is quite authoritarian there, it seems to them that if there is an agreement there with the president or with the team, to reach some compromises there, then it will be like the minsk agreements, they say, agreed, and now all this will be implemented, we remember the fate of the minsk agreements , it's just that the problem of the ukrainian government has always been that it still doesn't know how to make policies and communicate correctly, we're all the same... we remain a post-soviet country mentally, where they are called contract workers, where it seems that if you find the right mediators, there are oligarchs , someone else, hold a series of secret meetings , everything will be resolved, then you can find a way out, and at the same time public opinion is not taken into account, but in ukraine this situation is fundamentally different, and it is very important to understand this in our government and explain the measures , that they have a situation with... a country that really will never

kneel. mr. oleg, let me ask you, as a former banker, although there are no formers, but as a banker, russia's gold reserves at the end of 2023 reached, as they report, a new maximum of 155, well almost 156 billion dollars. in physical terms , the russians say, the reserve increased by almost 35 tons in december alone, does this mean that russia , despite all sanctions, restrictions, and complete or partial isolation, still continues to earn and accumulate these gold and currency reserves , which it can then convert into weapons in the production capacity of the military-industrial complex, you know, the reserves, i’m like ex there... of the national bank,

the country’s gold and currency reserves, they don’t just exist so that somewhere there, conditionally in there were tons of gold in the basements , they have to work, in order for them to work, this means that the leading banks, for this there are investment banks, place these reserves in the leading financial institutions of the world, use them to issue securities. so that later you can work with this capital, and in russia it is now, well , it is, well, dead gold, so you can say, because russia cannot spend, you pay attention to the situation of russia, for example, there and india, er, where some astronomical sums accumulated there, but due to the fact that russia is under sanctions, and it cannot operate, in fact, with hard currencies, it cannot work with dollars.

she can't work with the euro, so she's sitting in the hay, of course she finds some ways around it, but it 's not at all like if a fully existing democratic country with a normal functioning market would have such reserves, this would be evidence of that , that the economy is growing, in fact there are very serious problems in russia, and these problems are increasing, i... i recently heard that there are already three or four planes break down every day, and this is the risk of boeings , they fall apart because they cannot be serviced, they disassemble some, assemble from others, and there are a lot of such examples, in fact, isolation, this situation was once explained to me in the crimea, western bankers that if the country falls under sanctions, and leading investments do not go to this country. then it

simply dries up, it was said about crimea that if no self-respecting western campaign enters crimea, then it will not prosper there, it will have nothing to develop, and now the whole of russia is actually under these sanctions is located, and there are no prospects there, but the last visit of sunak, the very rich prime minister of great britain, said a lot about a lot of things, because there was such a phrase about the sanctions from russia. will be removed only when it fully pays reparations for the damage caused to ukraine, which means that a scenario is impossible when there is an agreement, and the russians are jumping, saying that we will agree and sanctions will be lifted from us. thank you, thank you, mr. oleg, it was oleg hrybachuk on our broadcast, former deputy prime minister of ukraine. friends, we are live tv channel and continue our, our survey, we ask you about this, will ukraine be able to win? no without western aid,

let's look at the results of a tv poll 8% yes, 92% no. see this week in the program. collaborators. who in the occupied territories became a deputy from united russia? you and i elect deputies to regional and municipal assemblies. but what do pseudo-politicians do? the process of collecting signatures in support of our president. on tuesday, january 16 at 5:45 p.m., watch the collaborators program with olena kononenko on the tv channel espresso. vasyl zima's big broadcast. two hours of air time. of your time, two hours to learn about the war and what the world is like, two hours to keep up with economic and sports news, two hours in the company of your favorite presenters, presenters who have become kind to many, as well as distinguished guests of the studio, events of the day in

