Почему Новиков НЕНАВИДИТ ЗЕЛЕНСКОГО? - вДудь и Новиков

You are a long-time critic of Zelenskyy, right? You've been openly criticizing him for several years while continuing to live in Kyiv. There are many speakers who are citizens of Ukraine or have ties to Ukraine who actively criticize Zelenskyy. But most of them, as I understand it, are people living abroad. You live in Kyiv under shelling, and you actively criticize him, so as not to repeat the many broadcasts seen on numerous Russian-language channels.

Let’s be very brief. Is your main grievance against him—and we’ve touched on this in the episode—that he is leading the country toward a dictatorship?

No, that is not the main grievance. He is leading the country to defeat in the war.

So, that is the main grievance. That is the main grievance. And one of the primary complaints is that the preparation for the start of the war was a failure. You have said many times that Zelenskyy is to blame for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Yes. Do you mean the lack of preparation for the start of the war?

Not only that. It is clear that our biggest losses, both among military and civilians, occurred in those first weeks of the war. Because with a more or less stable front, it doesn't look like that. It doesn't happen at that pace. But I am talking about the entire period of the war, the lack of preparation beforehand, and how exactly he has managed this war for the last 5 and a half years. 4 and a half years.

Uh-huh. That is important. You say that the main set of grievances you present is, for example, the unblown bridges. In the first it is one of the most obvious first and foremost. And why weren't they blown up?

Excellent question. And let's clarify, which bridge do you mean exactly—the ones from Crimea?

All of them.

Okay, how many are there? There are many of them. There are at least a dozen and a half, actually more if you count. Look, what is the point of blowing up a bridge? People who think in movie logic believe that blowing up a bridge is best when an enemy column is driving over it, so that the bridge and the column go at the same time—all very cinematic.

Kaboom, right?

No, it's just so the army doesn't get through. Exactly. In advance, that is.

So, people who defend Zelenskyy have their own established line of defense. These reproaches are not new to him either. I am not the only one making them. And he has some well-rehearsed schemes for how to respond to them.

First of all, they all boil down to one word: Chonhar. Chonhar is just one specific place. It is one of the exits from Crimea. And they try to present it that way. So, it’s basically mocking him, right, saying you don't understand anything. You are amateurs in military matters. Nothing would have saved the Chongar bridge, even if it had been mined. There’s a separate question about why they didn’t explode, and a separate question about whether there was demining. These are two different stories. And we don’t have—at least I don’t—any verifiable, solid data to talk about the demining process.

There was a lot of public information, but very little information about how it actually went, because everyone...

Demining is one version—that they were mined after all, but someone was found... It definitely, definitely was mined at some point.

Right. And then there’s a fork in the road: whether these mines were removed. And the justification given is that one part of Zelensky's public policy, literally on the eve of the war, in those final weeks, was normalization, and that they launched passenger shuttles to the administrative border with Crimea to make it easier for people to travel back and forth, and that this was part of normalization with Russia. Naturally, as part of this process, the explosives were removed so they wouldn't blow up under buses. That is one story. I cannot verify it.

Mhm. But the fact, the very fact that the bridges didn't explode is not up for discussion. It is simply a fact.

That’s how it was. We don’t need to verify that; we don’t need to check that. And the second version is mundane—well, something didn't work, they pressed the button, it didn't blow up, who the hell knows. The Russians went through, and at that point, it’s unclear who to blame for it. And any attempts to explain that the president acted correctly, that he...the fact that Zelensky didn't give the order to blow up the bridges beforehand—which could have been done 3 days, 10 days, or whenever—because as long as there is no invasion, your sappers are essentially doing engineering work, not combat operations. I am simplifying, of course; obviously, it's all complex, but when no one is shooting at you, blowing up a bridge is easier. At the very least, sappers know how to do that. That order was never given. And any attempts to talk about Zelensky and claim this part wasn't a failure—it was a huge failure, a critical failure, because the capture of those bridges, over which the Russian troops passed on undestroyed bridges, was essentially one of the factors that decided the fate of Mariupol. It decided how many people could manage to get out of Mariupol, to leave. And there weren't many, once it had all begun. And those who didn't make it, because the Russians passed from Crimea to Melitopol almost lightning fast. And when Melitopol was captured, leaving Mariupol was only possible via some narrow paths. And even there, soon enough, the Russians were already present. And essentially, the speed at which Russian troops exited Crimea was critical for the entire south and, of course, for Mariupol, as it is the largest city in particular. It is absolutely impossible to justify Zelensky for the fact that the order was not given sooner. You are the president; you were supposed to make that decision. It doesn't have to be an easy one at all. You ran for president; nobody forced you to go there.

