this may have strengthened the feeling of friendship and solidarity with the people of ukraine in israel, but we had no problems with israel and israeli citizens from the very first day of the war, everyone clearly understood who was an enemy and who was a friend, we always had a problem with the government. and to some extent the problem remains , since we hear clear messages from washington that the war in ukraine and the war in israel is a war on terrorism, and washington does not separate these two wars, on the contrary, it unites them. and likewise you see that a single document was submitted to congress, a proposal to provide financial assistance to ukraine, israel, the israeli government is trying to be quite careful here, and of course, attention to them distracts attention to some extent. society from the war

in ukraine, that is why the negotiations at the highest level in our country do not stop for more than a day, coordination is also taking place quite seriously, i hope that at the level of the highest political leadership of the state , a visit will still take place in the near future, but but , you know that there were such attempts and these attempts, on unfortunately, they were unsuccessful, not because the ukrainian side did not want such visitors from the village, their own support, or to express solidarity with the people of israel, but you saw such a discussion in the ukrainian expert environment that the president should not go to israel at all, because it will worsen our position globally. the south will not

support us, that this visit is generally the result of zelensky's personal emotions, i read such a text, well, mr. vitaly, you are provoking me, because you understand that as a civil servant, i am limited to a certain extent, to comment and say what i personally think about this matter, but certainly, as an ambassador to israel, i believe that this would only be positive and a plus, but my colleagues who are currently working in arab countries, probably so... they don't think so, it's a different matter if we take on teresa and put the help that we will receive from the united states together with israel, and whether this help will be strengthened or it will be more, quick, for example, if such a visit will take place, answer not to me, but rather to my colleague, my colleague in washington, but i am in this i see a plus in the situation, but again.

it depends on which side you look at this problem, and uh, the behavior of this or that comment, commentator or political scientist, or whether politics, conventionally, depends on the chair in which he sits, true, that's why someone thinks, that israel's support will enable arab countries to turn their backs on ukraine, i personally do not think so, especially in the situation in which we found ourselves and, relatively speaking, the same problems, the same trouble that has come to ukrainian land for almost two years back, now it is very sensual, perceived to israelis, uh, i was provoked by israeli journalists this week and they say, listen , you're the only, if not the only country in the world that hasn't had pro-palestinian rallies, what are you doing about it, how did it happen, i say listen, this do you have the police forbidding that?

actively conducting them, i say and no, it’s just that our citizens felt the same on their skin, what you are feeling now, almost two years ago, so we understand that terrorism must be dealt with absolutely unambiguously, clearly and in no way do not negotiate with terrorists, eh, that's why no one probably had any idea about holding pro-palestinian rallies in ukraine, and people understand it, people understand it perfectly, again, i say all the time during work that we don't have a problem with people, we have a problem with by the government, and to a large extent , the wishes that the ukrainian side had at the beginning of the war, israel is coming to meet us, and to a large extent, our cooperation in israel has become more active and sincere since the beginning of the war, i believe in this, and i i believe that we will be able to achieve an even greater conditional breakthrough in ours.

so that every person does not have any problems at all, on which side israel is, he does not sit on the fence, he is clearly on the side of ukraine. thank you, mr. yevhen, yevhen kornechuk, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of ukraine to yzray. and we will break for literally a few minutes, but please stay with us, eh, my name is andriy, i am from the city of the white church, which is in the kyiv region, i and my comrades went voluntarily, first a full-scale, full-scale invasion, we wanted to contribute in general victory, and not just well, for the past year and a half , we have been involved in the dftt and in the volunteer work, let's say, recently, we even took courses in aerial reconnaissance, control of uavs and

flew drones for a certain number of hours, let's say, on mavics, everyone knows and well , we voluntarily joined the ranks of with his two toros. now in love , i don’t have such a feeling of fear, i used to work there, as a mountaineer, i always worked at heights, and over time this feeling of fear somehow atrophies, yes, of course, many of my friends are in hot places, they probably inspired by their actions and so on, in me, well, not even the fact that i have a family, in me. my friends , i don’t have children yet, my friends have children, i want them to live in a free, independent country, and given that i didn’t have such a, let’s say, arms relationship before, i didn’t have such, it is very important for me, in principle , i was very knowledgeable about this course,

