president had the opportunity to tell Donald Trump about what is happening in Ukraine, about this war. And I think he listened to it with great attention.
This conversation demonstrated good relations and great respect that Donald Trump has for Ukraine, for our president.
Elections in the United States are the business of the American people. But it is very important for us that both headquarters, both candidates, people around them clearly understand what is happening in Ukraine. They clearly understood the stage of the war, they clearly understood our strategy.
And it is very important that both candidates really have a plan for Ukrainian victory and a strategy, I emphasize, for victory.
- They say that Donald Trump even told President Zelensky not to listen to stories about his willingness to give in to Putin.
- Yes, he said that. That it is not necessary to pay attention to the fake news that appears about it. That he clearly understands what kind of war it is, and that America has supported and will support Ukraine. And this is very important.
- Will Donald Trump come to Ukraine during the election campaign?
- I don't know and I think it will be difficult, but he has such an invitation.
- Is it realistic that in case of victory he will come to us even before the inauguration?
- There are more chances here, and this applies to any candidate who wins. It seems to me, and there are arguments for this, that supporting Ukraine is the most successful American investment in recent years.
- I can't help but ask about the difference between the vice presidential candidates. There is Tim Volz, who understands that Ukraine must win, says it publicly, supports us. And there is JD Vance, who operates with theses that are beneficial to Russia.
- We understand that these are different people, but we need to work, we need to change this position.
And from what I've seen in the media in recent days, even JD Vance's rhetoric is changing.
I honestly don't believe that ever (in the future. - EP) the United States can have a president who does not understand what Russia is, and who is ideologically opposed to supporting Ukraine.
Historical changes have already taken place between the USA and Ukraine. We became partners, indeed, we have very powerful alliance relations. And I don't believe that any future president of the United States will be any different.
"There are conditions without which this second Peace Summit cannot take place"
- Let's talk about the end of the war, about the victory of Ukraine. The first Peace Summit was held, and we constantly hear from President Zelensky, from you, that it is necessary to hold the second one, and as soon as possible, already this year. Where are we in a hurry?
- The first summit was inaugural.
It is very important that it was attended by more than 100 countries and international organizations, mostly at the level of leaders. That all these countries were united in their statements regarding Ukrainian independence, territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders, and sovereignty.
Yes, you can say that some countries did not join the final communique. We were ready for this, we knew their position and we continue to work.
As for the second summit: the president insists that
the second summit can take place only when a joint plan is ready.
What is a shared plan?
«Formula of peace" by Zelenskyi of ten points was announced in 2022. But then they were just the names of the points. And after a meeting at the level of national security advisers in Jeddah, a decision was agreed to create here in Kyiv ten working groups at the level of ambassadors and experts, who have already worked on the implementation of each of these points. What is needed to fulfill each item, specific steps and deadlines.
Among the 10 points of the "peace formula" are those on which the world has a common position - we started with them at the first summit.
And there are more difficult ones - such as responsibility, withdrawal of Russian troops, restoration of territorial integrity, etc.
Now the task of the president is to work on the organization of thematic conferences that would record these developments of working groups at a high level - or ministers, or advisers, or, for example, ombudsmen for humanitarian issues, or speakers of parliaments - in order to finally draw up this joint plan.
- After all, the second summit will take place this year?
- Let's see.
We want it to be, but there are conditions without which this second summit cannot take place (in particular, this joint plan must be agreed upon by the countries. - EP).
But, first of all, the second summit should not be treated as a world championship. For example, the meetings of the advisers' relatives are the qualifying stage, the first summit is the semi-final, the second summit is the final, and everything will end there.
Of course, we would really like that, but we are realists.
- So there will be a second "final"?
- It will depend on how many countries will support our plan.
We already saw the potential at the first summit.
Secondly, we clearly understand that there is no point in direct negotiations with countries. This does not give the result that Ukraine needs.
- But there have already been statements that the aggressor country can take part in the second summit!