two hours, vasyl zima's big broadcast, a project for smart and caring people, in the evening at espresso. greetings, friends, live espresso, verdict program. we continue our broadcast in the second part of our program, see the world economic forum began in davos. they discuss the war in ukraine and the conflict in the middle east. security formula for ukraine. what guarantees did great britain provide and what is being discussed in the negotiations with romania. mobilization by all means. the government is finalizing the withdrawn draft law. military and political aspects of the problem. we work on live tv, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms. for those who are currently watching us on these platforms. please

like this video and subscribe to our channel page, and also take part in our survey. today we ask you the following question: will ukraine be able to win the war without western aid? if you are watching. us on youtube, everything is quite simple: yes, no, or write your comment under this broadcast, if you watch us on tv, pick up your smartphone or phone and vote. if you believe that ukraine can win the war without western aid, 0800-211-381, no, 0800-211-382, all calls to these numbers are free, please call us it is important to know your opinion. i would like to introduce the guests of today's program, they are political experts, ihor reiterovych, political scientist, head of political and legal programs of the ukrainian center for social development. mr. igor, i congratulate you. good evening. viktor shlinchak, head of the board of the institute

of world economy. mr. viktor, i congratulate you, thank you for joining our broadcast. good evening. serhiy taran, political scientist, mr. serhiy, i congratulate you and i am glad. you are with us today, welcome, er, gentlemen, let's start our conversation with a quick question, since we are asking our viewers , well, the answer seems to be obvious, to the survey, whether ukraine can win the war without western help, and yet, let's share your thoughts, what do you think about it, mr. viktor, we'll start with you, the question seems to me , obviously, do not want to influence your vote, i think that everyone understands very well that without western technology, without the security guarantees that we would like to have, and without the practical help that we were promised, we are unlikely to be able to win , thank you, mr. igor,

well, it's unlikely to win, because victory is more than just holding out, but without western help, ukraine will be able to at least hold the front for a certain period of time, but let's hope that we won't have to test it in practice. thank you, mr. sergey. of course, ukraine will not be able to win this war without western help, but for the sake of justice , i will point out that the west can hardly guarantee its future security without the victory of ukraine. that is why it is important to bring the idea to the west, not only that it is western ukraine needs help, and ukraine needs victory. of the west, well, the future of europe and the world depends on ukraine, this is no exaggeration, so it is unlikely that anyone will argue with this, and the prime minister of great britain rishi sunak, who signed an agreement with ukraine on

the security agreement, and this security agreement provides that ukraine will also help great britain in case something threatens it, and that too. it is important, well , at least great britain opened this big negotiation process with the countries of bilateral security agreements that mr. do you think about this agreement and about the following agreements, because both romania and canada are already going to consider the possibility of signing such agreements with ukraine, and whether this will allow ukraine, before joining the north atlantic alliance, some way to solve some of its security issues, in particular regarding the supply of weapons. mr. igor, please, well, i think... that this agreement is absolutely, well, a precedent in the sense that it really opens up opportunities for signing

similar agreements with other countries and shows that it will most likely be canada, because it is a british commonwealth country and i hope that other countries will also join it, well, will this agreement or similar agreements help us to stay, for example , there until we join nato, well, definitely, that's it. .. quite a significant strengthening of ukraine's capabilities, despite the fact that many provisions of this agreement, well , they are of such a general and vague nature, nevertheless, there are enough specifics, and these specifics, well, they touch on the issues that are for us relevant, starting with the training of our military and ending with the supply of the necessary military equipment that our, that our army will need even after we win the war against the russian federation, because we will be forced to keep... the army for many years, it must be clearly to understand, since the russian federation, unfortunately, it will not

move anywhere from our borders, this is the first moment, the second moment, of course the agreement has such a political and symbolic character, because it is a signal, including to the russian federation and to those countries that are not allies of russia, in fact , it does not have any allies at all, but which are sufficiently detached to watch what is happening around the russian-ukrainian war, and this symbolism is that they remain with ukraine big countries, they will... hold back ukraine as long as necessary, and these plans, well, they are quite detailed and different from some previous documents, for example, the same infamous budapest memorandum, because well, if these two documents, for example, to compare, then they really have a significant difference, and this difference is precisely the plus of its agreement, which was signed with great britain, well, and the third most important point, all other agreements, which, in principle, i think, will appear now after this agreement with velika. they should detail and expand those directions that are relevant for ukraine, here

