in order to achieve some of your results, uh, and you said about a parallel war, but it seems to me that this is not a completely accurate description, it is not a parallel war, it is a continuation of this war. i think that i told you that in 2022, in march, i think, i wrote a text to the israeli media in which i predicted this conflict, and precisely because i assumed that it would continue. ukrainian conflict, and i did not agree with those of my colleagues in israel, with experts, and with politicians who said that this is another war, and now in israel, by the way, they don't think it's a parallel war, that's why israeli prime minister benyahu can afford a harsh tone in his conversations with vladimir putin, because everyone understands that it's one and the same conflict situation, and started it. by whom, when

iranian drones appeared in the sky over ukraine, i also asked, and what is this coincidence, do you think that they are just supplying weapons from russia, no, they are still using all this as a training ground, they are generally watching how the ukrainian army operates, as the russian army operates in the proposed conditions, because by and large these are armies of different mobilization and military-technical potential, how can any army... military-technical understanding is much weaker than the attacker, to stop his actions, i think that the iranians still really wanted to see, they just didn’t luckily, how the street battles will take place, ugh, they needed a war for kyiv and also drones during such a war, but could not, excuse me, could mariupol demonstrate this to them, to a certain extent, mariupol and azovstal could also demonstrate, so what did they want look... how the hamasites can act in such

a situation of serious urban development, and how they can hold certain positions for a long time, what israelis can do in a situation where the hamasites hold such positions, all this was absolutely necessary for them and they needed their military equipment was somehow present so that they also understood its capabilities, i said that this is not a case, and indeed by and large it is... in the middle east it is also an illustration of a wrong understanding of the danger, because many said before this war the same thing that the ukrainian authorities said before putin's attack, that the most dangerous thing you can do for a potential aggressor is to create the illusion of weakness, because then... you might

win, but you won't be able to make up for all that that you lost prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu was told: the issue is not judicial reform, the issue is that you , mr. prime minister, are splitting israeli society, that in order to stay in power, you are establishing coalitions with the most marginal political forces on to the right flange, which in turn also splits. the israelis, what you hear already, as reservists, say that they will not go to the defense army, these are slogans, but if these slogans are heard by our enemy, he may think, it may be time to attack, if the jewish state is as weak as it has ever been in its history, at least we will be able to deal it a blow that we could never deal in any other situation, and that is also the weakness of institutions, because when institutions come to be ruled by ignorant people. when conflict is created artificially

between ignoramuses and professionals, as it was with the far-right ministers in netanyahu's cabinet, it really gives the enemy the illusion that he will destroy you quickly, or at least strike you in a type of blow that would never otherwise have been struck, and what we did not have such a situation before 2022, we had exactly the same situation, we explained why, let's say, it is dangerous ... to hold a meeting in the normandy format in paris, because it will create completely unrealistic expectations for vladimir putin capitulation of ukraine, and it is not known how he will react to the unpreparedness of our new government for such a capitulation, why it is dangerous to carry out this whole process of searching for a dialogue with the national assembly. rpr, because russia will create

the illusion that it is luring us into traps, and if we do not fall into these traps, it will in turn create. the idea of ​​the need to resolve the conflict by force, because these are weak people, they are trying to somehow come to an agreement with us, but they cannot, we will push them. this very situation of institutionality, when leading positions in people who had nothing to do with them were appointed to critically important structures, already creating the impression among the russians that they would be able to easily take the situation under control. and when we know this famous phrase that if we strengthened the army, we would not be able to build roads in the required number, well , i did not say it to her, and this phrase, one way or another, illustrates not only the attitude of the ukrainian

authorities to situation, it illustrates the attitude of the russian authorities to the situation, they are building roads there, instead of strengthening the army, we it is necessary to quickly resolve this issue, because if the government there changes. and those who will strengthen the army and not build roads will come, this is electoral democracy, they have already seen how the rating of the current president decreases before the war, then it will be more difficult for us to capture them, so we need now, this is the moment, they generally perceived the election as well volodymyr zelenskyi and the first years of his rule, as a moment of absolute weakness and lack of self-control of the ukrainian state, and the same in israel, although a very experienced politician ruled there, who still... rules there and in ukraine, although new faces have come to power here and there, the enemy has had, the illusion of the state's weakness has been created, and he adopted his plans based on this illusion,

and this means that we can both in israel and in ukraine to get out of this situation, but at what cost, the price is really unbearable for both countries, israel is forced to... fight for dozens of days, ugh, this is absolutely not typical for conflicts in the middle east, as a rule, the hot phase of war in middle eastern conflicts ends literally in a few days, well, for a few weeks, ugh, this is causing irreparable damage to the economy, there is no telling when the israeli economy will return to its pre-war level, and how many people are they missing, same for ukraine, we can stop navala, however... we already live in a world where the economy is in ruins , we have a few industries left, and that's all, well , that's all the price, the price for our misunderstanding, for our and israel's misunderstanding of security, that's why i think that this is the continuation of wars, that

