in the distant, as they say, in a distant drawer , they are still discussing the question of whether ukraine should be accepted into nato, or at least guarantee ukraine something within the controlled territories that we have now, and this week we will again receive this information from foreign countries we hear that such an issue is supposedly being discussed somewhere behind the scenes, and here there is another dissonance, that ukrainian society is very often not ready for such things, that is, we see how people who in 22-23 were maybe such an overdose has occurred this kind of information, about the ukrainian victory, about the fact that we have to go to the borders and so on and the like, to reach moscow, to reach belgrade, and unfortunately, we still hear all these things. from ukrainian

experts, from the ukrainian mass media, i think this is wrong, because we need to talk about constructive things now, like what you said just now, and here is such a formula, how realistically it can be discussed now, and how realistically ukraine can be pushed to such a formula that, conditionally speaking, we recognize. ukraine in those borders, in which it legally exists, but, but we realize that this part is now, at least for now, occupied, and to extrapolate it all, like, for example, germany, yes, which was divided, or whether north korea and south korea, which are divided, that's how, how now it all fits into the context of the possible vision of the world leaders for further actions. regarding

ukraine, seriously, i believe that this is a cartoon, that is, it is actually, when we hear these forecasts, it is an interesting thing, it really needs to be discussed when we hear all these proposals, we have to realize a simple thing, these are echoes of this very history, accept ukraine into nato, or give it security guarantees, such as those received by sweden and finland, remember when they submitted donat's applications, but only on this topic. territory, which in principle is controlled by the legitimate ukrainian government, or even more, to the territory that is not claimed by the russian federation, such an approach can also be applied, which gives security guarantees for the entire territory, except for the autonomous republic of crimea, sevastopol, donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhzhia regions in their territorial borders, because russia is encroaching on them, what is in their constitution.

republic and federal republic to compare it with the german democratic germany or with south korea or the north , you can't know why no other state on the territory of south korea claimed the territory of the german democratic republic, it was also a conflict between two conditional states. proper sovereign states that could interact with each other, i.e. the republic of korea, the korean people's democratic republic, they may not consider themselves as states, but south korea does not consider north korea as a state, north korea did not consider south korea as a state until now, but now after abandoning the policy of reunification, it has started to do the same was between feri. and the gdr, each of these countries

claimed the territory of the opposite, for a certain time the frn generally refused diplomatic relations between countries that were, in diplomatic relations with the gdr, such as china and taiwan, it was approximately, but the most important thing is that they were sovereign governments . now imagine a completely different situation in the korean war. why not? north korea becomes autonomous. a republic within the russian federation, the korean assr. and why not, the tuvan republic is a part of the russian federation, how is it different from korea. this is the same state, the former tovinsk people's republic, annexed by the russian soviet union and included in the russian federation as an autonomous region, and then a republic. everything is possible, if you wish , you can imagine everything. that would be true another situation. south korea was. in a different

situation, because it claimed not the territory of the sovereign dprk, but the territory of russia. do you think the americans could make an agreement with south korea? on military cooperation, to keep troops there, if south korea emphasized that it is ready to liberate territories that are an integral part of the soviet union by military means or otherwise. well, definitely not, we have to understand that, and now let's imagine that the same thing would happen with the german democratic republic, that the soviet union would not have created without these countries of central europe, the state of people's democracy, included all of them in the union republics, the federal republic, germany with... could not join nato, but it should have emphasized in its constitution that it does not claim this territory, and moreover, i think that no matter what nato took, they would have thought for a very long time what to do with it, so now the current situation: putin violated international law, annexed our

territory, which means that we will be taken to nato if we gave up our own territory? and why only from this one? how is this, and if we gave up this territory, where we have guarantees that russian troops will not enter the kharkiv region, they will not annex it, well, now let's forget about us and look at the western countries, they also recognize that the territory annexed by russia is the territory of russia, how is it even possible to do this from the point of view of international law, you can imagine the situation, i will repeat ukraine again. admit to nato. these territories are considered ukrainian, but we we agree that they can be released only by political means, not by military means. ukraine also agrees with this. a separate document is signed.

