we remember, zelenskyi said that i'm going there for one term, but in fact i'm not, and now they're already thinking, and what's more, when we're talking, why do you think so, i have a lot of evidence base, yes, if eh, well, now you need a blitz, yes, that is , i have a large evidence base in order to really claim that this is how zelenskyi's team wants to usurp power. in ukraine, and the usurpation of power is, in any case, the biggest threat to democracy, we will talk about it in the course of this program, of course, and about the trends we see, and even more so, we must not forget that may this year is quite difficult, both for president zelenskyi, and for the team, and for society, and for those who have to be registered with the tsc and for potential... because

on may 4 the law comes into force, which provides for the definition of suitable, unsuitable and changes of limited suitability, on may 18 the law on changes to the mobilization legislation, the law on mobilization, and on may 20 the 5th anniversary of the inauguration of president zelensky and also we obviously we will talk about all this, about the context of what is happening and how. is happening, because, in fact, the most urgent question that exists now is where is the line when we say that there is democracy in ukraine, and where is the line when there is a need to limit rights and freedoms, taking into account the state of war, taking into account to the fact that russia is waging a war against ukraine, in your opinion, where, where is this line, beyond which the authorities should not cross. transitions and

there is a border where civil society has to, let's say, give a sign to the authorities, of course not not by going to the maidan there, but to give a sign to the authorities that we remember that ukraine is a democratic state and not an authoritarian one, and we will defend these democratic values? a very complex question, there really is no simple answer, because well , we know about the styles of government, yes there is authoritarian, there is democratic, there is liberal, yes, and i would say that, for example, which army will lose, the army with liberal or democratic management, always loses to armies with authoritarian management, why, because the army should have everything is based on the principle of orders, execution of reports, and the army, in which we will say, okay, we have a democracy, let's decide, let's vote, who will go from now on... well

, it's like in that forest plantation there, and everyone there is like voting to leave that, well, this is nonsense and lies, yes, and stupid, that is , there is a leader in the army, well, the boss said, everything goes ahead, there i make decisions, including difficult decisions, yes, how about i have one of, well, in yes, one of my very good friends made a decision when leaving avdiyivka, he was... wounded, that is, to actually leave them in russia, okay, how do we evaluate this decision, a criminal case was opened against him there, but i am ready to defend him, the commander made the decision because he decided for himself that this would be the case, i i'd rather keep these 15 people, there are 20 left, but i'll leave these three, or we'll all die carrying them out, that is.

including the commander's right to make a mistake, it cannot be something under investigation, there or accountable there, what, what the fuck is democracy here, the commander said, that's all, and in valim, that means valim, yes, that, and that's that it is important, it is important, that we understand that there cannot be democracy in the army, but in our country we say that there is a military-political leadership. there is no democracy in the army, in the army there is an order to execute a report, this is the principle of the army, but in politics, even in a warring country, there must be democracy, and for now, mr. sergey, we have a country that fights for european values, but the government itself these values he does not confess by running, at all, well, he does not confess by word at all, and we have to admit that. to say that our government

is mentally not a european government, but ours the government thinks how to keep power and how to profit from power, yes, including. and well, before the war there was a lot of spying, and now there are big reconstructions, big reconstruction and big construction of borders, where in the sumy region, well, in the sumy region, they can have a consolidated base for example, there they declare like 45 million there, what the hell, you , you, you are crazy, the composite reference point is 45 million, it will be made in the audience... they will make it there, like, well , from some branches of boards, there are shalovki, which are like what they dig up, i.e., where are the budget ones there are no funds and it works there, in the sumy region, which has not yet been attacked by anyone, you

will build a platoon base for 45 million, and again we have to tell the authorities, but what is the problem of our authorities, the problem of the authorities is that she... ignores scientists, the expert environment, that is, well, everything that we say there, well, not only that, i will tell you that the espress tv channel, which was on cable networks yesterday, was still in its infancy, and i now i am working in one project on the front-line communities of sumy oblast, then they turned off espresso from of cable television, and when i called the owner, he said: so why am i being harassed by the regional military... the administration just damn it, they are going to slap me, that is , you will have money and the weirdo has other businesses, we and you will close that business, that business, that, if you don't throw espresso-5 out of the cable networks, this is of course the pinnacle of democracy, of course, thank you mr. viktor for