dictatorships, they are sensitive to such things you see, this is a dictator, an authoritarian ruler in general, he has the logic of a snake, if he smells blood, he goes there. you understand, because if blood is already flowing, it will be easier to finish it off, this is a very simple logic, and it is the same for yakha sinvar, it is the same for vladimir putin, they just feel this smell, they like the taste of blood, is it possible to create a situation in which this blood there will be so much that even putin will choke, or shall we say, just my visions, what do i mean? returning to the topic of conflicts around the world, here whether it is possible or possible to achieve a situation when there will be so much straw on a camel that the last straw will break its back, it is desirable that it was again a camel in the form

of a conventional china or russia, and not the west. well , for this, the west must act like an authoritarian regime, and for this we must return to the logic of the cold war. but even during the cold war, the west did not want to directly interfere in any, say, areas of responsibility of moscow or beijing. but there was no event in vietnam. i was in vietnam, i was in vietnam when vietnam occupied cambodia. the west did not participate in the vietnam-china war. and when the west tried to participate, the war in vietnam, let's say, is the real participation of the west. it led to stunning results. to the actual defeat of the united states, it must be clearly stated that the united states was defeated in the vietnam war because the republic of south vietnam, which was non-communist, was destroyed by the communists, and that is the question of whether the west can act as russia or even china, because

the price of human life is different, americans are all at times they asked why we are fighting in vietnam, what we are doing there, this was also a problem by and large, it weakened the community. america obvious conclusions are drawn from this. afghanistan, where the american troops were. also. so, how, how can we here. to interfere with vladimir putin, this means that we should think about some conflicts that weaken the russian regime itself, create conflict situations for it, well, relatively speaking, these should be conflicts on the territory of russia itself, to be precise to the end, but west this will not be done, because it is outside the political ethics of the west, it will be a hearing in... aggression, the question is why did you get there, how did you give the money, can i ask a question, please, about the nato bombing of yugoslavia?

the nato bombing of yugoslavia could have happened in a situation, i would say, when the relationship between the west and russia and china was different than it is now, and when everyone knew for sure that russia would act exclusively by political methods, uh, and when the russian leadership tried to convince . slobodan milosevych to come to some kind of agreement with the west. it is known that viktor chornomdin met with slobodan milosevych before this nato operation. and how did yevhen primakov meet addam husein. that is, but they did not use political methods. but i want to remind you, if you have already mentioned about... the bombing of yugoslavia by nato forces, about what happened on the first day of this operation, about

the symbolic event, about the crash of the plane of the prime minister of the russian federation, yevhen primakov, who was flying to the united states states on talks with the vice president of the united states, albert gore. primakov when he learned that a decision had been made to bomb yugoslavia. ugh, ordered the crew to change course and take a course not to washington, to moscow, and from that moment the countdown begins in the new russian foreign policy, anti-western, frankly anti-western, and this was even before the moment when on the political vladimir putin appeared on the stage of russia. at the moment when yevgeny primakov turned his plane around, putin was alone. one of the high-ranking russian officials, but definitely not a person who should lead the country, before him there was

the prime ministership of sergei stepashin and eventually putin himself, not much in terms of time, many in terms of events, and by and large we can clearly say that when nato was approved the decision that it can act in such a way as to stop the genocide, so that in order to prove to authoritarian regimes that it will talk to... with them not only through political methods, russia took this opportunity to say that it will now do not act at all only by political methods. i have always reminded that moscow will mirror any actions of the civilized world, even if these actions are justified. it is no coincidence that vladimir putin constantly cites the example of kosovo. on the one hand, we ... perfectly understand that kosovo is a territory where genocide took place, in fact, that

slobodan milošević decided to expel all albanians from the territory of their many years of residence, some lived more, some lived less, but this is language it's been about a century, and this was the main idea of ​​serbian chauvinism, expel albanians from kosovo, because kosovo is serbia, and there is nothing, nothing for albanians to do there. but the subsequent recognition of kosovo's independence by the united states and other countries of the world created a precedent for russia, which putin decided to use when in 2008 he recognized the independence of abkhazia, south ossetia, and said that abkhazia is worse than kosovo, georgia too wanted to carry out genocides in south ossetia there, abkhazia shelled tskynval with rockets, which. georgians have never in their lives expelled abkhazians from georgia and south ossetia, from abkhazia