- I will explain now.
But first, let me emphasize: I hope that working with countries that have not yet joined the communique will lead to their support of our plan. Because it corresponds to what these countries announce publicly! All of them talk about the principles of the UN, about international law, about territorial integrity. And their support is important for putting pressure on the Russian Federation.
As for the participation of the aggressor country.
Indeed, it is possible for a representative of Russia to participate in the second Peace Summit, to whom this plan can be handed over.
But this does not mean the beginning of negotiations with Russia. No, that's not what it's about!
We want even such a meeting at which this plan can be presented, not in the Ukraine-Russia format, but in the presence of all the countries that supported our plan.
- Can Putin be the representative of Russia with whom we are ready to meet?
- I think it is too early to talk about it, who can.
- This means that there is no answer "no" regarding the meeting with Putin. Because earlier it was said that we will not contact him in principle.
- This answer is not given by me, but by the decision of the National Security and Defense Council.
"Ukraine as part of the EU is in China's interest"
- We have already heard from the official representatives of the Russian Federation that Russia will not go to this summit.
- How do you imagine that Russia will say that if there is a representative of China at the second summit, there will be a representative of Brazil and, of course, all the representatives of the countries that were at the first summit?
If even such countries will be present there!
- Very simple. She just won't come there.
- ...You know, if you look at it without emotions, the Ukrainian conditions fully meet the requirements of international law. Ukraine wants nothing more than justice.
The requirements of Ukraine are equal to the conditions of international law. And even the countries that take an incomprehensible position - let's call it that way so as not to offend them - they all say that they want to join, help so that the war ends, so that a just peace comes.
So here's a plan for you!
If you are for territorial integrity, why isn't your signature here, why isn't there your support?
And believe me, no one, or the maximum majority of countries in the world, will be able to tell black and white.
- They can. But I want to ask about this future plan. At the first Peace Summit, we presented only three points of the "peace formula". Do we plan to bring all 9-10 points to the second summit?
- I cannot say this clearly.
But if there is at least a small possibility that the second summit will bring us closer to the end of the war, to a just peace, which means - to avoid any other interpretations - a Ukrainian victory...
Because what is victory? Victory is the restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Victory is security guarantees. Victory is the return of all our people.
Victory is the responsibility of war criminals. Victory means receiving compensation for the restoration of our country. Victory is the return of all Ukrainian children. Victory is a new security structure in Europe, where Ukraine will definitely play one of the leading roles.
- What you say contradicts each other. The way you described the victory is indisputable. But you say that the whole world can unite around these points, including China and Brazil, but this is not so, it is not true.
- For today - yes, I agree.
- The question of punishment of war criminals or payment of reparations unites only half of the participants of the Peace Summit. No one undertakes to draw up a plan for the withdrawal of Russian troops without Russia. And you say that we will draw a plan of victory, under which all states will sign. This is not so!
- I agree with you that not all points have the prospect of being supported by the majority of countries.
But, for example, prosecution does not require the support of all countries. And we understand that some countries will not go for it due to their national and historical issues. This does not mean that they do not support Ukraine, and this should be treated with respect.
And there are main points for which it is very important to have the majority of countries.
For example, when you talk about the withdrawal of troops as a problematic point, I ask: how else to restore territorial integrity? And everyone supports her.
Yes, jewelry work is required here. We need to find an approach to the countries that have not yet joined the communique. They should see their national interest in the fact that Ukraine is a strong independent state within internationally recognized borders.
For example, I believe that Ukraine as part of the EU is a very important market for China, and it is in China's interest.
"We have a very bad experience involving intermediaries"
- We have to hear from some partners that it is necessary to seek a compromise, and therefore to make concessions. Is Ukraine ready for concessions in implementing the 10 points of the peace plan?
- Under President Zelensky, there will never be a new "Minsk", there will be nothing that the Ukrainian society will not accept, that does not correspond to the interests of Ukraine.
