dr., to the territory of russia. in your opinion, the americans could conclude some kind of agreement on military cooperation with south korea, keep troops there, if south korea emphasized that it is ready, by military means or otherwise, to liberate the territories that are an integral part of the soviet union. well , definitely not, we have to understand that, and now let's imagine that the same would have happened with the german democratic republic, that the soviet union would not have been created from these countries. central european states of people's democracy, i would include all of them in the union republic the federal republic of germany could, of course, join nato, but it would then have to emphasize in its constitution that it does not claim this territory. and what's more, i think that no matter what they don't take. they would think for a long time what to do with it. so now the current situation: putin has violated international law. annexed our territory. what does it mean that they will take us on?

from to nato, if we gave up our own territory, and why only this one, how is it, and if we gave up this territory, where do we have guarantees that russian troops will not enter the kharkiv region and also not annex it, well, now let's forget about us and look at the western countries, they also recognize that the territory annexed by russia is the territory of russia? how is this even possible to do? from the point of view of international law, you can imagine the situation, again, i repeat, ukraine is admitted to nato, these territories are considered ukrainian, but we agree that they can be liberated only by political means, not by military means. ukraine also agrees with this, a separate document is signed, nato troops are on the contact line, but no one will ever... force ukraine to give

up its constitutional territories, because if this happens, it will be the end of the world in the literal sense of the word, it will be mean that territorial changes can take place in europe by force, and then again, what kind of signal do you send to vladimir putin in this situation, this is nato territory, and this is non-nato territory, you are sure that putin will not try any more ? to seize ukraine and say, well, let it be nato territory, but it won't be nato anymore. well , that is, i believe that all these same ideas, maybe somewhere around donald trump, such ideas are circulating, but do you understand what is the craziness of the situation? first of all, it is believed that putin will agree to this, and why can he do it for this, but if they ask him, you know, we will give you donetsk, luhansk, kherson... zaporizhzhia region,

you know, like somewhere in the meat department, and more tenderloin, please, there is also 50 g of fillet, and crimea. and you just agree that ukraine joined nato. but our idea was russian to move the borders of nato away from our borders, and now you want to mechanically bring them closer to the territories that we accepted as part of russia. no, there cannot be any acceptance of ukraine into nato. agreed with russia, because if you start to agree on something with russia, then the question arises, why did you not agree on anything with russia in 2022, when it demanded from you a security guarantee, a guarantee that ukraine would not join nato, a guarantee that you would withdraw the latest weapons from the countries of central europe, and you said absolutely clearly, we cannot agree to this for one simple reason, because it violates the sovereignty of nato countries, it violates the sovereignty of nato, nato will decide on this.

russia, and now it turns out that we will agree with russia on the admission of ukraine to nato, so what was the discussion about at all, so i don't believe it. that is, after all, we come to a situation where even russia itself is unlikely to agree to such a thing, and in the end we begin to realize that in such a case, even, relatively speaking, civilized states, conditional, as we call them, in which... international law applies, in fact they will violate international law, that is, this is already, that is, this will already be a violation of international law not only in the context of russia and ukraine, but a violation of international law already in the context of civilized states , look, there is a motherhood in this, so to speak , which must be understood, one must understand the purpose of the russian federation, the purpose of the russian federation, it is absolutely simple and transparent, no one hides it, i used to say that if, as in a criminal plot, if the maniac wants says that he wants to kill you. you have to

believe him. the russian federation wants to restore its statehood within the borders of the soviet union in 1991. perhaps with the exception of the baltic states, if it does not want a conflict against. to know that as much as it can seize, it will seize , so the key to the restoration of this statehood is in ukraine, because it was always like that even in the 20s of the 20th century, that if you overcome the resistance of ukraine, as the largest of the former soviet republics, other soviet republics simply fall into your hands hands, besides, there are only a few countries in the post-soviet space with conditional electoral democracy, i mean where it changes... this is ukraine, this is the republic of moldova, this is georgia, this is armenia, and these are small countries, if you understand, and this is kyrgyzstan, in all other countries, in all of them,

the government does not change, it completely controls the state and society, which means that some forms of integration must be negotiated. it is not necessary with societies, but with the first persons, of course, the first persons are also different, you see, lukashenko can tell you that he is only in favor, and aliyev can tell you that the door is there, in response to such proposals, and the door there, and then there is the door to erdogan, and this is a serious problem with azerbaijan, as you understand, because on the one hand there is actually a leader with ... unlimited power , and on the other side of this side, this leader has various alliances, but one way or another , they may not think about it in moscow, they think that if they basically explain to ilham heydarovich there, how life is arranged now, then he will not be able to refuse them , and some kind of union of sovereign states, conditional with a different type