You ran saying that Poroshenko was corrupt. We’ll make a deal with Putin now, and everything will be fine. You stepped into a position that forces you to make difficult decisions. That decision, which, looking back at it now, was absolutely necessary. Not only did you not make it, but you also never said afterward that you regret it, that it was a mistake. Zelensky will never admit a mistake. According to him, everything is always right. If something went wrong, someone else is to blame.

Is this Zelensky's mistake or the Commander-in-Chief's mistake?

The Commander-in-Chief, before the introduction of martial law, would have literally committed a crime by the letter of the law if he had ordered the bridges to be blown up without a presidential order. And it is not a fact that the order would have been obeyed, because everyone in that chain thinks: "Tomorrow the SBI, meaning investigators, will come to me and say, look, the Russians didn't invade, you blew up the bridge, but now we’re going to jail you."

Do you know Zaluzhny's position on this matter?

He is Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny, since he is an ambassador and since he does not actively criticize Zelensky, he glosses over many things. Perhaps if he announces that he is now a politician, is definitely running for president, and naturally has to leave his ambassador post, maybe we will hear something more coherent from him on this topic. So far, we haven't heard that. But once again, there are facts that cannot be disputed.

No. Do you allow for the possibility that it was a bad, catastrophic decision? Do you allow for the possibility that Zelensky relied on the expertise of, for example, his military leadership and therefore didn't blow them up?

Why? Why should we fantasize that something like that happened? No, well that is pure fantasy.

Well, it’s just that you, as I understand it, in all your interviews, you speak about Zaluzhny rather positively.

He is certainly not my first or second choice for who I would want to see as president of Ukraine, but, of course, choosing between him and Zelensky, Zaluzhny, at least now from the perspective of 2026, seems like the obvious.

which Russian troops exited Crimea was critical for the entire south and, of course, for Mariupol, as it is the largest city in particular. It is absolutely impossible to justify Zelensky for the fact that the order was not given sooner. You are the

president; you were supposed to make that decision. It doesn't have to be an easy one at all. You ran for president; nobody forced you to go there.

You ran saying that Poroshenko was corrupt. We’ll make a deal with Putin now, and everything will be fine. You stepped into a position that forces you to make difficult decisions. That decision, which, looking back at it now , was absolutely necessary. Not only

did you not make it, but you also never said afterward that you regret it, that it was a mistake. Zelensky will never admit a mistake. According to him, everything is always right. If something went wrong, someone else is

to blame. Is this Zelensky's mistake or the Commander-in-Chief's mistake? The Commander-in-Chief, before the introduction of martial law, would have literally committed a crime by the letter of the law if he had ordered the bridges to be blown up without a

presidential order. And it is not a fact that the order would have been obeyed, because everyone in that chain thinks: "Tomorrow the SBI, meaning investigators, will come to me and say, look, the Russians didn't invade, you blew up the bridge, but now we’re

going to jail you." Do you know Zaluzhny's position on this matter? He is Zaluzhny. Zaluzhny, since he is an ambassador and since he does not actively criticize Zelensky, he glosses over many things. Perhaps if he announces that he is now a politician,

is definitely running for president, and naturally has to leave his ambassador post, maybe we will hear something more coherent from him on this topic. So far, we haven't heard that. But once again, there are facts that cannot be disputed. No. Do you

allow for the possibility that it was a bad, catastrophic decision. Do you allow for the possibility that Zelensky relied on the expertise of, for example, his military leadership and therefore didn't blow them up?

Why? Why should we fantasize that something like that happened? No, well that is pure fantasy.

Well, it’s just that you, as I understand it, in all your interviews, you speak about Zaluzhny rather positively.