nato troops are on the conflict line. but no one will ever force ukraine to give up its constitutional territories. because if this happens, this... the end of the world in the literal sense of the word, it will mean that territorial changes can take place in europe, by force, and then again, what kind of signal do you send to vladimir putin in this situation, that that's it nato territory, but non-nato territory, are you sure that putin will not try to seize another territory of ukraine and say, well, let it be nato territory, but it will not be nato, well, that is, i believe that all these same... ideas, maybe somewhere around donald trump such ideas are circulating. but do you understand the craziness of the situation? first of all, it is believed that putin will agree with this, and why would he be able to do this, but if they

ask him, you know, we will give you the donetsk, luhansk, kherson and zaporizhia regions, you know, like somewhere in moscow clear department, and more tenderloin, please, and more. there is 50 g of fillet and crimea, and you only agree that ukraine should join nato, but our idea was the russian one to move the borders of nato away from our borders, and now you want to mechanically bring them closer to those territories that we accepted as part of russia . no, any acceptance of ukraine into nato cannot be coordinated with russia, because if you start to coordinate something with russia, then the question arises, what do you do with it? nothing was agreed upon in 2022 when she asked you for a guarantee security, guarantees that ukraine will not join nato, guarantees that the latest weapons will be removed from the countries of central europe, and you said absolutely clearly, we cannot agree to this for one simple reason, because

it violates the sovereignty of nato countries, it violates the sovereignty of nato, it will not be decided by nato , but now it turns out that we will agree with russia on the admission of ukraine to nato, so what was the discussion about? so i don't believe in it, that is, after all, we are facing a situation that russia itself is unlikely to face agree, yes, and in the end we then begin to realize that in such a case, even conditionally speaking, civilized states, conditional, as we call them, in which international law operates, will in fact violate international law, that is, this is already, that is, this will already be a violation. it is necessary to understand the purpose of the russian federation, the purpose of the russian federation, it is absolutely simple and transparent, no one hides it, so they said that if, as in a criminal plot,

if a maniac wants to, says that he wants to kill you, you must believe him, russian the federation wants to restore its statehood within the borders of the soviet union. union of 1991, possibly with the exception of the baltic states, if it does not want a conflict with nato. as much as she can grab, she will grab. so, the key to recovery is these. statehood in ukraine, because it was always like that in the 20s of the 20th century, that if you overcome the resistance of ukraine, as the largest of the former soviet republics, the other soviet republics simply fall into your hands by themselves, besides there are only a few countries in the post-soviet period spaces with conditional electoral democracy, i mean where the government is changing, it is ukraine, it is the republic of moldova, it is georgia. this, armenia, and these are small countries, if

you understand, and this is kyrgyzstan. in all other countries, in all of them, the government does not change, it completely controls the state and society. so, it is necessary to agree on some forms of integration not with societies, but with the first persons. of course, the first persons are also different, you see, lukashenko can tell you that he is only in favor, and aliyev can tell you that the door is there, in response to such proposals, and the door there, and then there is the door to erdogan, and this is a serious problem with azerbaijan, as you understand, because on the one hand there is a leader with virtually unlimited power, and on the other hand, on this side, this leader has various alliances, but one way or another... they can think about it, they think that if they explain to ilham gaidarovych, in principle, how life is arranged now, then

he will not be able to refuse them, and there is some kind of union of sovereign states, conditional, with different types membership, they glue, so it's such a global thing, but we, we're here, so the main idea is that our state does not exist as a subject, at least an independent one, maybe some conditional sovereignty will remain, but there on a part of the territory headed by medvedchuk, who is sitting... not that and waiting, there is no need to even doubt why russia in exchange, because for putin he is the next leader of ukraine, the one he wants to create. ot. this time. now our goal. our goal is to reach the borders of 1991, preserve sovereignty, join the european union and nato. now the goal of the west to this war ended with the success of ukraine, one way or another, without... a direct conflict with the russian federation. three main players. now,

let's discuss the possibilities. does russia have the ability to control the entire territory of ukraine with the help of military force. can we draw certain conclusions after two years? well, definitely not. definitely not, because if she could, she would not be near avdiivka now. in two years. now the following question arises: can ukraine, well , at least in the foreseeable future, execute russian troops from the territory of which, which, from the ukrainian territory that they control and end the war there, do we have such possibilities? probably not either, probably not either. now the third question: the west will be able to guarantee itself that... further support for ukraine

will lead to a direct conflict with the russian federation if this situation continues like this, when it becomes clear that russia cannot and ukraine cannot. logically, no, and correctly, logically, no, that there is no such guarantee. so, where, then, if all these answers are negative, it means that on at some stage the parties have to stop, but it does not depend on us. from russia, from putin, at some stage putin must realize that these forces, which he directs to destroy ukraine, in principle, they are redrawn and do not lead to anything, and that it is better for him to stop at some stage, say, if ukraine is also ready for such a stop, then there may not be a political agreement, but a ban on termination. fire de facto, well , whether according to the principle of the grain agreement, we are simply

standing here, where we reached near avdiyivka, or on the border of ukraine, i do not know, for all of us i wanted the armed forces of ukraine to perform a miracle, well that, we are not discussing now, where will be the line of separation of the russian and ukrainian troops, on this line the fire will stop, and the shelling of the ukrainian territory of russia will stop. us, and the russian territory by ukrainians. just a stop. this is the maximum that the parties can achieve in the foreseeable future. and now the question we have to deal with. and what will the west do in this situation, will it be ready to accept ukraine into nato? well, here we actually come to the question that i asked, how many minutes are there 25 ago, right? that is, if they are discussing something like that, yes, then it means, accordingly, that we have basically come to this, we have come to this correctly, but they will not admit anything if they simply see that

