to free 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. that's all. i can also tell you what happens next. what always happens in history. at some point , the russian government changes, political conditions change, and a platform for dialogue emerges. helsinki-level dialogue, which should determine the borders in europe, and then the russian federation is forced to find a formula for renouncing the territories it captured by military means, and what will this look like formula, we cannot know today, it may be a proposal for a transitional period, it may be a proposal to hold referendums on...

these territories, ukraine may not agree with this, russia may insist on this field, there will be mediators, this process, as with west berlin 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 is on the side of ukraine, because russia for the whole time will remain a country with uncertainties 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 specific, it can to be such an option, it is an alternative to force, because we understand that putin, he recognizes only force, but again it is an important question if, do we have force or not, in addition, we faced another moment of russian tactics, in recent weeks, and it

must also be said the truth. russia sees that it cannot, say, establish military control over the ukrainian cities 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 unlivable, that is, to deprive them of their entire infrastructure. and accordingly squeeze out people, of course, in a more western way, that is, to create, this is what putin understands, free from the population, this means how it should look, the territory occupied by russia, the territory 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, also a tactic, and this can also be a tactic for the next time. we

don't follow these threats strategically, we just see that there are some shellings, kharkiv, but it doesn't look like that, mykola platonovich, patrushev, an intellectual of all times and peoples, comes to vladimir vladimirovich putin, with papochka, and there this the 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 for... the plan, whatever we call it, and 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 to sumy oblast during march, and what is happening, which happens all the time, it's just that very often people there did not pay attention to sumy oblast. but sumyshchyna has been destroyed

, at least on the border, for at least a year in a row, that's for sure. sumy region, kharkiv region, unoccupied part of donbass and zaporozhye, this the way it is, what is the minimum, the minimum program of the so-called sanitary zone, to create a zone without population from the borders with the russian federation, 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 the attack took place, look, the grand duchy of moscow annexes the grand duchy of ryazan, what they are doing, they are burning the center of the principality of the city of ryazan, here is this, this city that we call ryazan, now, this is not ryazan, it seems it was called novgorod-ryazansk or something else. i have already forgotten, to be honest,

how alexandrov of ryazan, well, that is, it 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 the population, it rises against the moscow prince and is completely, i would say, cut off, but the chronicles say that his resettled on the territory of the moscow principality, replacing ryazan, the ryazan prince, the population of ryazan with muscovites, i think that he was cut off. to be honest, but i don't have historical evidence of it, 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, these are 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 like ivan kalita, with absolutely the same audacity in the 21st century. and the population of russia is absolutely ready to support this, what is interesting is that they do not even see this as a wrong approach, you remember how the relatives of those ukrainians who suffered from rocket fire, who lived in moscow, said: but you you don't understand, it's putin who wants you well, he's just helping you get out of the mess you got into, well , he'll fire a shot, that means he loves, that's all, well, purely russian logic, yes, literally in us there remains... a little time, traditionally an ideological topic, an ideological topic, because in ukraine, as we can see, even after 2022, after february 24, certain topics still appear that shake societies, which,

relatively speaking , they even begin to divide society, 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, we will talk about it for an hour, andrii, what will we say about it's for 9 minutes, well anyway, i guess the audience they are waiting because, because you were the conclusion, in short, our viewers, i think, know, the conclusion of the ukrainian institute of national memory regarding bulgakov, where he is actually recognized as a symbol of the russian world, yes, but also this, but also this 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 we need not serhiy boris, but boris shefir, but if it is not so, i apologize. serhiy shefira just refuted these statements of his brother,

yes , let's just apologize, so disagree, serhii shefir does not agree, and mr. borys shevir, he agrees, and secondly, we are talking about what is really starting. certain voices will appear, either from abroad of people who lived here in ukraine, or even from our citizens, who in fact are still trying to cling to some rope of this russian world and still drag the country in this cultural, historical, linguistic context. what should we do here, how should we look for a way out as a state in order not to return, actually, at least... even for some percentage in this context of the russian world, to which, unfortunately, many people, despite the war, would like to return us. 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 bulgakov 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 is lively there. so what, others say that bolga, that the question is not whether bolgakov is good or bad writer, he is our writer, we grew up on him, he is a kyiv writer, why are you giving him to the russians? the question, 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 like idiots in the world when we start giving assessments, evaluations. works of any writer, this question, i would say, is subjective, someone can consider tolstoy, dostoyevsky, bulgakov, anyone, rachmaninov, tchaikovsky, and others where levitan is, you can continue

to list it for hours, in big letters, someone may, someone may not like them, the issue is that this is simply not ukrainian literature, and this... even a matter of language, i always suggest doing such a simple experiment : translate this or that work. in the ukrainian language and read as if you don't know that it is 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 context, if you are talking about the ideologues that are sewn there, and the white guard, well, of course not, certain ideologues are also sewn there, and the dead souls of mykhola gogol, although it was written by a person who left the country, it is a ukrainian novel, because people wrote it, i don't... read the books,