He is certainly not my first or second choice for who I would want to see as president of Ukraine, but, of course, choosing between him and Zelensky, Zaluzhny, at least now from the perspective of 2026, seems like the

obvious choice. Well, hypothetically, if it were a second round of Zaluzhny versus Zelensky, then yes, obviously you would have to vote for Zaluzhny.

But it's not that I'm turning him into a hero. I have never met him, I don't know him as a person.

Well, you don't know his position on the bridges. Once again. Zelensky was responsible for everything that happened before the martial law was declared. This decision was key, necessary. It could have saved Kherson from occupation. It could have saved Melitopol. Mariupol, it most

likely wouldn't have saved, but it would have changed the time factor. More people from that city of four hundred thousand could have left while fighting was going on at the eastern border. Through that corridor, which disappeared as soon as the Russians

reached, well, essentially reached the outskirts of Mariupol. Therefore, it's impossible to argue here whether it's good or bad, you understand? There is no coherent theory that would explain why this was a wise decision.

And Zelensky is responsible for it. And if he wants to say that yes, I did it because my advisors told me to, let him say that himself. Let's not fantasize, let's wait until Zelensky says it himself. So far, all of Zelensky's

words are working against him. His words, why he explained why he told people there would be no invasion— this is the famous "shashliks." Chongar became a meme to denote this entire set of bridges, yes, just one word. And "

shashliks" also became a meme for everything Zelensky said to reassure people on the eve of the war. The idea that it will be May, there will be May holidays, everything will be as usual, let's go have a barbecue. Do you know

how he explained those barbecues afterward? That if I had started saying there would be an invasion and sowed panic, we would have lost 7 billion—I don't remember what, dollars or euros —but in general, we would have lost 7

billion a month. Therefore, I did the right thing by not scaring people. And there are some people who say, "Well, yes, maybe that's right, money is more important after all." Well, people didn't leave Mariupol. Well, that's all the Russians 'fault. Of course, the

Russians are to blame, the Russians were shooting. But who created the situation where these people had nowhere to go?

Look, another one of your complaints. You say that you say that Zelensky is a fake hero. Yes.

About this glorification, well, as you said in your quote, he didn't flee Kyiv , he stayed in Kyiv, right? Only I and about another million and a half people also stayed in Kyiv. So, well, that's a middling kind of heroism. And we didn't

have a bunker, or security, or anything . We were just on our own. That's right.

Listen, but you’re really comparing yourself to a person who would have been targeted first.

Uh-huh. Zelenskyy is at the top of the list to be found and captured. Eliminated or something else.

Look at the people shot in Bucha, in the back of the head with their hands tied. Were they hunted down because they were presidents or high on a list?

That’s just what happens when the Russian army enters a city and doesn't just pass through, but lingers for a long time. Where they passed through quickly, there were incidents like spontaneous shootings. But where they stayed for days, or weeks, that’s

where you found pits full of people who had been rounded up, tied up, and executed. And for every person in Kyiv, again, for a Western journalist who hasn't seen anything more heroic from their own politician than an angry

response during a parliamentary debate. It makes a big impression on them that the president, who truly, probably, could be killed—yes, there is a war on, and he could be killed—it probably does make an impression, but from inside Kyiv, it’s really not

that impressive. I lived in a house that overlooked...I can tell you this, you mentioned many times the President's office. Yes, the office. Yes. When I first went back there. What was that like? It was the first days of March.

You were surprised it was still standing. Yes, but there was a Claymore mine on the lawn right there in that very spot.

I mean, it's clear they hadn't set up permanent stationary checkpoints around the block yet, but the block was already being guarded. And by the way, that’s why all the talk about shootouts with a Russian sabotage group —which Zelenskyy talked about for a

while and then stopped—because in his first version, the heroes of those fights with the sabotage group were Arestovych and Yermak. Later, when it became awkward to recall that they were there, he simply started saying the Russians tried to kill me. Before that,

he was more detailed. But we saw all of that. We understood that we weren't the President of Ukraine, no one was guarding us. But when they arrive, when a Russian tank is on the next street, if we are caught, they will do the

exact same thing to us. And it doesn't matter that we aren't on any lists, because the people in Bucha weren't on any lists either. Zelenskyy had security, and he had escape routes.

Kyiv was never completely isolated. y