i emphasized something for myself, i took something new, literally, there will definitely not be too much, on the contrary, it is a big plus. we continue the saturday political club khrystyna yatskiv and vitaly portnikov, and with your permission we will still start with reflections, henry kissinger, a diplomat and ex-secretary of state, died , actually an extraordinary person, there were a lot of reflections on this matter among ukrainians on the internet, someone believes that this is a person who was in principle... the personification of the era of realpolitik, someone believes that this is the person who nurtured the chinese people's republic in the format in which it exists now. i'll be honest, i've only read one book by henry kissinger, i'm not familiar with much of his work, but mr.

vitaly, it seems to me that you have exactly what to say on this matter. i simply remembered when i was a little boy, a schoolboy. and we rested with my parents in jurmala, and among us... there was a famous colleague of my mother's, a famous moscow lawyer, and among us ... there were friends with whom we communicated : oh, you have to cooperate with academician georgy arbatov, he was the director of the institute of the usa and canada, the academy of sciences of the soviet union, who was one of the architects of this meeting between brizhniv and nixon in 1972 and such a founder of soviet foreign policy, in a way, and then years passed, and this is moscow. the lawyer, like many people , well, he is a famous person, came to the united states , lived there for the last decades of his life, i once met him in the former soviet union, and he tells me, oh, vitaly, i understood that you should have worked not with arbative, but with henry kissinger, i

tell him, it's the same person, okay, okay, because it's the same person that arbatov that kissinger is the personification of cynicism in politics, simply. on the one hand and on the other, very similar people, even outwardly, and i , to be honest, never me, i read kissenger's books, he pretended to be there a teleiran, a metternich, wrote this and that diplomacy, ugh, uh- uh, i'm not sure that diplomacy is a rejection of values, uh, there is a difference, metternig was a... political uh player who always defended his conservative values, tayloran was a kinsanger, he had absolutely nothing to defend, only to win, he perceived politics as a chess game , kissinger also, in principle, i have

the impression, very serious, that his personality was imprinted by him, his teenage years in germany, uh, that he was formed in the era of totalitarianism, in fact, and then america could not change, i thought about it, but not like that, when he died, that i always wondered. just talked to mr. yevhen, in the 90s, i was wondering how israel would change when so many people from the soviet union arrived who did not know what democratic political culture, who are used to living on this black and white candle, as the party will say, as the party will say, and it can be either this way or any, there are no halftones, and how will they meet people who grew up in a completely different political culture, as far as who will change them, israel them, or they are israel , this and that happened, israel was completely different during those 90s, simply beyond recognition, such and such a state that i saw no longer exists, and we all who

have seen her know that she is gone, but so is their israel also changed a lot to a certain extent, i 'm not talking about their children and grandchildren, kissenger, america also changed a lot, but he changed america so much, because no one could, because this is the idea that we just have to protect ours. interests and it doesn't matter whether we defend any values ​​or not, you know, the famous phrase that was mentioned in israel now, when kissinger died, that when they talked about this détente with the soviet union and kissinger, most of whose relatives died in the gas attacks cells, uh, concentration camps, when he was asked what would happen with the soviet jews, he said, listen , if even the soviet union were to put all the soviet jews in the gas chambers, that's not an american problem, that's a humanitarian problem, our problem, the problem is disarmed with

the soviet union, that's the credo, it was never different when even he dealt with humanitarian issues, only if used as a tool of influence, and i believe that this is a consequence, not that this is not an american approach to politics, but a european approach to politics in the 1930s, that he was fascinated by force, you understand, when you see the marches of communists and national socialists as a boy, they get stuck in your head, it's very difficult to get rid of it. the legacy is absolutely tragic, but kissenger's main achievement, which he always considered part of his accomplishments, is the end of the vietnam war. ugh, kissinger signed the '73 ceasefire and status quo agreement and american withdrawal. troops, in the 75th year ended with the collapse of the republic of south vietnam, under the pressure of the communists.