membership, they will stick together, so this is such a global thing, but we, we are here, so the main idea is that our state does not exist as a subject, at least independently. maybe some kind of conditional sovereignty will remain, but in a part of the territory headed by medvedchuk, who is sitting and waiting for it, there is no need to even doubt why russia exchanged him, because for putin he is the next leader of ukraine, the one he wants to create . so, this is the time, now our goal, our goal - to go to the borders of 1991, preserve sovereignty, join the european union and nato. now. the goal of the event is for this war to end with the success of ukraine, one way or another, without a direct conflict with the russian federation. three main players. now let's discuss the possibilities: does

russia have the ability to control the entire territory of ukraine with the help of military force? can we draw certain conclusions after two years? well , definitely not. definitely not, because if she could. then she would not be near avdiivka in two years. now the next question arises. can ukraine, well, at least in in the foreseeable future, to expel russian troops from the territory of ukraine, which they control, and end the war there. do we have such opportunities? rather not either. rather not either. now. the third question: will the west be able to guarantee itself that the continued support of ukraine, no, no, will lead to a direct conflict with the russian federation, if this situation continues like this, when it becomes clear that russia cannot and ukraine

cannot, well, logically, that no, and correctly, logically, no, that there is no such guarantee, so where, so if all these answers are negative, it means that... at some stage the parties have to stop, but it does not depend on us, not on russia, on putin. at some stage, putin has to realize that these forces, which he is directing to destroy ukraine, in principle, they are redrawn and do not lead to anything, and that it is better for him to stop at some stage, let's say, if ukraine is also ready. before such a halt, there may not be a political agreement, but a de facto ceasefire, or in principle grain agreement, we are just standing here, where we have arrived, near avdieivka, or on the border

of ukraine, i don't know, we all wanted the armed forces of ukraine to perform a miracle, but we are not discussing this now, where the line of contact will be of russian and ukrainian troops, on this line the war will stop... and shelling of the ukrainian territory by the russians will stop, and the shelling of the russian territory by the ukrainians will stop, just a stop. this is the maximum that the parties can achieve in the foreseeable future. and now the question that we have to analyze is: what will the west do in this situation? he is ready will accept ukraine into nato? well, here we actually come to the question that i asked, how many minutes 25 ago. yes, that is, if they are discussing something like that, yes, then, accordingly, we have basically come to this, we have come to this correctly, but they will not admit anything. if they simply see that russia cannot move any further, which means that it is simply exhausted, it is not a threat

to them, and if the ukrainian war resumes, resumes as a threat, and at that moment they can agree to the acceptance of ukraine to nato, but in exchange for not recognizing these russian territories, in exchange for not continuing the war. but we well understand that, in principle, she believes in... russia, and no one will ask russia, and the second question, if we are talking about joining nato, yes, we also have to understand that without actually joining to nato, there is no guarantee that there will not be a war in the future, and in fact there is none at all, and we must understand that if ukraine does not join nato, relatively speaking, in some perspective, then we start counting down.

how is the event then, what will he attend then? ready, but if we reach this conditional option, no matter where this option stops, the west is then ready to accept ukraine into nato and what the formula will be from the point of view. of international law here, because we said here that there are certain conflicts with international law, here we are already moving on to the situation there, when it will, let's assume, be like this situation, what, what should nato do in such a case, what should ukraine do, and how can we arrange all this legally correctly, so that the western countries, in fact, do not lose, relatively speaking, their own. its place on the map of international law, and international law was not destroyed, and

let's say, ukraine was also satisfied, and everything happened within the framework of current legislation and common sense. ukraine should be admitted to nato in all its territorial integrity, but with the understanding of the fact that if, if it does not restore its territorial integrity, the system to part of its territory. it does not control, and that the restoration of control over these territories can take place, as the president of ukraine is now saying, by the way of a political decision in the future, russia at the same time, regarding the fact that she is thinking about accepting ukraine into nato, no one asks, because this is not russia's opinion, ukraine at the same time gives guarantees to nato member countries, it could be... an agreement between ukraine and nato that it will not take military,

its own military steps to restore its territorial integrity and adheres to the position of political dialogue, by the way, this same formula can be applied to georgia as well, it is the same story, and these declarations are, in principle, russia's answer, nato's answer to russia's fears. no, no one is going to attack you, and even those territories that you have illegally seized, they are not going to liberate them militarily, but if you take even one step from that line, which is defined there by the armistice agreement, it is an attack on nato. and everything that happens next, i can also tell you, what always happens in history. at some point, the russian government changes, the political ones change. conditions and a platform for a helsinki-level dialogue emerges, a dialogue that