- I will repeat the question: is Ukraine ready to make concessions in formulating the points of the peace plan?
- Which ones exactly?
- Let's count. Territorial integrity?
- In all points of the "formula" there are absolutely clear answers... What other territorial integrity can there be than the internationally recognized border of Ukraine?
- I need a direct answer to the question of whether Ukraine is ready to make concessions.
- And what do you think, Ukrainian society, people who lost their loved ones, people at the front are ready to compromise?
- And if the polls show that the society is ready, then will you be ready too?
- If you ask people today who are at the front, who are in Kherson, who are in Kharkiv, are they ready (in compromise) - then I think that, first of all, they will be surprised by this question.
And we already made a compromise once. We had "Minsk", Normandy format. And Russia used it as a time for preparation (before the new invasion. - EP).
Any frozen conflict, any unresolved or unjustly resolved issue is always a risk of an explosion in the future.
Today, by the way, is the anniversary of the beginning of the aggression against Georgia. They have no war, they have occupied territories. But did it become easier for them to live? No.
I believe that President Zelensky's plan in itself is uncompromising. We are not ready for compromises regarding Ukraine's independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.
- Many countries want to be mediators in our negotiations with Russia. Do we have any criteria for who can theoretically be and who can't? One of the criteria is obvious - the mediator should not support Russia during this aggression. Perhaps there are others?
- We have a very bad experience with intermediaries.
The Normandy format showed that having a mediator who just sits at the table does not help. Even though our German and French friends wanted to help from the bottom of their hearts.
It's like a dialogue with a criminal without a criminal code.
It will boil down to the arguments of the criminal against the arguments of society. In this sense, we do not need intermediaries.
But if, for example, we have an internationally agreed plan for the return of Ukrainian children, there are criteria, conditions, it is agreed who is the guarantor of the safety of these children, and so on, then for the implementation of such a plan there may be countries that support our general peace plan, but at the same time, they have some kind of relationship with the aggressor state.
Such countries can help us.
But not in such a way as to help the aggressor, not to whiten her reputation.
And there are such countries! There is Qatar, there is the Vatican, which is trying to help.
- We had the experience of negotiations with Russia regarding the so-called "grain corridor" through the mediation of Turkey and the UN.
- We did not have negotiations with Russia. We had talks with Turkey and the UN, and the UN and Turkey had talks with Russia.
It was a successful experience. The corridor worked for a year, with many problems - but it must be admitted that it worked.
Repetition of a similar format is possible.
"I'm not saying that everything is fine with China"
- Are there red lines for the selection of countries and organizations that can play the role of an intermediary? Can Turkey or China be them?
- Countries that have an influence on Russia - yes, they can definitely be.
Meanwhile, the US publicly calls China a country that enables Russia to wage war. Does it not matter?
- It matters. You know that Minister Kuleba was recently in China, talking with his colleague (by Minister Wang Yi), in particular about this. Special representative of China (Li Hui) was in Kyiv a few months ago, we talked about it very frankly for several hours.
I'm not saying that everything is fine with us. But China definitely has a huge influence on Russia.
- But China is afraid to say that it supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This was not even in the statement of the Chinese Foreign Ministry after the meeting with Kuleba.
- That's right, it didn't happen. But the special representative Li Hui in Jeddah talked about it. At meetings at the level of working groups, the Chinese ambassador also said that China supports the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
But you are right, I did not see this in the official statements after the meeting of the ministers either. Well, you have to work.
I will remind you that before the full-scale invasion of Russia, there were France and Germany, who really wanted to help us, but they also had a different position than ours. Currently, they have completely changed their position and become our allies.
So I'm a realist, but I believe that explanations even a hundred times, searching for common interests will give results. Not only with China. We have some progress with India and I think you will see some results in the future. This should be done with Brazil. Another example is the visit of the President of South Africa with a group of African leaders, which changed a lot.
