russia? how is it even possible to do this from the point of view of international law? you can imagine the situation, again, i repeat: ukraine is accepted into nato. these territories are considered ukrainian, but we agree that they can be liberated only politically , not militarily. ukraine also agrees with this. a separate document is signed. nato troops are on the conflict 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, this will 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, here is the nato territory, and here is the territory. not nato, are you

sure that putin will not try to seize another territory of ukraine and say, well, let it be nato territory, but it will not be nato? well, that is, i believe that all these same ideas, maybe somewhere around donald trump , such ideas are circulating. but do you understand the craziness of the situation? first, it is believed that putin will agree with this, and him why is it possible for this, but if they will ask him, you know? "we will give you donetsk, luhansk, kherson and zaporizhzhia regions, you know, like somewhere in the meat department, and also a tenderloin, please, there is also 50 g of fillet, and crimea, and you only agree that ukraine will join nato, but our idea was russian, to move nato's borders away from our borders, and now you want to mechanically bring them closer to the territories that we accepted as part of russia, no." any

acceptance of ukraine into nato cannot be agreed with russia, because if you start agree something with russia, then the question arises, why did you not agree anything with russia in 2022, when she demanded from you a security guarantee, a guarantee that ukraine will not join nato, a guarantee that you will 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, it will be decided by nato, not by russia, and now it turns out that we will agree with russia on the acceptance of ukraine to nato, so what was the discussion about at all, so i don't believe in it, that is, after all, we come to the situation that russia itself is unlikely to agree to such a thing, and in the end we then begin to realize that in such a case , even, conditionally speaking, civilization...

states, conditional, as we call them, in which international law operates, in fact, will violate international law, of course, that is, it will already be a violation of international law not only in the context of russia, ukraine, and the violation of international law already in the context of civilized states, see, this is there motherhood, so to speak, is certain, 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 the final plot, if a 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, possibly with the exception of the baltic states, if it does not want a conflict with nato. as much as she can grab, she will grab. so, the key to the restoration of this statehood is in ukraine, because it was always like that in the 20s of the 20th century, that if you overcome the resistance of ukraine, as the greatest ever. of the soviet

republics, other soviet republics simply fall into your hands by themselves, besides, there are only a few countries in the post-soviet space with conditional electoral democracy, i mean where the government changes, it is ukraine, it is the republic of moldova, it is georgia, this, armenia, and these are small countries, if you understand, and this... in all other countries, in everyone, the government does not change, it completely controls the state and society, which means that it is necessary to agree on some forms of integration not 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 over 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 hand this on the other hand, this leader has various alliances, but one way or another they can 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 there is some kind of alliance of sovereign states , conditional with different types of membership, they glue, so it's such a global thing, but we, we're here, so that's the main thing. the idea that our state should not exist as a subject, at least an independent one, maybe some conditional sovereignty will remain, but there on a part of the territory headed by medvedchuk, who is sitting and waiting for this, should not even doubt why russia exchanged him, because for putin he is the next leader of ukraine, the one he wants

to create, this is the time, now our goal, our goal, to go to the borders in 1991, to preserve sovereignty, to join the european union and nato. now the goal of the event is for this war to end with the success of ukraine in 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. we can draw certain conclusions after two years. well , definitely not, definitely not, because if she could, she wouldn't be near avdiivka two years from now. now the following question arises: can ukraine, well at least in the foreseeable future, execute the russian

troops from the territory which, which, from the ukrainian territory they control, and end the war there. do we have such a possibility? probably not either, probably not either. now the third question: the west will be able to guarantee itself that further support for ukraine will not 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. it is not logical that it is not. and rightly, logically, no, there is no such guarantee. so, where, then, 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 must realize that these forces he is directing at

