but this is so, well, here comes the question , you see, so actually, i don’t know how the west can act in a way that russia or china can’t, but in any case it can carry out some certain economic test, you also have to be realistic , the west has always had exaggerated expectations from its own economic pressure, and this is... in part caused by the fact that the west has always dealt with communist regimes and with a planned economy, and to understand that it is we who are dealing with the market, it seems to me, only now is this understanding coming, that iran is living under western sanctions for decades, it is disconnected from swift completely, unlike russia, there are no credit cards, there is no this, that, the third, the fifth, the 10th, the 25th, and at the same time. continues to produce

drones, i do not mean that he is there, he maintains a certain stability in the country itself, despite the constant protests of the population, he participates in wars as an equal player, he has a quasi-army in the palestinian authority and in lebanon , he produces drones, he has missile technology, why did they sanction such a thing then were calculated on the fact that iran would abandon its aggressive policy, go to negotiations with the civilized world, if iran... can it exist for decades in such a situation, how long will the russian federation last? this is an excellent question. moreover, it turns out that the market allows the delivery of products in some other direction. ugh, what if you decide that you don't live a lot and start nothing, and just decide that you will sell oil and gas to china, india, then you can survive with a poor population until infinity you will have enough resources for many years. and then the question arises, maybe?

some other, other tools in order to stop aggression, if these do not work, well, i think that in the first half of our conversation with you i already spoke about such tools, that it is necessary to be able to end wars without russia, and without the consent of that side , so to speak, well, the war in korea ended by and large without both koreas, the civil war in china ended... without china, uh, you see, the existence of the chinese republic in taiwan, it's not because someone negotiated with china, no one ever negotiated with him, he was simply told, this is taiwan, it is under the protection of the united states, there is a legitimate chinese government, of course you won the civil war, but the power has been usurped, you can sit on this mainland as long as you like, but we do not consider you to be the legitimate government of china, and this is the situation. continued

until the 70s, until henry kissonger attracted richard to beijing, i won’t talk about it now, this is also, by the way, the result of 23 kissinger left, well, once he has, once it should have happened, this is a great political and diplomatic career, but one way or another, well , he left, he met with volodymyr zelensky before that, just think, his career was from brezhnev to zelensky , think who else had such opportunities, colossal. oh, but i'm just saying that this is also a good example, and by the way, if we already mentioned kissinger, kissinger as a person, absolutely, realistically-thinking, no, what did he say, this year, on the eve of his death, that we didn't want to take ukraine into nato because we didn't want a war, and the war has already started, everything that we were afraid of has happened, why don't they take them into nato, that's also the right answer, that's what i told you i say, if the nato anniversary summit takes place in the 24th year, or kissinger a little. created

the appropriate mood, at least for some steps in this direction. oh, you know, kissinger is too, realistic for the people who rule the world today. even skisanger, to be honest, has some concerns here. ugh, apprehension. and we are it we feel i'm always a supporter of... what many ukrainians don't like, and many in the west don't like, and basically, just this year, former nato secretary general andes volkras said the process, uh, and i also spoke about it this year, and i know , that they talked about this in 2022, i am very surprised by the story, by the way, we recently met there with the former minister of foreign affairs of ukraine pavlo klimkin, i told him, please explain, i told about the option that... ukraine receives guarantees

security for the controlled territory, and joins nato, or receives these security guarantees before joining, i this. told in the middle of 2023 and everyone says that i put forward such an idea, but i did not put it forward, you told me this on the air, not in some, some private conversation, on the air of the espresso tv channel, in the first months of the russian-ukrainian war , i don't remember when we can watch it on the air, in march, april we talked in our lviv studio and mr. pavlo was on the phone and he told us that there were options are being actively discussed in... western political circles, how to bring ukraine closer to nato, it is possible to invite it to nato, in all its territorial integrity, yes, but extend security guarantees only to the territory controlled by ukraine, and this was sometime in march 22 of the year, he said, you can