should define the borders in europe, and then the russian federation is forced to find a formula relinquishing the territories it captured by military means, and what this formula will look like, we cannot know today, it may be a proposal... of the eastern period, it may be a proposal to hold referendums on these territories, ukraine may not agree with this, russia can insist on this, there will be mediators, this process is like the western one. can stretch for 25 years, but it can go in this situation, when we will know that both countries claim these parts of the territory and from the point of view of international law, the right to on the side of ukraine, because russia will forever remain a country with undefined borders, but you and i may not see it, because this process, it can take 50 years, like the process of, say, restoring

the independence of the baltic countries, it took 50 years, it is very important that the legal instrument... was absolutely specific, there may be such an option, it is an alternative to force, because we understand that putin, he recognizes only force, but again, the important question is, if there is, whether we have power or not, besides , we have faced a new moment russian tactics in recent weeks, and it must also be true, russia sees that it cannot, say, establish military control. over the ukrainian cities that it would like to occupy, and then it tries to make these cities uninhabitable, so what is happening today in kharkiv and what is happening in zaporizhzhia is an attempt, without any military offensive, to make these cities uninhabitable , i.e. deprive them of their infrastructure and, accordingly

, squeeze out people, of course, further west, i.e. create, that is what putin wants. territory occupied by russia, the territory is not occupied by russia, but the territory that is being shot through, where there is no population, and then there is ukraine, which was not captured, uh, uh, also a tactic, and this can also be a tactic for the next time, we are monitoring these threats not so, strategically, we just see that there is some shelling. kharkov, and it does not look like that, mykola platonovich, patrushe, an intellectual of all times and peoples, comes to vladimir vladimirovich putin with papochka, and there this plan is already written and approved by the chief of the general staff. for the armed forces of the russian federation, let's say, it can be called a plan, whatever we

call it, they don't call it. prevention, the plan for the prevention of the city of kharkiv, coma ukraine, well, everything, and not only kharkiv is actually being monitored here, we see what happened in sumy oblast during march, and what is happening, which is happening all the time, it's just that very often people there did not pay attention to sumyshchyna, but sumyshchyna is being destroyed, at least the border area, for at least a year in a row, that's right, that's right. to create from the borders with the russian federation zone without population, and this is their approach, by the way, this has always been their approach, we are not inventing anything new, i will remind you,

you know, like lukashenko, i told you where the attack was, look, big... the principality of moscow, annexes the grand duchy of ryazan, what are they doing, they burn both the center of the principality of the city of ryazan, this is the city we call ryazan, now, it’s not ryazan, it seems, it’s called novgorod ryazan or something else , i have already forgotten, to be honest, how aleksandr vryazansky, well, that is, this insignificant city in to the ryazan principality, why... are they destroying ryazan in order to displace the active part of the population, which is the bearer of this tradition of statehood, which knows that there is a grand duke, to displace from the big city to the small towns of the ryazan region, what happens next? this population, it revolts against the moscow prince, and it is completely exterminated, i would say, cut off, but the chronicles say that it

is resettled on the territory of the moscow principality, replacing it with muscovites. ryazansk, ryazansk prince, the population of ryazan, i think that it was cut, to be honest, but in mine there is no historical evidence, then, unfortunately, there was neither television nor the internet, so the moscow princes could generally do whatever they wanted, and they did what putin is doing now, the problem is that russia has not grown up since those times, that is, the times of the middle ages, such facts of the middle ages can be found not only about russia, not only about moscow, but the question is that putin acts in the same way as... a can of summer with absolutely the same audacity in the 21st century, and the population russia is absolutely ready to support it, that's interesting, it does not even see this as a wrong approach. you remember how the relatives of those ukrainians who suffered from rocket attacks, who lived in moscow, said, but you don't understand, it's putin who wants you well, he's just helping you get out of

the mess you're in they hit, they shoot, they hit, they love, that’s all, purely russian logic, so literally we have a little time left there, traditionally an ideological topic, an ideological topic, because... in ukraine, as we see, even after 2022 year, after february 24, until now certain topics appear that shake societies, which, relatively speaking, even begin to divide societies, so on and so forth and the like, this week there is such an interesting topic that is being discussed by all of facebook, all social networks, the topic of bolgakov, eh ... we could, we prayed for an hour to talk about it, andrei, what will we say about it for 9 minutes, well, anyway, i think the audience is waiting, because because you were the conclusion, in short, our

audience, i think , they know the conclusion of the ukrainian institute of national remembrance regarding bulgakov, where he is actually recognized a symbol of russkogomir, yes, but also this, but that's not all, this week there is another statement by mr. serhiy shafir, who says that it is necessary to be friends with russia, that it is necessary... and here we are talking about that certain voices are really beginning to appear, either from abroad of people who lived here in ukraine, or even from our own... who, in fact, are still trying to cling to some rope of this russian world and still involve