the destruction of 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 for such a halt, then there may not be a political agreement, but a de facto ceasefire, or according to the principle of the grain agreement, but we are simply standing here where we have arrived, near avdiyivka 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 will be the line of confrontation between the russian and ukrainian troops, fire will stop on this line and shelling of ukrainian territory by russians, and shelling of russian territory by ukrainians will stop. a mere stoppage is the maximum that the parties can achieve in the foreseeable

future. now the question that we have to analyze is: what will the west do in this situation? will he be ready to 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, here we have basically reached this, we have come to this, but they will not admit anything if they simply see that russia cannot move any further, and it means that it is simply exhausted, it is not a threat to them, and if the ukrainian war resumes, it will resume as a threat . and at this moment, they can agree to the admission of ukraine to nato, but in exchange not for the recognition of these territories as russian, in exchange for not continuing the war. but we well understand that in principle we have to trust 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 nato. there is no guarantee that there will not be a war in the future, and there is none, 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... begin to turn on the countdown to the next war the next war and everything and this and that, in fact, intelligent people talked about this even in the 90s and in the zeros, that the formula is not to attack russia, so that, i would say that the losses from an attack would be greater than the losses from a non-attack, how then the west, on that he will then be ready, and if we reach this conditional option, no matter where this option stops, the west will then be ready to accept ukraine in? and what will the formula 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 we assume it, it will be, so this situation, what, what should nato do in such a case , what to do in ukraine, and how can we arrange all of this legally correctly, so that the western countries do not essentially lose. relatively speaking, its own 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 territory. that it does not control a part of its territories 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 no one asks what she thinks about ukraine joining nato, because it is not russia's opinion. at the same time, ukraine gives guarantees. member countries of nato, it can be under a separate agreement between ukraine and nato that it will not take military, its own military steps to restore its territorial integrity and adhere to the position of political dialogue, by the way, exactly this formula can be applied to georgia as well, this it's the same story, and these declarations are basically the answer. all of nato's responses to russia's fears, no, no one is coming for you to attack and even those territories that you

have illegally seized, are not going to liberate them by military means, but if you take even a step from this 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 conditions change, and a platform for a dialogue at the helchtinian level emerges, a dialogue that should define the borders in europe, and then the russian federation is forced to find a formula relinquishment of the territories it captured by military means, and what this formula will look like, we cannot know today. it may be a proposal for a transition period, it may

be a proposal to hold referendums on these territories, ukraine may not agree with this, russia may insist on this, there will be mediators, this process, like with west berlin, may stretch for 25 years, but it may to 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, justice is on the side of ukraine, because russia will remain forever. ukraine with undefined borders, but you and i may not see it, because this process, it can take 50 years, just 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 concretely, 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... do we have force or not. in addition, we faced another moment

of russian tactics, in recent weeks, and this too must be said truthfully. russia sees that it cannot, say, establish military control over ukrainian cities that it would like to occupy, and then it tries to make those cities unlivable. 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. to deprive them of their infrastructure and, accordingly, to push people to the west, i.e. to create this is what putin understands, free of population, this is what it should look like, the territory occupied by russia, the territory not occupied by russia, but the territory that is shot through, where there is no population, and then there is ukraine, which could not be captured, uh, also a tactic, and this can also be a tactic for

the next time, but we do not monitor these threats in the same way, strategists. we just see that there are some shelling of kharkov, but it does not look like that, mykola platonovich, patrushev, an intellectual of all times and peoples, comes to vladimir vladimirovich putin, with papochka, and there this plan has already been written and approved by the chief of the general staff of the armed forces of the russian federation, let's say, it can be called a plan, how? we called it, it, they don't call it, prevention, the plan for the prevention of the city of kharkiv, the coma of ukraine, well, that's all, and here, in fact , not only kharkiv is being monitored, we see what happened in sumy oblast during march, and what is happening, what it happens 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 areas already... well, at least a year in a row, that's for sure, sumy region, kharkiv region, the unoccupied part of donbass and zaporizhzhia, that 's how it is, what is the minimum, the minimum program of the so-called sanitary zone, in order to create a zone from the borders with the russian federation 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 will tell you where... there was an attack, look, the grand duchy of moscow , annexes the grand duchy of ryazan, that they they are doing, they are burning both the center of the principality, the city of ryazan, this is the city we call ryazan, now, it is not ryazan, it seems to be novgorod ryazansky or