absolutely refer to me, of course you can, we already have a record, i didn't make this up, i just don't want anyone to think that i'm there, there are some ideas floating in the air, and i, as a journalist, can voice ideas, but precisely such a... i just don't think i should invent it, because it's simple, i think i'm capable of inventing something more complicated than this law of requimedes, you know, i lay down in the bath and here it is, the water somehow squeezed out , pushed out, you push out into the water, well, i 'm not saying that this idea is optimal, but what rasmussen has already said about it out loud, ugh, and many of the current western politicians are talking, means that certain security options are being discussed , you know, security. the end of this war without russia, if you want because what does that mean? if we get an invitation to nato at the washington, say, summit, and the united states and great

britain give us security guarantees there against a nuclear strike, some kind of security guarantees that finland got sweden, remember when they got an invitation to nato. from my point of view, this means that... no more rockets will come to us, yes, yes, uh, we are not bound by this for years, this is a question of our agreements with nato, what will the agreement look like, on which territory that we can to do, she does not tie our hands even now , when they tell you, they give us western weapons, but you cannot shoot on the territory of russia, does it tie our hands or not, we have other tools, well that's what i'm saying, in any case, our hands are tied, this... in this situation, it means that there are various tied hands even without nato, there is no nato yet, but there are already tied hands, well, from the western point of view, from the point of view of, say, president biden, it looks completely different, what will we be invited to contribute, or will we be given guarantees

security, tomorrow russia will launch a missile attack on kyiv, and what should we do, we gave guarantees, we admitted to nato, this is an attack on nato. uh, and there, and there it is, i'll call, if you will, two schools of thought. i can't say that my perspective is perfect for one simple reason: i'm not the president of the united states, unfortunately. if i were president, i imagine myself sitting in the oval office and having to make a decision that could cost my own country a war. i don't know what i would do. it's easy to say things like that when you don't have one such responsibility, and when you have , when... a nuclear suitcase is standing next to you, you behave differently, you understand, you begin to perceive and weigh all these risks in a completely different way, and therefore, therefore, i think that the search for these mechanisms will

continue, that's all, you understand, i understand, let 's talk a little about what internally, maybe it should be done, or what... will happen in view of what has already been done and not done in 2023, there are some points moments in our internal solutions, what are you for themselves at the end of the 23rd would be marked, and maybe they have the opportunity to get some traction, i don't know, the struggle with the russian orthodox church, that is, the agency of the russian federation under the guise of religious organizations, maybe it's some separate moments in the information department. politics, what was most important to you, were we so focused purely on the military component and international politics that we forgot to work on such internal stability and at least some comfort of our people's existence.

you know, i was puzzled by all these conversations about some problems between the political and military leadership of ukraine. i believe that the very fact of the appearance of such conversations is wrong. ugh. huh, from the point of view that if there really are any differences, they should be internal conflicts, let's say, that should not be made public and definitely not made public on social media. by the deputies from the ruling party, and certainly the statements of the deputies from the ruling party should be refuted by the representatives of the political leadership, all this did not happen, but we said many times, well, if you think about it, deputy maryana bezugala speaks there with demands for the resignation of the commander -in-chief of the armed forces of ukraine, this is her position, i also believe that it is her position, i never understood those who said that she has no right to say this and she does, she is a member of the verkhovna rada , she says what she wants, but if she is a deputy from the party of servants. of the people, this is the ruling party, which has the majority, then it is obvious that this party or

parliamentary faction must express itself, uh, say, you know, this is the personal position of ms. maryana bezogloi, our political force does not consider it is necessary to raise the question of the resignation of the commander -in-chief of the armed forces of ukraine, this is the competence of the president of ukraine , and that is the end of these conversations, but it did not happen, but why did the representatives of the president's office say that this is her private opinion, umerov, umerov. when umirav said it, the conflict was actually resolved, but by and large, many expected a statement from the president of ukraine himself. yes, it did not sound. and i can name many such moments. here is another story the non-release abroad of the former president of ukraine, the leader of european solidarity , petro poroshenko. well, it looks comical. but this is a problem. for how ukrainian politics is observed in another world, where

it is customary that communication with the leaders of various political forces is the norm of a democratic state, and that it is not the border guard who decides whether the leader of some political force can visit there, let's say the same mike johnson or cannot, and it is certainly not an issue that is within the competence of the chairman of the verkhovna rada of ukraine or his deputy, especially when they represent another political. i think we were shown an example of civilized professional politics this year after the hamas attack on israel. wow, what did prime minister netanyahu do? he immediately offered to be the leader. positional forces to enter the military cabinet , although these people not only did not accept him there, as, say,