russia cannot move any further, and that means , that it is simply exhausted, it is not a threat to them, and if the ukrainian war resumes, resumes as a threat, and at that moment they can agree to the admission of ukraine to nato, but in exchange not for the recognition of these russian territories, in exchange for not continuing the war, but we are fine we understand that, in principle, russia is to be trusted, and no one will ask russia, and the second question is fine. we are talking about joining nato, we also have to understand that without actually joining nato, there is virtually no guarantee that there will be no war in the future, and we must understand that if ukraine does not join nato , relatively speaking, in some perspective, then we begin to turn on the countdown to the next war, the next

war, and that's all, and this and that, in fact, intelligent people talked about it again and... that's how the west then, on that he will then be ready, if we reach this conditional option, no matter where this option stops, the west will then be ready to accept ukraine into nato, and what will the formula be from the point of view of international law here, because we said here that there are certain conflicts with international law. here we are already moving to the situation there, when it will be assumed, it will be like this situation, what, what should nato do in such a case, what should ukraine do, and how should we arrange all this legally correctly, so that the western countries do not essentially lose, conditionally saying

its own, its own place on the map of international law, and international law was not destroyed, and... let's say ukraine was also satisfied and also everything took place within the framework of current legislation and common sense. ukraine should be admitted to nato in its territorial integrity, but with the understanding that if it does not restore its territorial integrity, that part of its territories it does not control, and that the restoration of control over these. territories can happen, as, by the way, the president of ukraine is now saying, by way of a political decision in the future, nobody asks russia, at the same time, what it thinks about the admission of ukraine to nato, because it is not russia's opinion. at the same time, ukraine gives guarantees to nato member countries, this may be under a separate agreement between ukraine

and donat, that it will not carry out military operations. it is its own military steps to restore its territorial integrity and adheres to the position of political dialogue, by the way, this formula can be applied to georgia as well, it is the same story, and these the declarations are basically russia's answer, nato's answer to russia's fears, no, no one is going to attack you, and even those territories that you have illegally seized, are not going to release them with... military means, but if you do at least a step from this line, which is defined there by the armistice agreement, is an attack on nato. that's all. i can also tell you what happens next. what always happens in history. at some point, the russian government changes, the political conditions change, and

a platform for dialogue, helsinki, emerges. equal dialogue, which should determine the borders in europe, and then the russian federation is forced to find a formula for relinquishing the territories that it captured by military means, and what this formula will look like, we cannot know today, it may be a proposal of a transitional period, it may be a proposal holding referendums on these territories, ukraine may... disagree with this, russia may insist on this field, there will be mediators, this process, as with west berlin, may stretch for 25 years, but it may go, in this situation, when we will know that both countries are claiming... ukraine, because russia will forever remain a country with undefined borders, but you and i

may not see it, because this process, it can take 50 years , as the process of, say, restoring the independence of the baltic countries, it took 50 years, it is very important that the legal instrument was absolutely specific, there may be such an option, it is an alternative to force, because we... that putin recognizes only force, but again an important question: if, do we have the power or not? in addition, we have encountered a new moment of russian tactics in recent weeks, and this too must be said truthfully. russia sees that it cannot, say, establish military control over the ukrainian cities that it would like to occupy, and then it tries to make those cities not... livable, that's what is happening today in kharkiv and what is happening in zaporozhye, this is an attempt without any military offensive to make these cities

uninhabitable, i.e. to deprive them of infrastructure and, accordingly, push people out, of course, more western, that is, to create what putin understands, free from the population, that is how it should look like to the territory. occupied by russia, the territory is not occupied by russia, but the territory that is shot through, where there is no population, and ukraine, which was not captured, is next, uh, also a tactic, and this may also be a tactic for the next time, but we do not monitor these threats in the same way , strategically, we just see that there are some shelling of kharkiv, but it doesn't look like that, mykola platonovych, patroshe comes, the intellectual of all. and there, this plan has already been written and approved by the chief

of the general staff of the armed forces of the russian federation, let's say, it can be called a plan, whatever we call it, they don't call it prevention, a plan for the prevention of the city of kharkiv, the coma of ukraine. well, that's all, and not only kharkiv is actually being monitored here, we see what happened in sumy oblast during march, and what is happening, which happens all the time, it's just that very often people there did not pay attention to sumy oblast, but sumy oblast at least the border has been destroyed for at least a year in a row, that's for sure. sumy region, kharkiv region, the unoccupied part of donbass and zaporozhye, this is how it is that... to create a zone without population from the borders with the russian federation, and this is their approach, by