, well, each country will choose for itself in which sphere it can be most useful, and how exactly it can help ukraine, well, and the final such moment, it seems that with another on the other hand, despite all the positive points, we should not get too excited, in the sense that this is not an agreement on security guarantees, and by the way, the british prime minister avoided this wording, he used slightly different wording there... security obligations, aid and so on, therefore , to interpret it as some kind of defensive alliance there, well, it is not worth it, and unfortunately, the british military is unlikely to come to ukraine tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, or after some other period of time, to help us fight against the russians , but there can be an agreement on everything else filled with a practical component, well, the most important thing is that it starts happening as soon as possible, such as with those drones that were promised to us already in april, well, but it must be said that the british were and remain our faithful... friends, well, at least that what they are doing during the development of the great war of russia against

ukraine is very valuable because the united states of america, great britain and germany are the leaders in supplying weapons to ukraine in support of the ukrainian state. mr. serhiy, ihor mentioned about budapest memorandum, but under the budapest memorandum there is also the signature of the representative of great britain, and... in principle, why the budapest memorandum did not work and whether there will be something similar with a bilateral agreement, well, that is, rishi sunak will lose the election and everything will be said, well, in principle, great britain will not risk like this, and we will not take such steps that will annoy putin, can this be? well, you know, international agreements, when they work in world politics, then... when both parties are interested in it, not simply when some papers are signed, and simply

that the two parties have a common interest in seeing that these agreements are fulfilled. look at domestic politics, in the society of one country, there, for example , you can go to court if someone does not fulfill an agreement, there is an executive service, the police, which guarantees the fulfillment of agreements, in international politics there is no executive service, there is no international court, and therefore, agreements are international... they can be performed only when there is a common interest. agreements in the field of security can only be implemented if when two countries have a common defense system. joint headquarters , joint armies, joint infrastructure, attention, joint production, in which both sides are equally interested, i emphasize, equally, when one side promises something, even for the best of reasons, such as great britain to ukraine, it is, you know, it's not exactly security guarantees, it's just a memorandum of

goodwill, which may or may not be implemented. therefore, in fact, i would not like this model of the security agreement between great britain and ukraine to be used for other examples, because there are no such beliefs and guarantees that this will be done, because there is nothing there about joint infrastructure, joint headquarters, joint military production, in which both parties would be interested on equal terms, of course, you can say that they won't take us to great britain yet, because we have a lot of money. industry , we have a war, i agree, maybe, but in that case there should be specific things in this agreement that guarantee that there is something to ask about, things that are digitized, well look, there is , for example, the security agreement between the united states and israel, this agreement provides for specific things, for example, from the 19th to

the 28th, the united states has committed itself in the event of peace, attention , give to israel. about 38 billion is allocated for military support, in case of war, probably other things are provided there, but also very specific, although we can see that on the example of debates in the united states congress, even in case of war , it is not always easy for the united states to guarantee that they will fulfill their obligations to israel, but at least there are specifics, there is specific money, there are specific dates, there are specific numbers. there is nothing similar in the security agreement between great britain and ukraine. no , the only figure that is guaranteed and foreseen by this agreement is that in the event of a new war , ukraine will have the right within, and this is where the figure begins, 24 hours to contact the british government and work out the next steps, that's all the specifics, so it's actually very general agreement, of course it is not the budapest memorandum, because it is close