fissager was very dissatisfied, wanted to return his nobel prize, but it was reflected in american positions around the world. it is a disaster that we are still feeling, we are feeling it now. now , during the russian-ukrainian war, we feel it, russia wants to play exactly the same gambit that the member of the politburo of the central committee of vietnam and the secretary of the central committee of vietnam, comrade lek ho, played with kikim. moreover, it must be said that as a decent person, more decent than kissinger, because he was a cowardly dogmatist, he did not take the nobel prize, because he knew what would happen, and kissinger took, because he didn't seem to understand that he was being deceived, one moment, 72, kissinger drags nixon to beijing to meet with maudung, negotiates the recognition of the people's republic of china, i want to remind you that until then the united states recognized as the government republic of china govt. taiwan, this government held a seat on the un security council and enjoyed the full support of the united states.

kitonjura suddenly had an absolutely idiotic idea that he could use china in the fight against the soviet union and will force the soviet union to make progress. mao zedong, the united states recognized the prc, the prc became a member of the un security council. madzedun died four years later. if we didn't have kissinger, the erosion of china would have started in 1976, damn it. international government, well, in the un security council in 1991 there were five democracies, taiwan, yeltsin's russian federation, the united states, great britain and france, we would have the opportunity to change the world so that now nothing that was b. the world lost, thanks to kinnjer, a huge chance for normalcy. life, it's a disaster-disasters

, you just had to wait four years, uh, they'll say, anyway, china would have to be recognized, maybe, but then a new leadership would come, deng siping, who wanted normalization with the united states, who would need economic to change china, not china - a member of the un security council and a great power, not a recognized china, not recognized by the civilized world, and the concessions are political from the side. the leadership of the communist party could be huge and because they would really like to get into the un, to become internationally recognized government, we have no idea what china would be like. if it had happened, this meeting of presidents, the president of the united states and the head of the communist party of china would not have taken place, but kissinger did not realize until the last day of his life in the capital that he had made a huge mistake. the third mistake, it can be two burnt out. the third mistake, the meeting between nixon and brezhnyam, the beginning

of de-escalation of international tensions, 1900. the year 72, and the year 1979 - the war in afghanistan, the de-escalation ended in a complete collapse, and ronald reagan already had to restrain the soviet union, at the expense of starting such an arms race, which led to real results only for one simple reason, because brezhnev died and an era of chaos began in the soviet leadership, and in the end, the new leaders of the soviet union ... made a fatal mistake when realized that they decided that they needed not economic reforms, but democratization of the country, and so the united states managed to get out of this mess that was thrust upon them during kissinger's tenure as us secretary of state and national security advisor. three in fact, a stranglehold on the neck of the united states,

vietnam, china, russia, which is still strangling the american one. politics and all of us, and so in general, a person is absolutely extraordinary, a genius, with a brilliant mind, simply destructive, now the question arises, why are they all looking at him with such delight, because it corresponded to the idea of ​​rich americans that a politician should care only about national interests, that foreign sex, at any cost, that foreign policy must be subordinated to this, and everyone... whoever thinks otherwise cannot be a part of this establishment, that is why mike pompeo and antony blinken talk about kissinger in one word, and this is a huge tragedy of the american political elite, it must be said right away, the misunderstanding of this role, i do not want to say that kissinger was some kind of devil, but it seems to me that admiration is evil, it

the most dangerous thing that can happen in politics at all, and another very important point that i always think about, is that kissinger liked the fact that he was very quick to grasp the moment, that is, he was the first to understand what they did not have time to understand , ugh, this is the quality of the european mind, if you will, a person who knew europe better than his american colleagues, madeline olber also, thanks to his european experience, was aware of the change of processes faster than people who grew up in america, anthony blinke. as you can see, because he also has roots from the european continent, simply, simply , kissinger knew better from the west, madeline orbert the center, and antony blinken - the east, these are different things, and that's what these center-east europe, i mean , and it's interesting what you see, kissij legka said, no, ukraine should not be a member of nato under any circumstances, before his death, he said, it should be, i meant that if