the way, this has always been their approach, we are nothing we are not inventing anything new, i will remind you, you know, like lukashenko, i will tell you where the attack was, look, the grand duchy of moscow annexes the grand duchy of ryazan, what are they doing? they burn both the center of the principality of the city of ryazan, this is it the city we call ryazan, now, it is not ryazan, it seems to be there, or novgorod ryazan or something else, it was called, to be honest, i have already forgotten what aleksandrov ryazan, well, that is, it is an insignificant city in the ryazan principality, why are they destroying cuts to displace the active part of the population, which is nosy. he of this tradition of statehood, which knows that there is a grand prince, to push it out of the big city into the small towns of the ryazan region, what happens next, this population, it rebels against the moscow

prince and his entire, i would say, cut off, but the chronicles say that he was resettled on the territory of the moscow principality, replacing muscovites with ryazan, the prince of ryazan, the population of ryazan, i think that he was cut off, to be honest, but i don’t have... historical evidence, then, unfortunately, not there was no television or the internet, so the moscow princes could generally do whatever they wanted, and they did what putin is doing now. the problem is that russia has not grown up since those times, these are the times of the middle ages, such facts in the middle ages can be find not only about russia, not only about moscow, but the question is that putin acts like ivan kalita, with absolutely the same audacity. in the 21st century, and the population of russia absolutely. it is ready to support this, here's what 's interesting: it doesn't even see this as a wrong approach, you remember how the relatives of those ukrainians who suffered from

rocket attacks said: and those who lived in moscow said: but you don't understand , it's putin who wants you well, he's just helping you get out of the mess you 've gotten into, well, he's shelling, hitting, so loves, that's all, well, purely russian logic, yes, we literally have a little time left there, traditionally an ideological topic, an ideological topic, because in ukraine, as we see, even after 2022, after february 24... certain topics still appear that shake societies, which, relatively speaking, even begin to divide societies, so on and so forth and the like, but this week there is such an interesting topic that is being discussed there by all of facebook, all social networks, the topic of bolgakov, we will talk about it for an hour, andrei, what will we say about it for 9 minutes, well

anyway i think they are waiting because, because you were the conclusion, in short, our viewers, i think, know the conclusion of the ukrainian institute of national memory regarding bulgakov, where he is actually recognized as a symbol of the russian world, yes, but also this, but also this that's not all, this week there is another statement by mr. serhiy shafir, who says that it is necessary to be friends with russia, that it is necessary to restore boris, boris, shefir, that's why i have nothing. not so, then i apologize, you serhiy shefir just refuted these statements of his brother, yes, yes, let's just apologize, yes, i do not agree, serhii shefir does not agree, but mr. boris shefir, he agrees, look, and the second thing, and we are talking here about the fact that certain voices are really starting to appear, whether from abroad of people who lived in ukraine, or even our citizens, who in fact are still trying to cling to some

rope somewhere. of this russian world and still involve the country in this cultural, historical, linguistic context, what should we do here, how, what way out should we look for, as a state , in order not to return, actually, at least even by some percentage to this the context of the russian world, to which, unfortunately, a lot of people, despite the war, would like to return us, you know what surprised me in this discussion about mikhail bolgakov, because it is a conversation about... cold and wet. some say that we don't need bulgakov because he is a bad writer. he is generally a bad writer, why are you dragging him? he's just a secondary writer, and you glorify him, that he's a sucker, and so what. others say that bolga, that the question is not whether bolgakov is a good or bad writer, he is ours writer, we grew up on him, he is a kyiv writer, why are you giving him to the russians.

the question, i believe that the question is not that , by the way, it started like this from the beginning of the war, whether this or that figure of russian culture is big or small, because we look like idiots in the world when we start giving evaluations, the evaluation of creativity is - which writer, this question, i would say, is subjective, someone can consider tolstoy , dostoevsky, bulgakov, anyone, rachmaninoff, tchaikovsky. and other actions of leviathan can be continued there for hours list in big letters, someone may not like them. the problem is that this is simply not ukrainian literature, and it is not even a question of language. i always suggest doing such a simple experiment: translate this or that work

into ukrainian and... read it as if you don't know that it is written in russian, and i wonder if you will perceive bulgakov, let's say, master margarita, as ukrainian novel, well , hardly, if, if we talk about the context, if we talk about the ideologue, what a white the guard, of course not, there are certain ideologues sewn in there, and the souls of mykhola gogol are dead, although it was written by a person who left the country, it is a ukrainian novel, because they added it, i am not sure, i think that... well here here here enough here it is quite debatable, but at least relatively speaking according to gogol, i see that there is such a more specialized discussion, i am not talking about the discussion, i am saying just read the books, you will see that gogol is a russian writer for 90% of his work, maybe you will read myrhorod and see it as ukrainian, but that is the case with writing.