Yes, this does not mean that tomorrow they will become completely pro-Ukrainian, but this is work that leads to results.
"Our goal in relations with Hungary is clear, but very difficult to implement"
- Let's talk about Hungary. We have been waiting for a meeting between Zelenskyi and Orban for a long time, it took place. What's next?
- It is very good that it took place.
I was in the United States at the time, but I know that there was a very frank conversation.
- And then Orban went to Moscow and China?
- Yes, Orban went to Moscow, to China. We did not know about these plans. And we do not support or share his rhetoric.
But let me remind you: Hungary is our neighbor, Hungary is a member of the European Union and NATO. This requires us to work on having normal, working, neighborly relations with Hungary.
It is not easy.
There are moments where we have different positions, but we have to talk, and it's good that this dialogue is happening.
Hungary was at the Peace Summit, joined the communique of the summit.
- The head of the Hungarian Foreign Ministry, Peter Szijarto, was at the Peace Summit, but he did not even come to take a joint photo, he was not seen in the plenary hall, he ran away from everyone.
- Who needs it - they have seen it.
He was on our panel on the return of abducted children. He was late, but he came and performed very well. He said that Hungary is ready to do everything necessary, and offered to involve them if necessary.
I'm not saying that we don't have any (problematic) questions There are a lot of them. But our strategic interest is to have normal good neighborly relations with them.
This does not mean that we should make any compromises with our principles. No, we need to talk, explain, find some joint projects that do not concern the aggressor country, but concern us and bring us closer to the goal. And our goal (in relations with Hungary. - EP) - so that when there is a vote in NATO regarding the invitation of Ukraine or Ukraine's entry into the Alliance, the vote in the EU regarding our promotion to membership - we do not have to wait until one of our partners agrees to go out for a coffee.
This is our goal. It is clear, but very difficult to implement.
Therefore, it is necessary to work on it daily - this is the only way to get results.
- Do you realize that Orbán is not really interested in solving the so-called issue of the Hungarian minority? That he is not worried about the minority, and Ukraine is a tool to blackmail Brussels and extort money?
- I will answer as follows: we need to make sure that there are no such questions and assumptions. So that there was no chance to use this moment. And Ukraine did almost everything for this.
- In order to have positive developments in relations with Hungary, Ukraine must do something. Certain concessions are required. In particular, the 11 points that Siyarto handed over to you at the meeting in Uzhhorod require changes to the legislation of Ukraine. Are there any red lines in these concessions?
- I will tell you about that meeting. When the three of us were left with Peter Sijarto and Dmytro Kuleba, we had a very frank conversation.
And we said: look, you want to return as much as possible to the legislation that existed several years ago. We have a clear understanding in which issues this is impossible. But explain what you see as the problem now? And we are ready to look for a way out, based on the fact that the Hungarian community in Transcarpathia is primarily Ukrainian citizens.
So somewhere we are ready to meet you, where we do not see any risks for Ukraine, and somewhere we are ready to offer you a solution based on our national interests. And we are ready to discuss it with you.
But, of course, this is not my question or that of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, for this work, we created a group to which all relevant ministers go. They talk about it, work continues. And I know that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán noted during the meeting with our president that he positively assesses the way this conversation is going.
- What are our red lines?
- The only red line is our national interests. This is both sovereignty and unity of the country. We can talk about this for an hour. But in general, these are our national interests and our security.
- In the meantime, we stopped the transit of Lukoil oil. There is an impression that we did it in order to hurt Orbán.
- First of all, the sanctions policy should not be weakened. Sanctions are working, and they are definitely hurting Russia and its military machine, and will hurt them more every year. Therefore, it will be possible to talk about easing sanctions only when Russia withdraws its troops and stops aggression.
Well, our sanctions against Lukoil are in no way a tool against Hungary.
- Do we need to stop the transit of Russian oil and gas altogether?
- In the future - definitely.