something else, it was called, i have already forgotten, to be honest , how alexander vryazansky, well, that is... this is an insignificant city in 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 is population, it revolts against the moscow prince and he is completely cut off, i would say cut off, but the annals say that he is being resettled. on the territory of the moscow principality, replacing the lyazansk, lyazansk, lyazan population with muscovites, i think that it was cut off, to be honest, but i have no historical evidence, then, unfortunately, there was neither television nor the internet, so the moscow princes could generally do everything , whatever they want, and they did what putin is doing now. the problem is that russia has not

grown up since those times, these are the times 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 like ivan kalita, with absolutely the same audacity. in the 21st century, the population of russia is absolutely ready to support this. interestingly, 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: you don't understand, it's putin who wants you well, he's just helping you get out of the mess you're in you got it well, if he shoots, that means he loves, that’s all, well, purely russian logic, so literally we have a little time left there, traditionally an ideological topic, an ideological topic, because in ukraine, as we can see, even after 2022, after on february 24, there are still certain topics that

shake societies and... which, relatively speaking, even begin to divide societies, so on and so forth and the like, but this week there is such an interesting topic that is discussed there by all of facebook, all social networks , bolgakov's topic, they could talk about it for an hour let's talk, andrii, 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 , i think our audience knows the conclusion of the ukrainian. in memory of bulgakov, where he is actually recognized as a symbol of the russian world, yes, but that too, but that's not all, this week there is another statement by mr. sergey shafir, who... says that it is necessary to be friends with russia, that it is necessary to restore the series of boris, boris shefir, here i have boris, boris, if not so, then i apologize, serhiy

shefir just denied these statements of his brother, yes, yes, let's just rehabilitate, i apologize, yes, i do not agree, serhiy shefir does not agree, and mr. boris shefir, he agrees, and the second, and here we are talking about what is really starting to appear certain voices, whether from abroad or people who are in our country. lived in ukraine, or even our citizens, who, in fact , still try to cling to some rope of this russian world, and still drag the country into this cultural, historical, linguistic context, which we have here to do, how, what way out should we look for 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 . you know what surprised me in this discussion about mykhailo bolgakov, because it is a conversation about cold and

wet. some people say that we don't need bolgakov because he is a bad writer, he is a bad writer in general, why are you dragging him, he is just a secondary writer, and you glorify him there, that he lived there in kyiv, so what, others say that bolga, what... the question is not that bolgakov is a good or bad 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 this way from the beginning of the war, is this or that figure of russian culture great or not great, because we also look idiotic in the world when we start giving assessments, assessment of creativity of any writer is a question, i would say subjectively. someone may think tolstoy, dostoevsky, bulgakov, whoever you like, rachmaninoff, tchaikovsky, and others

like levitan, you can go on listing them for hours, in big letters, someone may, someone may not like them. the problem is that this is simply not ukrainian literature. and it's not even a matter of language. i always suggest making this simple. er, er, an experiment: translate this or that work into ukrainian and read it as if you didn’t know it was written in russian, and i’m curious, but 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 there, and the white guard, of course not, of course, although it is about ky , certain ideologues are sewn and the dead soul of mykhola gogol, although it was written by a person who leaving the country, this is a ukrainian novel, because it was written, i’m not sure, i think it’s quite