10 pages, and the budapest memorandum was only one page, but from the point of view of specifics and content. there is no such thing, perhaps this agreement will be supplemented by some other documents or already supplemented by some internal documents that we do not know about, but the status, accordingly , the political status of these documents is different, so i think that this is the experience of signing an agreement between great britain and ukraine should teach us that when there are future agreements with canada and the united states, there should be some specifics, i am the only one who i will say unequivocally about... in this agreement, it is clear from this agreement that both parties clearly understand that it is temporary, that the best guarantee of security is ukraine's membership in nato, and by the way, this is exactly why nato itself works , and because this organization has a common infrastructure, common headquarters, common armies,

nothing is written in the agreement between great britain and ukraine about anything common, but nato is a common infrastructure, so by the way, for example, russia is very afraid of rapprochement, they say nato infrastructure, even if finland joins the north atlantic alliance because they understand that everything that is on the territory of finland military can be used by other nato countries as well. so, we need such agreements that allow the sharing of common infrastructure with those countries with which we sign agreements and that this be digitized and shown in the date. and if there is already an understanding that ukraine should become a member of nato, and this is the only reliable one. security, i would very much like that when signing agreements with other countries, this provision would also be recorded in some way, the same is desirable with the date when ukraine can join the north atlantic alliance, the real international guarantor of ukrainian security. but along with common infrastructure, obviously the countries with which we sign these security agreements must

also have a common vision with us about what 's next, what to do next with...well, that is, if there is a demilitarization clause russia, you can write down this point, because russia threatens all countries that want to make agreements with us, well, i'm not saying that everyone there will sign up for deputization, but that's what is valuable for us, yes, that is, deputization, demilitarization, mr. viktor, or all those countries with which we sign agreements and those that declare support for us, or? everyone understands that the victory of ukraine is the defeat of putin and the defeat of russia. this is a very interesting question, because actually. a lot of formulations were heard during the last year, and these formulations varied from, starting from

the fact that we will support ukraine as much as it is necessary, for whom it is necessary, it is not specified, to the fact that we will support ukraine as much as we can, and here , too, in this question and in... the answer, there are a lot of signs of questions, in fact, it seems to me that, unfortunately, the world does not have a general concept of what to do with russia in the future, everyone is waiting for what will happen presidential elections in the russian federation, and after that , in some strange way , events will unfold that can actually be controlled. and it was even once such a theory about controlled chaos, that is, when at the time when the world will be about seven

seven dozen elections, when different ideologies will compete in the world, when different democracies will compete in the world, here it is important not to forget exactly where everything started and... and how it should end, if the world were fair, and in in this case, i want to mention the peace formula that ukraine is promoting there, there is such a question, returning to the question of justice, as it is now seen in the united states of america, as it is seen in great britain, as it is seen in poland, as he sees it. in the baltic countries, i think that all different countries see it completely differently, that is, the strategy of these countries

is absolutely not a strategy aimed at only one goal: to kill russia, say goodbye to putin's regime and, as was previously the theory, to democratize russia. but there is no such desire, but i have a feeling, as a person who for the past few years has communicated very closely with, including with the so -called russian liberals, who promoted various theories and promoted various scenarios of possible development there, even in them there is no such desire there... to reach some coherent position, which russia should be, it should be divided into several states, it should be the country it will be, in which

there will really be democracy, although i am very skeptical about it, it will be a country that simply lowers all the iron curtains, as it was during the cold. war and no one will enter this country and no one will leave it, all these concepts, it seems to me, are still in such a dimension that even in the united states of america there is no exact answers, so there is no exact answer how they see the victory of ukraine, and how they see that ukraine can win, and at the same time, that russia will not receive advice. this formula looks very strange to me, well, this formula looks strange to me too, especially against