When exactly - I cannot answer, I am not an expert. But I can say from a safe political position: everything that enables Russia's military machine to continue working must definitely be stopped.
"Everyone says that this is the Office of the President. But this is gossip"
- One cannot fail to mention Poland and the expectation that Polish air defense will help Ukraine shoot down missiles and drones. There is no such thing.
- First of all, Poland is our friend and ally.
I can say that consultations with her about this are ongoing, and I would not like to say more about this very sensitive issue.
- There are also expectations from the West regarding permission to strike with long-range weapons deep into the Russian Federation. Is there traffic here?
- We believe that having the right to such blows is absolutely fair.
When a Russian missile flies over Okhmatdyt - how can we limit our response to it?
- But the USA imposes these restrictions.
- The question is not easy. We must start with the fact that without the help of partners, primarily from the USA, we would have, to put it mildly, a completely different situation. And this should be treated with respect.
And if in order to change Washington's opinion - as happened with the Patriot, with the F-16, with many issues - it is necessary to meet a hundred times, to explain a hundred times with respect, then it is simply necessary to do it.
- Finally, let's talk about victory. For me personally, it is obvious that Ukraine will win. The question is when it will happen and what price the whole world will pay. And unfortunately, Ukraine will pay the biggest price. And our partners are beginning to realize the need for victory?
- Serhiy, I want to go back to 2014.
In 2014, when Russia started all this, probably the West did not see from us that we are united, that we are ready for some powerful actions.
Why did February 24, 2022 become so unprecedented, why did it not happen in 2014? Is it only the fault of the West?
Undoubtedly, the Ukrainian nation surprised the West by how ordinary people stopped tanks with their hands, how the president began to address the parliaments from the first hour.
We have shown that we will not give up, that for us this is a matter of survival.
You ask me, how is the West's support for victory changing? They monitor what we do, how we speak, how consistent we are, how united we are.
- Listen, but the union (in Ukrainian politics) there is no We see that the authorities - as they say, the Office of the President - block the travel of people's deputies from the opposition. As deputies of "Eurosolidarity" Trump was not allowed to attend the convention. We see that, unfortunately, the authorities sometimes act against the interests of Ukraine when it comes to the internal struggle.
- Sergey, you are a professional person and operate with facts. When you say that someone did not go somewhere there, you clearly understand and know our legislation.
What is the impact?
It is clear that no matter what happens today, everyone says that this is the Office of the President. But you are not the kind of person who lives by gossip.
The myth about our separation is only in the interests of Russia, and it does not correspond to reality. I absolutely do not agree that we do not have a union today.
- How does Andriy Yermak feel about limiting the foreign policy activities of people's deputies? Andriy Yermak, who does not influence this decision, okay.
- If you ask today, I don't know, the majority of deputies, Andriy Yermak, on the instructions of the president, proposed to the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada - and I am very grateful that they supported - the creation of deputy groups that help us work.
And I highly appreciate everything that the deputies are doing to achieve those goals that lead us to our victory.
And in the USA, the deputies did not come to Washington, not to New York, but to different states. I did not influence whether they went or not - but I support this activity, I do everything in my competence, because today, together with all others, it leads us to the result we need.
Deputies helped a lot with the "peace formula", some deputies were with us in Malta (at a meeting of advisers. - EP). Even some deputies presented the results of working groups. they were not just present, they spoke, they were heard.
Criticism - if it is just criticism in a democratic society - I treat it completely normally, with respect. For this we went through two revolutions. But if it is criticism that leads us to the result.
When it is an accusation, mere insults are not criticism.
The Ukrainian people want: if you are in a public position today, regardless of whether you are a deputy, the head of the Office, a minister, etc., do everything so that this war ends with a Ukrainian victory, and a just peace comes.
And then we will figure it out.
When the time comes for the elections, the Ukrainian people will say who they like and who they don't like.
The interview was conducted by Serhii Sydorenko, editor of "European Pravda"
To always be aware of the most important things, read us at Telegram