it is not a member of nato, that is not why we will not have a war with russia, if the war with russia, russia is already there, why don't you... take it into nato, that is, it is not a valuable moment, it is a moment of ensuring interest, and i think, after all, if a person with such a sharp mind, with such an understanding of the moment, was guided b values, whatever results it could achieve, because kissinger was in the big politics of everything a few years, that's a short time, the presidency of richard nixon, uh, and the presidency of gerald ford. the people we were talking about were in high positions for 50 years, and kissinger changed the world beyond recognition during these years. all the people involved in american politics before that were either romantics or isolationists. but everyone followed the principles. kissinger showed that diplomacy can be

unprincipled. and since that time, she has never been anywhere else. this book by kissenger , diplomacy, is not a hymn to unprincipledness, no i know if he understood at the time what he was doing in each of those three points that you just mentioned, snarled at the neck of the united states, i don't think he did, he understood that he was deciding, not far, he believed, that he is ending a war extremely unpopular in america , which would have cost nixon a second term, nixon was re-elected, however, he believed that he was posing serious problems, upsetting the soviet union, a new mutual understanding, washington and abandonment, the moment of the most acute confrontation between the states and the soviet union and china ussr, and he believed that if the soviet union was afraid of this alliance and was ready for detente, uh, and he thus creates opportunities for

coexistence with the ussr, these are simple instrumental things, okay, if, if we talk about the fact that the disarmament of russia was at a certain point in kissinger's political life , fundamental values ​​were more important to him than to others, and he saw this as cynicism, so it is practical, disarmed, well, just reduced nuclear potential, yes and no matter what the cost, because this is the most important thing, we are going precisely to this, whether the epochalist is still going into the past together with kissinger, isn’t that what the whole civilized world is doing now, i thought about it today, when i analyzed president zelensky’s speech, the associated press, and where he says that , that we did not have enough help from the west to succeed in the counteroffensive, in principle, the same was said by our commander-in-chief, valery zaluzhnyi,

to me, the american generals are talking about it, everyone is talking about it, we did not get enough to be cool and powerful go on the offensive and to achieve some very ambitious goals, but this is the insufficiency of the resources provided to us, this is not the turn of events after all, are you aware? a conscious approach, of course, is the desire to create, to disarm russia and to prevent the creation of conditions for a nuclear war, this is a real policy and it is, we very much support ukraine, we believe that international law is important, that the territorial integrity of ukraine is important, but there is a balance between these interests, nuclear war, and by the way , kissinger, who said, don't accept them in nato, he has already gone further in real politics, because he understood that russia would not change its position anyway. that you won't be able to convince her already, so act, act more decisively, well, it was the same story that, by the way, they talked about when nixon and kissinger discussed the issue

of supplying israel with doomsday weapons, you know the story when kissin had already said that he would give israel a limited number of planes, and nixon replied to handlin, listen, if you give them even one plane, you will no longer be a friend of the arab world, so give them as much as they need, because there is no meaning, and it is strange that this too. also cynicism, because you can either not give and then have good relations with the arabs, or give as much as is necessary for israel to defeat them and be with the winner, and give in such a way as to give and at the same time not quarrel with the opposite side strongly, it doesn't work because the other side still thinks of you as an enemy, and they will think of themselves as a friend, and that you won't be helping their enemy, and that's what the west has to realize when it comes to it is about russian-ukrainian. and the fact that real politics, it continues to stand still, is what we discussed with pavel klimkin, here is peizka lavrova at the osce session, for the first time, excuse me, since february 22nd, at

this level, the ministers of foreign affairs are meeting with with their russian counterpart, well , they almost never met, lavrov simply wanted to come there, they had a simple choice, either the osce ceases to work, or they fulfill lavrov's, and here the question is that the council of europe from 14 to 2020. the second year lived in the same mode, they all the time they tried to persuade russia to do something , they lifted the sanctions, they said that we need a dialogue, what they are saying now in the bbc, we need a dialogue, at least some kind, and they have to pay money to the organization, and we need to elect a new general secretary, and they will block that, they will block it, and our deputies shouted, do you remember this whole story, and this, and in the end they did everything right, as they believed, the sanctions were canceled. the very possibility of introducing sanctions against the delegation of a specific country was canceled, russia was returned, money for the budget was received, the leadership was formed, everything was great,