many representatives of the patriotic national-democratic forces did not accept the populist forces that came to power as a result of the events of 2019 in ukraine, they fought for his resignation , took people out on demonstrations, came to his house, said not very nice things about his wife, remember, this is exactly what the president did not experience. zelensky, because the discussion with him has always been a discussion about the ratio of patriotic and economic, professionalism and non-professionalism, about whether a state that is facing the risk of a major war can risk the creation of unprofessional leadership at almost all levels, now we know the answer to this is a question, but a huge problem that a large part of ours compatriots will never hear this answer again, but these are completely different conversations, this is a field. great struggle, in israel it was moving to personalities, ugh, nevertheless, it

didn't change anything, netanyahu offered to enter the cabinet to the opposition leader bienigans, the opposition leader tony lapido, tom lapido, i wonder what yeira lapido, i'm sorry, it is interesting that lapid did not join this government, his ratings began to fall, and ganz joined and his rating is now much higher. rating of netanyahu, but the project itself united was not much moved by this, as you can see, because at that moment he was worried about the survival of the country, its security, this is what i said in 2022, that a military cabinet should be created, that all the political forces that are represented patriotic parties, should enter into this. who of the cabinet or the government of national unity, that it is necessary to delegate authority, that

in a situation where war has begun, the mandate of trust issued by specific political forces is nullified, because it is necessary to make only unpopular decisions and not to think about elections, especially when the war has been going on for such a long time, when the term has already expired for the parliament and for the president, and they simply continue to work because there is no possibility, and we will not have such a possibility, to hold elections, the only answer to this. . the question is the government of national unity, and someone could ask me, what would happen if petro poroshenko in such a government had a higher rating than volodymyr zelenskyi, or not petro poroshenko, as in... some there is conditionally a deputy from the party, a vote from yaroslav yurchyshyn, it can be, it can be, of course, well, the next president of ukraine would be petro poroshenko or yaroslav yurchychyn, what does it matter, what difference does it make to us, who will be the next president of ukraine after the war? why should we think about preserving the power of the current head of state or about

the representatives of his entourage keeping their positions in the office, when it is a question of whether this state will exist. to exist, because if ukraine does not exist, it does not matter which of the mentioned persons will lead the ukrainian government in exile, will he even survive until the end of the war, because one or two successful missile attacks can lead to the complete defunding of the ukrainian political elite, because its representatives will die, this is also a war, and it is absolutely obvious to me that vladimir putin will do everything possible to destroy volodymyr zelenskyi, this is also clear, it is not about that, but about the state. we should always think not about personnel, not about political forces, moreover, they appear in us just in a few minutes, when someone needs it, and disappear just like that, of course, we understand very well that the servant of the people party will disappear, it will not be there in the next political term, let's say, and other political parties may also reform and

disappear, we understand this very well , what do we think about in general, what is the meaning of that last name, which will be in the election. ballots after the end of the war, especially since you and i do not know at all in what year, in what decade the war will end, decade, not what year, therefore, of course, the government of national unity is the only possibility for to survive, it is not too late to create it, it is never too late to create it, the president has an excellent opportunity to turn to the leaders of political forces, whom he himself considers patriotic and capable of joint leadership of the state, and eventually get out of it. the isolation in which he is, because in fact what we see when there is no such government, there are no such consultations, there are no meetings with the leaders of political factions, it is called very simply: political isolation, and a person in political isolation lives in a completely distorted reality, and can make wrong decisions, and this is very dangerous, because the president must be strong, must be

effective, must be realistic, and there must not be those texts that appeared this year about absolutely himself'. isolation of the president, why this self-isolation occurs, because the president communicates exclusively with representatives of his immediate environment, who are afraid to say some unpleasant things to him, so as not to lose their functions. besides, it's just management if you surround yourself with close friends, they used to want to keep you in the comfort zone, they are your friends, they don't want you to worry, you need to lead yourself not as friends, but as enemies, relatively speaking, politically, because these enemies will definitely tell you how benny the ganz talks absolutely tough with benjamin even for... a professional and experienced politician, he is forced to tolerate it, and what about our own reservations regarding our own not so old experience, during the presidency of viktor yushchenko, respectively, the coalition in the verkhovna rada, which collapsed and we got the prime minister, eventually viktor yanukovych , who later became the president, but now we are not talking about a coalition, this is not a coalition, the