south ossetia, the authorities of these regions expelled ethnic georgians and put them in a situation where they turned into refugees for ten years, but nevertheless, nevertheless, it was a precedent, and then putin generally liked it, you know, this very idea i liked it, because he not only annexed crimea, but also other regions. ukraine, he held referendums there, under the guise of expression of will, yes, referendums, and declared them independent states, crimea declared itself an independent state, and then held them. donetsk and luhansk people's regions the so-called republics declared themselves independent states , and then held referendums as independent states on joining russia, that is, it was zaporizhia and kherson oblast all the time, they did not even change their names, it was such a comedy, an independent state, zaporizhia oblast joins russia, well,

what am i talking about, he uses this mechanism all the time, because even russian legislation. prohibits annexing regions of other countries, until now, from the point of view of russian legislation, it is not possible to annex the region of ukraine or kazakhstan, but an independent state , well, it is independent, we recognized its independence and then accepted it, what is the problem, this is also not the first time, latvia, lithuania and estonia were accepted into the soviet union, and the tovinsk people's republic, in 1940, in the fourth year of its existence, its small hural decided to join the rsfsr as an autonomous region, there was not even a referendum there, but it was a quasi-independent state, because you understand that the tovinsk people's republic was recognized as a state only the soviet union and the mongolian people 's republic, as the dpr and lpr, and that is, they simply annexed the territory that, from the point of view

of international law, on all maps up to 40 there in the fourth year was considered a part. china, father and all, that is, nothing new happened, just what we saw in asia, they started doing in europe, everything, that is , it turns out that the western world must be as careful as possible in every move, because putin has a habit of monkeying around and you can be careless to use on your own, but you can understand the consequences, it's just that you need to understand the consequences, when you take the first step in some direction, you need to understand how the hell will go. and the board is your opponent, huh, and to think what you will do next, well, the situation is like this, now you and i have come to a new chess move, when the west speaks, and we don't care, you create all these countries disabled people, annex their territories, and

we will still negotiate with them about the european union and nato, you will not stop us, and we will accept some into nato, and we will accept some into nato. near your borders uh, yes, well, near the borders is finland, part of whose territory was already stolen in the 40s of the last century, but this is, well, the question arises, you see, so actually, i don't know how the west can act like this, as russia or china cannot, but in any case can carry out some certain economic, one must also be a realist. the west has always had exaggerated expectations of its own economic pressure, and this is largely due to the fact that the west has always dealt with communist regimes and with a planned economy, and to understand that we are dealing with the market, i think this understanding is only now coming, but iran

has been living under western sanctions for decades, it is completely disconnected from swift. unlike russia, there are no credit cards, there is no that, this, the third , the fifth, the 10th, the 25th, while iran continues to produce a drone, i don't care what it is there , 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, they... were calculated on the fact that iran would abandon its aggressive policy, go to negotiations with the civilized world, if iran can exist in such a situation for decades, how long will the russian federation exist, that 's a great question, the more so it turns out that the market allows you to supply products in some other direction, well, what if you decide that

many non-residents do not start anything, and you simply decide that you will sell oil and gas to china and india, here... you can live with a poor population to infinity, you will have enough resources for many years, and then the question arises, maybe there are some others , other tools to stop aggression , if these do not work, well, i think that in the first half of our conversation with you, i already talked about such tools, that one must be able to end wars without russia and without the consent of that side, so to speak , well, the war in korea would have ended... by and large without both koreas, the chinese civil war would have ended without china, uh, you know, existence? of the republic of china 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 you have usurped power, you can sit on this mainland as long as you like, but we do not consider you the legitimate government of china, and this situation continued until the 70s, until henry kitsonger drew richard nixon to... i won't now, this is also by the way, the result of the 23rd year, kissinger left, well, once he has, once it had to happen, this is a big political and diplomatic punishment er, but yes, one way or another, he went, he met with volodymyr zelensky before that, just think about him, his career was from brezhnev to zelensky, think about who else had such opportunities, a colossal path, well, but here i am i'm just saying that this is also a good example, and by the way, if we have already mentioned. about kissinger, kissinger, as a person, absolutely, realistically thinking, no, what did he say, this year, on the eve of his death, that we did not want ukraine to join nato, because we did not want

there to be a war, and the war had already started, that's all what we were afraid of happened , why don't they take them to nato, that's also the right answer , what i'm telling you, if the anniversary summit of nato takes place in the 24th year, will kissinger create the appropriate mood, at least for some steps in this direction. you know kissenger is too realistic for those people who rule the world today, even kissenger, i will tell you honestly, there are certain fears, uh, fears, and we feel it, i am always a supporter of what many ukrainians do not like, and many in the west. i don't like it, and in principle, just this year, the former secretary general of nato andres falk rasmus said about it, yeah, and i also talked about it this year, and