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

it started like this from the beginning of the war, whether this or that figure of russian culture is big or small, because we look idiotic in the world when we start giving assessments, assessment creativity of any writer, this question, i would say, is subjective, someone can consider tolstoy dostoyevsky. bulgakov, anyone else, rachmaninov, tchaikovsky, and other livitans, you can continue to list them for hours, in big letters, someone may, someone may not like them, the issue is that this is simply not ukrainian literature, and it is not even a matter of language, i always suggest making this simple. an experiment: translate this or that work into ukrainian and read it as if you did not know that it was written in russian, and i

wonder if you will perceive bulgakov, let's say master margarita as a ukrainian novel, well, hardly, if, if we talk about the context, if we talk about the ideologues, who are the guards, well, of course not, there are certain ideologues, but we are dead souls... i'm not talking about the discussion , i say just read the books, you will see that goguly 90% of his work is a russian writer, maybe you will read myrhorod and see him as ukrainian, but this is what happens with writers who often... a person

considers the culture his own, i have no problems with bulgak, because he is a writer for another culture, and it is not a question of whether i understand the russian language or whether i am a russian philologist by first education, but i could be a korean philologist, but then korean culture would not become mine for me, and jewish culture would become mine for me , as soon as i started reading it, and andriy, i read the works of jewish writers, in russian, ukrainian, polish, english... it's normal, but i still knew that i was reading my own books, but the context there and the ideologues were like that, so that i saw what, relatively speaking, what is in my family, that's exactly what is in these books, let the ukrainians who say that bulgakov is theirs, look at how much his work corresponds to their worldview, and their family and national world, and that's all. and one cannot

help but give bolgakov to the russians, because they already have him, that's all, the question is, the question is not what to do with bolgakov's books, the question is what to do with the immortalization of bolgakov in a country that should be, so to speak, ukrainian-centric, just as poland is polish-centric, and the czech republic is honor-centric, now another question will arise, why do we have a monument to sholom aleikh at that time, and i will tell you why, the question is not even that sholom aleikh lived most of his life in ukraine, wrote in ukrainian, i would say , ukrainian-jewish themes, ukraine is at the center of his work, it is obvious that for ukrainians sholom aleikhym is a jewish writer, no one considers him ukrainian, but the monument is out of respect for the jewish people who lived on these lands, which is part of , if you will, cultural and... and

demographic context, that's why they stood monuments to pushkin, and no one touched them, and that is why no one thought about bolgakov, russia's war with ukraine created a question of this respect, it disappeared with the first rockets, because russia actually hit its own culture, but no one ever it was not considered necessary to dismantle the monuments to adam mickiewicz, the truth, which stood there in the cities of ukraine, which there... in the 1940s became part of the soviet country there, then an independent country, because it is out of respect for poland and polish culture. there is a monument to the slovaks in kyiv, no one cares about anything, no one does not say, it is ours, but it is respect. if the russians had not started this terrible war, and would not have supported this war, the symbols of their cultural presence on ukrainian soil would have been treated either with respect or with indifference.

bulgak is not in this... guilty in himself, whether he was a ukrainophobe or not, but russia itself trampled on respect for its own cultural heritage, not ukrainians, not ukrainian patriots, not supporters of russian culture in ukraine, russia itself and its people , who accepts, by the way, this war, if the russians hundreds of thousands went to anti-war demonstrations, i assure you that no one here would talk about bolgakov, this is an absolutely logical reaction. you see, it's like the absence of wagner streets in tel aviv, that wagner is a bad composer, well, it's just somehow strange to call streets in an independent jewish state after a person who was anti-semitic, well , even though i lived 200 years ago, well, here you go all that can be said on this matter, it seems to me, is that we simply see that in reality, once again, both in ukraine and outside its borders, there are

people, here you are. spoke really correctly about the fact that those people who feel themselves in the context of their certain identity, after reading this work, they will not associate themselves with it, but there are people, unfortunately, even in ukraine, who still feel certain to a certain extent, it happened, again, for certain reasons that they associate themselves with something russian, well, because ukraine is a country. it is also a fact that we have this conflict of identities in ukraine, it is still there, so it is not as pronounced as we saw it 10 years ago ago, even 5 years ago, even 3 years ago, but still he is there, and here it is really a task for us as a society, and the state as well, the task to do so in order to show ukraine.