the background of this formula, which was presented in davos by andriy yermak, the head of the office of the president of ukraine, because these negotiations are about the peace formula, about the holding of a global the peace summit in switzerland, they will be held a long time ago, today zelenskyi met with the president... with the president of the swiss confederation, she said that we are ready to host this global summit. mr. igor, shouldn't the ukrainian team think not about, not about the peace formula, exclusively for ukraine, but also for europe, because or for the world, because it turns out that in the current conditions under threat, well, first of all, of course, the front in ukraine, but neighboring countries are also under threat. our countries and members of the north atlantic alliance, they are already talking loudly about the fact that they are preparing for the fact that in 3-5 years it will be necessary to defend

from the russian federation. and the peace formula from ukraine could be a formula for victory over putin or a security formula, a new security formula for europe and for the world, how do you perceive the concept of a peace formula for ukraine and whether it should be transformed into a broader formula so that more countries join in, so that everyone understood that ultimately the security of the future depended. from the russian language, from what is happening in russia and from how we will overcome this racism and putinism. well, look, here in fact, at least in words, representatives the authorities say that this is the ukrainian formula for peace, on the basis of which it is possible and necessary, well , there is such a dream, to build a new architecture of global security, at least such statements sound, we are talking about the fact that we are talking not only about the end of the russian-ukrainian

war, but ... we are talking about other things, which can then be relayed to a certain extent, well, there to other countries and generally to the entire system of international relations, well, at least in europe, although according to logic, it should clearly be about the global system, since such countries, for example, as the united states, the same china, which is not too happy to agree to any negotiations around this formula, well, they will somehow influence this new global architecture, but what is actually there in... our ukrainian peace formula is actually a bit of a secret: we have a document that was made public a long time ago, there is a certain list of points that ukraine represents and around which there is a discussion, but, judging by everything, the issues that are raised at the meetings of these advisors with security issues there and on political issues, so apparently a much wider range of problems are discussed there, which can be represented in one way or another

by all peace formulas, what exactly is being discussed there, in what format, well, for us this is to some extent closed information, especially that as you rightly pointed out, these issues are handled by the head of the president's office, which is a bit strange from a formal point of view, since at least the minister of foreign affairs should be involved in this, and at most, of course, the president, the president, by the way, in switzerland for the first time in a very long time period of time paid so much attention to peace formulas, voiced something there, before... this was done directly by irmak, so the situation here is actually very simple: if it is possible to really gather this summit and present some universal formula at this summit, the first step in the implementation of which will be the completion the war that russia is waging against ukraine, then it will be about some new key principles in general, that is, security for europe or world security, well, it will definitely be a success, but if all this is, well, everything will end

exclusively on the questions here... russian-ukrainian war, well, then it probably won't be worth hoping for some serious implementation of this formula, because many countries can support it, but if these are just words without concrete mechanisms, and this common position will not be harshly voiced to the same russian federation, well, it will be nothing more than a beautiful document that will not have any practical implementation. let's remember, we had a good initiative, the crimean platform, but it is somehow in practical implementation. well , even the first ones are there, well, there are some ideas that were there laid from the beginning, they were not brought to a logical conclusion, and by the way, this is not only connected with an exceptionally large-scale war, it seemed to slip from the very beginning, because, well, there are a lot of good words, but the concrete mechanisms left much to be desired to wish for the best, and here, unfortunately, we can face such a problem that there will be a very good , beautiful document, under which a huge number of countries will sign, but these countries

will not be ready to take on certain problems. zation regarding the implementation of this document, and so on the information that was, for example, yesterday, that all the previous conversations that were held in the group of these advisers, led by yarmak, yes, he was the head of the meeting, so this meeting ended in fact without results when it came to specific implementation mechanisms what ukraine offers. well, i would like to somehow avoid this, but for now everything boils down to the fact that even if this global summit takes place, we will see a very beautiful, very beautiful one. document, but it will not have practical content. andriy yermak, while in davos, and discussing with partners in the future peace formula from ukraine, said that the ukrainian state will never agree, and the current ukrainian leadership will never agree to freeze the conflict with russia. let's listen to what yarmak said. this president and this his.