servant of the people party has a majority in the parliament, it does not need any coalition, and it is needed. division of responsibility, and such a majority in the servant of the people party will be until the next parliamentary elections, i say once again, we are, this is a completely different story altogether, the coalition fell apart in the parliament , some new political configurations could be created there, it was in a peaceful country, in which happened elections, etc., and now we are talking exclusively about responsibility, well, excuse me, but there is such a subconscious fear already now that suddenly everyone will start... to fold the blanket over themselves, we will lose time, we will continue discussions, but in there won't be any, there won't be any decisions about whether it's more profitable to have, you know, this turbo printer or what they called it, turbo mode, it doesn't work like that now, it doesn't work, that's all, because i repeat again, turbo printers, turbo mode could

to work, because they were approved exclusively popular solutions that were supposed to increase the rating. this is called the lumpenization of politics, and when you have to make unpopular decisions, your printer does not work, because each unpopular decision is minus 10% to your rating. you find yourself at the bottom, and that's why you make these unpopular decisions that you have to make in wartime, because there are no popular decisions in wartime, you just put them off until it's too late to make them, that's what it's all about, how to make sure that you are not afraid to share responsibility, well, it has always been the same. winston churchill hosted during the second world war, it seems to be the idol of volodymyr zelenskyi and boris johnson. boris johnson even wrote a book to tell him. a whole range of unpopular ones. but how did winston churchill become prime minister of great britain because the conservatives, who had a majority in parliament, said, you know, if war breaks out, we need a government of national unity, we invite you labor, you

have no votes, to come into of this government, and labor said, we'll go in, but please, here's your party leader, neville chamberlain, who led to such a situation, let him sit on the bench of deputies, he cannot be the prime minister in the government of national unity, because he made mistakes, and... then they asked, what should we give this winston churchill, let's he will head the government , he means absolutely nothing special to us, nothing special to us, to you , just a compromising figure, and that's how chertel became the prime minister of great britain, not because he was a great national leader, but because that he was not taken seriously by both political parties parties of the country, as a leader, well, he became one , but at the time when he was elected, he was not one, but he... shared his political responsibility with the leader of the labor party , kliment metl, who became his deputy, and that was the essence, that he could not be afraid to make political decisions, firstly, because he did not think about the rating of the conservatives, he

was not their leader, their leader was nevelychi, well, for a long time, not a long time , but he was, well, and then when chertsi became a conservative leader himself, he knew in any case that he shares this responsibility with clement attlee, and when he was traveling abroad. clement made him leader of the government at a time when his party did not have a majority, and they held a general election after the war, and in that election attlee beat churchill, because it appeared that for most britons a wartime leader could not be a leader of the time peace, it turned out, no one even knew it, but it matters, it doesn't matter, i think it doesn't, the main thing is that great britain won, and churchill was there once returned to his post, he might not have returned at all, there was simply already a monument. i think the opportunity to become a monument is much more important than the opportunity to become president again, that's all, and it should come from that, and finally, let's go back

to where we started, only we were summing up the previous year , and we 'll talk a little bit about the prospects for the 23rd, 24th, yes, thanks, purely in theory, for now, if we get the necessary supply of weapons to carry out what is planned, maybe right now? almost in these minutes ours military leadership, if we eventually see the results of the election in the united states, and not just the presidential election, by the way, and those results tell us that we can expect some stability and the durability of our support from the united states, will the combination all these conditions, it is possible for russia to revise its plans, at least for the 25th year. i think that russia will think about its plans for 2025 after the presidential election in the united states, this time, after realizing what part of the ukrainian territory she controls in

the middle, let's say, on november 24th, that's two, after she understands how destabilized the situation in ukraine is on november 24th, that's three, but imagine that on the day, when the results of the united states presidential election are announced, the security council will meet in closed session. and all these factors lie on the table: the territory, the number of mobilized on the russian front, from the russian side, i have on the russian-ukrainian front, the destabilization of ukraine, internal political, and from that they will base what they should do, i.e. i don't think they will discuss the possibility of ending the war at all, i don't think they are interested in it at all, but they may discuss the possibility of... transferring the war from an intensive to a non-intensive phase , and what political measures they can take for this, but again, taking into account the figure of the new american president, until this

