<p>The interview is dedicated to analyzing the new geopolitical realities at the beginning of 2026 after the takeover by Venezuelan leader Maduro and statements by Donald Trump. It discusses the crisis of international law, the motives behind U.S. actions, the consequences for Ukraine, and the appointment of Kyrylo Budanov as the head of the President's Office.</p> <b>Host:</b> Ruslan Valentynovych, Happy New Year and Merry Christmas. This is a time not only to rethink the past year but also to understand where we are headed. The events of early 2026 that unfolded in Venezuela reaffirm once again that international law is not working. Great figures in the world, such as Trump's deputy Stephen Miller, speak plainly: the world is governed by force and power. You are a political technologist and philosopher. So what are we to believe in now? In democracy, in its values and principles? <b>Guest:</b> First, I wish the viewers happy holidays. There must be a place for celebration in life. To avoid disappointment, one must be fascinated. I find it easy in this sense. My historical chronicles from 2016 were called 'The Shadow of the Thirties'. They are precisely about this: the shadow of the thirties is watching us. Based on those events, I tried to predict the future and rarely went wrong. This is not a job that brings joy, but an understanding that you can do nothing. The statements that have been made lately are a unmasking of hypocrisy. Politicians are judged not by words, but by deeds. The old world order has long since died. Now we are witnessing one of the final acts of its funeral. But if something old dies, something new must be born.
<b>Host:</b> How can it be born? <b>Guest:</b> In agony. World history, unfortunately, knows no other tools besides wars, pandemics, and economic crises. 21st-century wars are hybrid; they are a complex of political, economic, and ideological upheavals. We have awakened in a new era. The tone was set by Donald Trump in his Christmas address.
<b>Host:</b> Let's discuss the main topic. Trump set the pace for 2026 with Maduro's takeover, emphasizing that it was achieved without casualties among American soldiers. What pace does he set next? Should we expect actions regarding Greenland, Cuba, Mexico? If everything unfolds so quickly, the world will shake significantly. <b>Guest:</b> The world has been shaking for a long time. Events in the Middle East, the situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the war in Ukraine, the confrontation of the Koreas—all of these are movements of the world. Trump is part of a synchronized shake-up. They want to close an old period. Publicly they say one thing, do another. Why would Trump return to Roosevelt's 1940s politics? His statements about Venezuela are a 'Cuban declaration' meaning that America's resources should only be exploited by 'the right' Americans. And at the core—resources.
<b>Host:</b> Resources are the key word. Wars rarely occur where there is no oil, gas, logistics. Where there are many resources, suddenly they want to build democracy. It is time for us to mature and respond adequately to realities. <b>Guest:</b> We no longer believe in Santa Claus. When we hear words about the struggle for democracy, we immediately need to understand where the specific political or economic benefit lies. Wars have not been waged for moral principles for 200 years. Why is Trump returning to the Monroe Doctrine of the 21st century? If in the 20th century the basis was oil, the next technological order concerns rare earth metals and precious metals. This pertains to Greenland. Roosevelt needed Greenland for cryolite for aluminum production. Trump needs rare earth metals and resources. The main thing is that Greenland has 10% of the world's fresh water reserves. In 10-15 years, many will understand why Trump got involved in the race for water.
<b>Host:</b> Western press is divided in opinions regarding the consequences for Putin after Maduro's takeover. Some write that the Kremlin is ready to not interfere with the U.S. in Venezuela in exchange for concessions regarding Ukraine. Others say that Putin has been humiliated. What is your opinion? <b>Guest:</b> How could Putin realistically have interfered with Trump in Venezuela? For an exchange to occur, there must be equivalent situations. He could do nothing in Syria, which cost the budget $40 billion. The only thing left is to envy. What can Russia do, whose combat-ready units are shackled in Ukraine? Nothing. This is a desire to wish the desired for the actual. The main competitor of Trump for control over the Americas and Greenland is Britain. British companies have priorities in resource extraction in Greenland. For them, this is direct loss. Therefore, British allies are spreading fear.
<b>Host:</b> There is currently a summit of the 'coalition of the willing.' Western press writes about sending a peacekeeping contingent to Ukraine, including Americans. But Trump has said a thousand times: 'No American boots on the ground in Ukraine.' What is happening? <b>Guest:</b> Trump's position is simple: this is Europe's problem. We can help by selling weapons and providing intelligence. But there will be no American boots in Ukraine and probably not in Eastern Europe. Why does European press write about this? Without American support, it is the Budapest Memorandum 2.0. The task of Europeans is to pull Trump into their concept so that the U.S. participates in the post-war reconstruction of Ukraine. Publications are an attempt to influence the American electorate and business. The Trump administration responds: you bear the risks, and we profit. The U.S. treats foreign policy as a business tool that should generate profit. He is not interested in sharing risks or profits.
<b>Host:</b> Maybe there is already an American security guarantee in Ukraine? When the agreement on resources with the U.S. was ratified with secret points, officials said: these are investments, joint development. Who will now infringe? Maybe the guarantee is not an American boot, but an American dollar? <b>Guest:</b> I have always said: the only security guarantee is your army and economy. Everything else is not worth the paper. Americans offer: we buy your critically important resource base. This will be your guarantee because no one will attack Wall Street. They think correctly. But in historical conditions, the irrational is sometimes stronger than the rational. Secondly, this is a question of political consistency. This concept has downsides in terms of national sovereignty and timeframes: what if the U.S. concept changes?
<b>Host:</b> I want to hear your opinion. Our delegation is led by the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Umerov, alongside the head of the President's Office Budanov. Why was Budanov appointed specifically? Is this strengthening the President's Office? <b>Guest:</b> This means that the U.S. has completely intercepted the negotiation track in Britain. Budanov is the only person in the power vertical who consistently advocates for the implementation of Trump's concept. In the summer of 2025, he was one of the few advocates for Trump. For Americans, he is understandable. His appointment became possible after Zelensky's visit to Florida and fully corresponds to the U.S. vision for ending the war—maximum of a ceasefire, while in fact—a temporary cessation of hostilities. Budanov now outlines the new balance that the U.S. wants to build. This includes: 1) diminishing British influence; 2) transparency and fighting against corrupt intentions; 3) manageability for voicing unpopular decisions; 4) impossibility of holding a 'cardboard' Maidan; 5) changing the internal oligarchic balance. Budanov grew up in this system, worked with the CIA, so he is perceived as a single person from a more-or-less American team.