i know that they talked about it in 2022, i am very surprised by the story, by the way, we are just there recently met with the former minister of foreign affairs of ukraine pavlo klimkin, i told him, please explain, i told about the option that ukraine receives security guarantees for control. territory and joins nato or receives these security guarantees before joining, i told this 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 in a private conversation, on 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, we talked there in march and april. in our lviv studio, mr. pavlo was on the phone and he said that such options are being actively discussed in western political circles, how to bring ukraine closer to nato,

it is possible to give, invite it to nato, in all territorial integrity, yes, but security guarantees distribute only in the territory controlled by the ukrainian government, and this was sometime in march 22, he said, you can refer to me absolutely safely, of course i can, we already have a record, it's not me made it up, i... just don't go around thinking that there are some ideas floating around in the air, and as a journalist i can voice ideas, but exactly that idea, i just don't think i have to make it up, so that it is simple, i believe that i am capable of inventing something more complex than this law of rechimedes, you understand that i took a bath and here it is, the water somehow squeezed out, squeezed out, you squeezed out the water, well, i’m not saying that this idea optimal, but what rasmus said about her already out loud, well, that's a lot. who of the acting westerners politicians are being discussed, means that certain security options are being discussed , you know, security, that is, the end of this war without russia, if you will, because what does it

mean if we get an invitation to nato at the washington, say, summit and the united states and great britain give we have security guarantees there about... a nuclear attack, what kind of security guarantees finland got sweden, remember when they got the invitation to nato, from my point of view it means that no more missiles will come to us, so with yes, uh, we don't have these years binds, this is a question of our agreements with nato, what will the agreement look like, on what territory, what can we do, it does not tie our hands even now, when you are told that they give us western weapons, but you cannot shoot on the territory we have other tools, well, that's what i'm saying, in any case, our hands are tied in this situation , which means that there are different tied hands and without

any nato, nato is not there yet. and the hands are already tied, but from the western point of view, from the point of view of, let's say, president biden, it looks completely different, that we will be invited to the nato, or they will give us security guarantees, tomorrow, russia will launch a missile attack on kyiv, and what should we do, we gave guarantees, we accepted into nato, this is an attack on nato, ugh, and that's it, and that's it, if you want, two shko ... thinking, 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 the president, i imagine, i'm sitting in the oval office and i have to make this a decision that could cost my own country wars, i don't know how i would act, it's easy to say such things when you don't have such a 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, that is why i think that the search for these mechanisms will continue, that's all, you understand? i understand, let's talk a little bit about what internally might be worth doing, or what will happen in view of what has already been done and not done in 2023? there are some focal points in our inner decisions, which are you for yourself at the end of the 23rd would note, and maybe they are able to get some traction, i don’t know, the struggle with the russian orthodox church, that is , an agent of the russian federation under the guise of religious organizations, maybe these are some separate moments in the information policy, what was most important to you, are we so ...

were so focused on the military component and international politics that they forgot to work on internal stability and at least some level of comfort for our people. 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. from the point of view that if there really are any differences, there should be. internal conflicts, let's say, which should not be made public and definitely should not be made public in social networks, by deputies from the ruling party, and certainly statements by deputies from the ruling party should be refuted by representatives of the political leadership, all this did not happen, but we said many times, well you think 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: she does not have the right to say this, but she does, she is a deputy of the verkhovna rada in the council, she says what she wants, but if she is a deputy from the servant of the people party, which is the ruling party that has the majority, then it is obvious that this party or parliamentary faction should express herself, uh, say, you know, this is a personal position mrs. maryana is bald, our political power does not approve 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 i will finish with that. these conversations , but this did not happen, the truth is, why did the representatives of the president's office say that this is her private opinion, umerov, umerov, the minister of defense came out and said, no, we do not have such intentions, but when umerov said this, that was the conflict practically resolved, but by and large many expected a statement from the president of ukraine himself, it was not made, and such moments i i can name many, here is the story of

another. not the release abroad of the former president of ukraine, the leader of european solidarity, petro poroshenko, well, it looks comical, but it is a problem for how ukrainian politics is observed in the other 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 any political force can visit there, let's say the same mike jones. whether or not it is possible and this is definitely not the issue that is within the competence of the head of the verkhovna rada the council of ukraine or its deputy, especially when they represent another political force, is a shame for democracy, it must be clearly said that a country that allows itself to behave like this during a war is risking its reputation, why should we risk our reputation? and again i think this year we have been shown an example of civilized professional

politics after the attack. hamas on israel, well, what did he do.