moment they will simply drag this situation, this is one version of the development of events, another version of the development of events that already themselves americans will try to negotiate something with them, yeah, but i don't think these agreements will be pleasant for us. because again, imagine the agreements between the united states and russia in 2024, in any case , we perfectly understand with you that in 2024, 20% of the ukrainian territory cannot be freed from the russian occupiers, for this there is no, invented, there may be an offensive, there may be some results of this offensive, this is true, because we have preserved 95% of the equipment supplied to us by the allies, we are not unarmed. we are, but we need shells, this is not enough, let's see how it will be, we need military aid, aviation, we need aviation, all this must come so that we

understand this situation. but you know war is such a thing that it is very difficult to make predictions, i keep saying that when people always ask, when will the war end, that it is not a topic now for predictions, because then i should bring you a deck of tarot cards, sit down, you and i spread out, you and i would have crazy ratings, and this forecast would be much more accurate than the forecast that we can give you an account of the situation , because war is not a predictable thing, in war, as we know, some event... which you definitely do not plan, can change everything drastically, here i can give you examples, this is the destruction of the malaysian boeing by the russians in 2014, and butch in 2020 second, these were events that changed the very attitude to war, uh, on the part of the civilized world, and the russians definitely did not

plan. if not these events themselves, then their consequences, when there were all these atrocities in the buteche, they did not think that they would be out of here so quickly will leave, that they will not be able to learn all this , clean up and so on and so forth, they were in a completely different world, and these are serious things, and on the other hand, there may be events of the opposite nature, which also change the course of the war, say, liberation kharkiv oblast , because if there was no liberation of kharkiv oblast, it would be obvious... before the russians announced the annexation of kharkiv oblast, and it would also be a different, let 's say, political, not military, but a different political situation, so what can be predicted here it is very difficult, it is clear that vladimir putin is ready to continue fighting, that we already understand that this is a long-range war, that we have to adapt to a long-range war, not to tell people fairy tales, this is a very important thing, because a lot of things that happen with public sentiment do not happen because

that we did something... right and so on, and because there were too many expectations, too many expectations are the biggest enemy of any war, the main thing in war is realism, when people say, oh, it's so good that we were reassured, no, if you were sedated for a few weeks and then everything that you, that you expected, did not happen, you inevitably fall into depression, yes, and if you are told that this is a difficult process, you reformat to this difficult process, and then something better happens, then... on the contrary , you perceive it, and now many perceive the situation in black tones precisely because he completely inadequately assessed the development of events, and this also needs to be said, and realism is a friend of a normal, healthy psyche, you know, when you go to bed and understand that there may be an air alarm, then you wake up calmly , with you go to bomb shelters, you either go into the corridor, or

you do nothing, but you have prepared them there in time. of course, but you don't have a feeling of panic, and when you go to bed and think that nothing can happen, and then once you wake up, of course you sink into despair, and i find it amusing that people are realistic, they are just remain with stronger nerves, because strong nerves are the main guarantee of survival in war, it is easier for us to talk about it, because we are engaged in journalism, journalism is generally work in a crisis. and we understand that we are here more adaptive with you, because we follow the news forever, and people started following them , most of us simply don’t have a nervous system anymore, so of course, but people started following them, just like they are watching us, in general, not even on the 14th of the year, and mostly on the 22nd, and i understand very well what it means for a person who is not adaptive to the influence of news to be in all this all the time, but... i

believe that if you accept the facts, keep them realistic, and limit their number, you have much greater opportunities to survive this difficult era and be more useful to the state in this difficult world than those who live in either pink or black glasses, just take off the glasses, in principle, in principle, in principle, look at the world, it is not... simple, but it creates perspectives, well and that, on this, we will say goodbye , say goodbye, thank our defenders, thanks to whom we could conduct these broadcasts all this year, we remind you that we must help our armed forces in the next year as well, our armed forces remain the guarantor of our future with you, and this is the most important thing what needs to be said in these new year's days.

thank you, christina. i congratulate you on the holidays, very much in return, vitaly port.