only then once and almost they completed this whole process, russia attacked ukraine, they had to exclude it, and the question arises, why did you eat it, you can say from the known substance and did not get anything, we could immediately exclude it in the 14th year and not worry about it, the same thing... yes, i am sure that it will cease to exist if russia is the way it is, well, there will be a next session, lavrov will want to come, on malta with his saxophone, savoyage, something else to take, more will blackmail her, the government of malta will again agree on some kind of flight, russia will again not give the opportunity to elect a new chairman, it will be every time now, just paralysis, just paralysis, so why, well, the actual existence of this then, they could russia can be excluded, but they cannot, because a country can only be excluded

if everyone else agrees. all others, this means belarus or the countries of central asia or hungary or someone else, they will not agree in the current situation, it means that they exclude it cannot, but exist, create some new organization without russia, as dmytro koleba proposed, there is no sense, because if you announce that you will create a new organization, it will be a parliamentary assembly of the council of europe, there will be the same participants, oh , let's go further, because actually you... there were a lot of important events this week, it seems to me, especially interesting work, the security service of ukraine, according to some information, it is the security service of ukraine, we can't talk about it yet, so what is just this kind of optical data, the situation on the baikal-amur, this trunk road, er, could play a rather interesting role, and some of the analysts are believed to believe

that russia... will not be stymied for quite some time, because this branch is quite important connection between russia and china, two explosions happened, one trains the other, well, first of all, we don't know exactly what was transported there, once, huh, secondly, we don't know one more thing, in which direction, i i also think that it is very important when the connection between russia and china breaks through, but we we must understand that china is also interested in receiving goods from russia, and we can consider that this is a signal in china's direction. because these are problems not only in russian-ukrainian relations, but also in ukrainian-chinese relations. we are undermining the very railroad that is important to the people's republic of china, so we are sending a signal to china that we understand that you are our enemies, and we will act so that you also have problems in the economy, and in that particular sector of the economy, which is connected with russia, we can say that in this way the ukrainian authorities clearly set a course for confrontation with the people 's republic of china, and realize that china

is interested in helping russia, because we had a lot of constant hopes that the people's republic of china, let me say my word, let me say my word, we tried arrange this telephone conversation or any other conversation between the president of ukraine and the head of the people's republic of china, in the end he called, it was a huge achievement, we shied away from any contacts with taiwan, god forbid to offend beijing, so that practically our head... due to international relations of the church council of ukraine could not visit the republic of china in taiwan. it can be said that we resolutely returned that, in principle, the decision was made to have a confrontation with china. yes, i don't see any tragedy in this, but we should be clearly aware of it. these explosions have created a powerful new enemy for us, not just a country pretending to be a neutral country. and she did not organize the action against us, but we against her, we are the first.

showed her that we can, these are good consequences of such a story, yes, of course, because we are fighting both russia and china, and china will find opportunities to help russia in another area, that is clear, but we must cut off their ties, that is true, but we must clearly say to ourselves, there , we are really russia, china, iran, north korea, these are countries that will do everything possible to make ukraine disappear from the political map of the world, we do not need to look for connections where we can run into chinese ones. interests, that's where we run into, well, of course, there, when it comes to russian-chinese relations, we are not interested in internal economic rivers, we are interested in the fact that china does not help russia with weapons, that china does not buy oil, so it is necessary to do so that in terms of energy, china does not receive anything from russia, that it was looking for new sources of income, but china will also to react, it is also necessary to understand what this reaction can be, how you will feel it, of different types, will transfer its missiles to north

korea, he has in china... i am sure there are many opportunities to show that he is ready, more than in our country, we we don't know if they didn't pass it on they also, i don't know, i think, passed on , if you want to know my point of view, passed on, they can increase this story, well, again, out of revenge, or they did it anyway, because i'm going down the wrong path again , let's not do something, because they will take revenge on us, i'm not saying that , i'm just saying that then i think we should consider it as the fact that our government has clearly taken a course for confrontation, with china, if that's right, we may soon see the appearance of a representative office of taipei in kyiv, if not, if they themselves are not doing the same thing with one hand and do not understand what they are doing, then nothing will happen, that's all, that is, there will be unexpected consequences and that's it, well, look, this may indicate recognition and general understanding of the realities of today , something very similar from...'