i'm not talking about the discussion, i'm just saying you'll see that gogol is a russian writer for 90% of his work, maybe you'll read myrhorod and see that it's ukrainian, but that 's what happens with writers who make part of their cultural work in one culture, a part in another. i don't think that bulgakov is the problem at all, i think that the problem is what 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 my understanding of the russian language, or whether i am a russian philologist by first education, and i could be a korean philologist, but then korean culture would not become mine for me, and jewish culture became mine for me as soon as i started reading it, and to andrii. i read the works of jewish writers in russian, ukrainian, polish,

english, any languages, except hebrew and yiddish, because i can't read them properly, but i still knew that i was reading my own books, but the context and ideologues were there, because i saw what, relatively speaking, what is in one's family, that is exactly in these three crosses, let the ukrainians who say that bulgakov is theirs, look at the extent of his creativity. corresponds to their worldview and their family and national world , and everything and nothing cannot be attributed to rosi bolgakova 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 the country that should be, so to speak, ukrainian-centric, as poland is... co-centric, and the czech republic is czech-centric, now another question will arise: why is there a monument

to sholomoleykh? and i'll tell you why? the question is not even that sholom aleichem lived in ukraine for most of his life, wrote on ukrainian, i would say, ukrainian-jewish topics, ukraine is at the center of his work. it is obvious that for ukrainians sholom aleichem is a jewish writer, no one considers him ukrainian, but the monument is out of respect for the jewish people. who lived in these lands, who is a part, if you will, of the cultural and demographic context, that is why there were monuments to pushkin, and no one touched them, and that is why no one thought about bolgakov, russia's war with ukraine created the question of this respect, it disappeared with the first rockets, because russia was actually hit on its own culture, not to anyone, never was not considered it is necessary to dismantle the monuments to adam mickiewicz, of course, which stood there in the cities of ukraine, which after

the 1940s became part of soviet ukraine, then independent ukraine, because it is out of respect for poland and polish culture, there is a memorial in kyiv yuriyshuslovatskyi, no one talks about anything, it is ours, but it is respect, if the russians had not started this terrible war, and would not have supported this war, to the symbols of their cultural heritage. on ukrainian soil would be treated either with respect, or with indifference. bulgaka is innocent in this, by 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 the 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 here would talk about bolgakov, this is

a completely 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, i, although i lived there 200 years ago, well, that's all i can say about it, i think we just see. that in fact, once again, there are people both in ukraine and outside its borders, and 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, in our country, even in ukraine, who still associate themselves to a certain extent, it so happened, again, for certain reasons, that they associate themselves with something russian, well, because,

because ukraine is a country of identity conflict, there is nothing here, also the fact that we have this identity conflict. in ukraine, it is still like that, it is not as pronounced as we saw it 10 years ago, even 5 years ago, even 3 years ago, but it is still there, and here is really a task for us as a society, and of the state, 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 smoliy, thank you to vitaly portnikov, the saturday flight club is ending, we wish you all the best, friends,

there are discounts on eurofast softcaps, 10% at psarynsky, pamp and oskad pharmacies. the premium sponsor of the national team represents. united by football, stronger together. vasyl zima's big broadcast. two hours of airtime, two hours of your time. two hours to learn about the war and how the world lives. two o'clock. to be informed economic news and sports news, two hours in the company of favorite presenters, presenters who have become like-minded 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 intelligent and caring people, in the evening at espresso. verdict with serhiy rudenko, from now on in a new

two-hour format, even more analytics, even more important topics, even more top guests - foreign experts. inclusion from abroad about ukraine, the world, the front, society, and also feedback, you can express your opinion on the evil of the day with the help of a phone survey, turn on and turn on, the verdict with serhiy rudenko, every weekday from 20 to 22 at espresso. greetings, good evening, i'm myroslav obarchuk, this is the program itself. the name of the joint project of the espresso tv channel and the ukrainian pen club. today we will talk about oleksandr dovzhenko. oleksandr dovzhenko, well, for me, at least, he is perhaps the most significant and, at the same time, the most controversial figure of ukrainian soviet culture. on the one hand, he is a volunteer in the unr army, in petlyurivets, and from

on the other hand, this is a man who glorifies the january uprising at the factory. on the one hand, he is a ukrainian, and this is visible in his films, on the other hand, he is a person who admires and, perhaps, is even friends with joseph stalin, at least he considers stalin his savior. today we will talk about these paradoxes, about this discontinuity of the eternal dovzhenka, with my guest olena honcharuk, head of the dovzhenka center. greetings olena, thank you for coming to talk. i am very welcome. thanks. and you know, the topic seems to me to be very, very important, because it seems to me that we have never developed the language of such an honest narrative, such is the case with dovzhenko. we recently visited dovzhenka's homeland with pen in the village of sosnytsia in chernihiv region, we were in his house, and the museum staff

told us a short story of his life. and what do i notice? and the story is like this, to put it briefly: dovzhenko was born, there was such a family, 14 children, two children survived, then he studies, then he works, then he becomes a volunteer in the petlyuriv army, and suddenly once, and already he in warsaw agitates emigrants return to soviet ukraine. what happened to warsaw and berlin, we understand what happened, that's how we understand the arrest, we understand what saved him. blue, so that he had some problems with the soviets and the bolsheviks, but what happened inside dovzhenko, that he suddenly, in these few years