debatable here and here, but, at least, conditionally speaking, i see from google that there is a discussion on such a more technical issue, i say not a debate, i'm saying just read the books, you guys to see that gogol is a russian writer for 90% of his work, maybe you will read myrhorod and see. it's ukrainian, but it happens with writers who have part of their cultural creativity in one culture and part in another, i don't think that the problem is with bulgakov, i think that the problem is that which cult, culture a person considers his own , i have no problem with bulgakov, because he is a writer of a different culture for me, and it is not a question of the fact that i understand the russian language, or i am a russian philologist by first education, but i could... be a korean philologist, but from that korean culture would not become mine for me, and jewish culture became mine for me as soon as i started reading it, and andrii, i read the works of jewish writers

in russian, ukrainian, polish, english, any languages, only in hebrew and yiddish, because i can't read them normally, but i still knew that i was reading my own books, but the context there and the ideologues were like that, because i saw what was in own seven... let the ukrainians who say that bulgakov is theirs look at the to what extent his work corresponds to their worldview and their family and national world, and everything, and no, you cannot give rosi 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 perpetuation. bolgakov in a country that should be, so to speak, ukrainian-centric, just as poland is polish-centric, and the czech republic is czech-centric, and

now another question will arise. and why do we have a monument to aleichom's helmet then? and i will tell why? the question is not even that sholom aleikh lived most of his life in ukraine, wrote on ukrainian, i would say, ukrainian-jewish topics, ukraine is at the center of his work. it is obvious that for ukrainians sholom alekhan is a jewish writer, no one considers him ukrainian. but the monument is a tribute to the jewish people who lived on these lands, which is a part, if you will. cultural and demographic context, that is why there were monuments to pushkin, no one touched them, and that is why no one thought about bolgakov, the war russia and ukraine created the issue of this respect, it disappeared with the first rockets, because russia actually struck at its own culture, no one ever considered it necessary to dismantle the monument to adam

mickiewicz. who stood there in the cities of ukraine, who after the 1940s became part of soviet ukraine there, then independent ukraine, because it is out of respect for poland and polish culture. there is a monument to yuri chislovatskyi in kyiv, no one talks about anything, it is ours, but it is respect. if the russians had not started this terrible war and no would support this war, they would treat the symbols of their cultural presence on ukrainian soil either with respect or with... indifference. bulgaka is not guilty of this in himself, whether he was a ukrainophobe or not. but, 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 accept, by the way, this war. if hundreds of thousands of russians went to anti-war demonstrations. i assure you that

no one would talk here, you about... it is a perfectly logical reaction, you know, it's like the absence of wagner streets in tel aviv, that wagner is a bad composer? well, it's just kind of strange, in an independent jewish state , to name streets after a person who was anti-semitic, well, even though i was a zhilatov 200 years ago, well, that's all that can be said about it, i think, we just see that in fact, again in ukraine. and there are people outside of it, so you spoke really correctly about the fact that those people who feel themselves in the context of their certain identity, they, after reading this work, do not will associate themselves with him, but there are people, unfortunately, here, even in ukraine, who still associate themselves to a certain extent, it so happened, again, for certain reasons, that they associate themselves with

something in russia . well, because ukraine is a country of identity conflict, there is no fact that we have this identity conflict in ukraine, it is still so, it is no longer as pronounced as we saw it 10 years ago, even 5 years ago, even 3 years ago, but he still exists, and here is really the task of us as a society and the state, in including the task of making it so as to show... ukrainians, show, show the citizens of ukraine that we should, relatively speaking, return to our own. thank you. andriy smolii. thanks to vitaly portnikov. saturday's political club ends, we wish you all the best, friends.

time to learn about the main events for this hour, greetings to all viewers of espresso, yana vamalnyk. continuous explosions are heard in kharkiv, during the latest russian attack three women and a man were injured. the occupiers hit the city center and the industrial area. reported in city ​​mayor ihor terekhov. previously, the occupiers used s300 missiles. one of the shells hit a private house. it also flew into the central park and industrial zone, where a house was damaged and a garage caught fire. emergency services are on site. it is normal to be angry with russians, and our anger can and should be turned into giving. volunteer kitchen espresso continues to work for victory for the second time.