, suddenly changed himself, renounced himself, or what happened to him, well, it was his time youth, and dovzhenko was actively searching, and he is a person who is very open to... everything that is happening around him, he got to europe, another world opened up to him, where he mastered, he studied art there, yes, he learned to draw, in general, devzhonko was extremely capable in various arts, and he wrote, he drew, although it is not so, very popular, but his just one of the first steps in cinema, uh, this were, just the movie posters were very witty and so very funny, dovzhenko later became a director, that is , i think that europe really fascinated him, and he

had this contrast of rural life, which you mentioned so, so earlier, and well, the hardships of people in villages, provinces, he was before that extremely sensitive, if there are two children of 14 left in the family, it is obvious that it was very unpleasant for them, but dovzhenko had a very natural attraction to beauty, he was extremely sensitive to it, and it is possible that this was nurtured by nature , on which he grew up, and i think europe strengthened it, that is, you are now, you are now talking about the fact that the soviet authorities gave him, as if brought him into the european world, gave him an opportunity. to receive this education, and he sincerely, being a petliurite at first, yes, but he sincerely believed in the soviet government and started working for the soviet government, right? well, i wouldn't

say that the soviet government gave it to him, after all, he himself took advantage of these opportunities and they were his natural abilities, but the soviet government is actually an amazing construct, i think that all this is important to us, even now. uh, well , to deconstruct and understand this architecture, uh, which allowed, uh, to mislead a very large number of thinking, intelligent people, because my opinion is that we sincerely believed in the ideas that the soviet authorities proposed, this there was a sincere belief in industrialization, in industrial progress, in the victory of machines, and the avant-garde was very technological and futuristic, and therefore artists - it is really, it is like some kind of delusion, which really fascinates and

pulls, and that is why dovzhenko really, he was one of those who believed in reality and constructed, uh, that is, uh, but for this he had to give up his identity, because on the one hand it was like, i understand progressiveness like this. to those who did not know who he is, that is, dovzhenko understands very clearly, yes, regarding identity and regarding hostility of this world, his identity, what year he was in, these diaries, this is a memory of,

i understand that it is in the gluhiv gymnasium or school, this is an old memory, yes, but, but equally, the diary was already written later, that is, well, that is, the fact that dovzhenko is ukrainian, we see all the time, yes, even he is. these days he is himself, he tries to lay down these ukrainian narratives somewhere, yes, that is, it seems to me that when he says that i entered the revolution from the wrong door, it was through the wrong door, so what is this, was it sincere or it was such a simple lifeline, well, from this quote that you read, you can see his sense of shame, as if what, what... it is as if the only country or nation that is backward, that is, there is this, well, the shame of the one who

what you are, and in his... in the films, this duality is also felt, yes, on the one hand, something so new, beautiful, which is approaching and where you need to strive, and on the other hand, these simpletons in embroidered shirts, from which you came out, and for which you have a great love and sentiment, but this is a shame, that is, it is something that you grow up with, it is colonial. by the way, yesterday i read about dovzhenko and i saw that he, he was already close to waplite, he, when in this kharkiv period and the kyiv period, and he writes there about waplite and hart, about the fact that these people are very ethnographic , very archaic, uncultured, and it is he who speaks for a moment about the waveman, about the current, that is, about

all these people, and he says that to me. sometimes i come to a party, and it seems to me that i am at a party, that it is all very ethnographic, that is what you are talking about, about this feeling of ethnography as archaic, as own culture, as something archaic, or i 'm wrong, i think we had to deal with it in our childhood or youth, it's the 80s, somewhere in the 90s, when uh... you feel like you're a provincial, if , that the world is already somewhere far away, and, well, we can observe, living in the provinces, that something is happening in moscow, something is happening in kyiv, they are very far from you, what is happening abroad, it is just another planet in general, and i think , what with his, well, genius and his talent, he really, well, wanted something more, but he didn't only, i think, he wanted it for himself, but he

wanted it... to return it, that is, so that it would help that society from which he actually left, he still could not break his connection with it, so, i will start with venigor with this film, dovzhenko is shooting from venigor, the screenwriters are mike johanson and the famous otaman yurko tyutyunnyk, and this... yes, this is the 29th year, yes, even before the repressions, and it is either happening or will happen, as i understand it, in kharkiv the trial over ieds, ugh, and dovzhenko is filming such a colossal multi-layered, fundamental a story about 200 years of ukrainian history, and here we actually see that it works and

his ukrainian identity is revealed.

how do you watch this film today, what is it about, what is it to us from those times, says dovzhenko, how do you watch it today? and i would say that this particular film, i understand that you decided to take a trilogy, yes, it is a star-studded one. of his tapes, first of all it is a very interesting artistic and technical experiment, because in this film in zvenihor dovzhenko used a lot of camera and editing techniques that were innovative, because there were combined shootings, because he still tells a myth, and it's a little bit like a fairy tale, and...