your opinion, vitaly kulyk has already joined us, vitaly, i congratulate you, thank you, who joined our broadcast, we congratulate you with... with victor, we already started talking about how democracy and the restriction of rights and freedoms coexist during martial law, well, no, not in the army, we are not talking about the armed forces, because mr. viktor said a little about the armed forces, that there is no place for democracy there, it is correct, because the army is the army and the armed forces of ukraine must make decisions at the level of the armed forces, military commanders, and commanders. and there are no such claims against the armed forces or any objections, we are talking about ukrainian society, the problems that arise in us, or about the media, with three tv channels that have already the third year they don't speak in t2, they threw it out, with

the public one, which is now running from the deputies of the pro-government force, and many, many different things that testify. about the fact that there are restrictions on democracy, and in what proportions restrictions on democracy are permissible during war, mr. vitaly, and whether you see a threat to democracy in ukraine, we are conducting this survey among viewers and tv viewers, it is interesting to know your opinion, well, first of all, when we talk about the adoption of ukrainian decisions, the current government really does not want to hear anyone's other opinion than its own. and when it is ours and when some other opinion breaks through the airwaves or becomes significant for society, it causes a kind of nervous reaction to the bank, accordingly the nuts are tightened, they try to limit this alternative position, alternative opinion, they try

to remove it both from the information space and from the political space in general life, that's how i see a threat to democracy, i see a threat to society in the first place. because nothing will be eternal but temporary, if now the authorities are telling us that it is during martial law, which, sorry, we already have now is a war, and that stopping the broadcast of the marathon will lead to media chaos, well, actually speaking, this is an attempt to hide, to hide one's inefficiency and one's own, in fact. from one voice and from one opinion they are trying to destroy it and , accordingly, its ineffectiveness is such that it contradicts the values ​​and demands of society , they are trying to hide and exaggerate the fact that,

look, these are all attacks by russians, this is all russian dogma, when someone criticizes the current authorities, that it splits society, that these are attacks by paid kremlin bots, and so on similar things, about... we have been hearing about the kremlin for a long time, for the last 10 years for sure, we hear that constantly, that any criticism of the current government is always putin being attacked, in fact, this is not true at all, because... the office of simple solutions, he generates these kinds of decisions that turn out to be not just imperfect, they turn out to be criminal, and accordingly, when legitimate questions arise, and why exactly this happened, then they shout, positive bloggers appear who start shouting that this is all the hand of moscow, that this all russian ipso and russian agents. as to me, we have a political crisis now, this political crisis is unfolding, it is already being measured. in the absence of votes in the parliament to make the necessary banking decisions, this is the first thing, so they

will manage to do it a few more times, and then they will choose everything they can, hand out money in envelopes to the deputies, well, they will smear one or two, and then a lot of money in the parliament no, but here the question is not even about envelopes, the question is about motivating whole groups of interests, and for these whole groups of interests financial flows are necessary, not all financial flows lack of the fodder base is assembled, it is superimposed on it in the case of crisis relations between local self-government and the center, it is superimposed on the relations between business and the authorities, we hear from business, every week we hear a dozen, two dozen cases of business squeeze, show masks, pressure on tax officials, pressure sbushniks, the pressure of someone else, someone else, someone else, they try to us later in the form. ministers to let off steam, in fact, it all does not work, so we see a crisis that

occurs between, in the situation with mobilization, as much as the law on mobilization, and those actions that the authorities are trying to play games, for example, by dividing ukrainians who left, were forced to go abroad, they are restricted from accessing consular services in an unconstitutional way, in my opinion, and the decision is made by the minister... under pressure, and journalists are talking about it, by the way , for example, the head of interfax, this clearly states that this is the political will of the banks, even the initiative of the minister of foreign affairs, a by-law act in the form of an order cannot go before the implementation of the law, first the law, then any by-law act, and this and this is a violation, this is a violation of the constitution and other laws of ukraine, so these... actions show that

the current government can no longer save the situation, manage effectively, manage effectively in the existing way, they have accumulated a lot questions to which she does not have an answer and tries in her usual way through hype, through the creation of an information drive , to somehow give an answer, in fact, this is not an answer, it is simply a diversion of attention, so i... see problems for democracy, i i see problems for democracy, which we have to preserve after the war and during the war, because we need not just to defend ourselves, but we need to know that we are protecting, and we are protecting our freedom, and there must be freedom within itself. thank you, mr. vitaliy, mr. viktor, vitaliy already mentioned the story with the mobilization law, and not even that, but the restrictions that people who are abroad were subjected to when consular offices

refused to provide services to conscripted men aged from 18 to 60, and i understand that the government still counted on the fact that our western partners would do their best to bring back men from abroad so that they could fight in ukraine, the vice-prime minister for european integration. olga stefanishyna stated that ukraine will not forcibly return men of conscription age from abroad, according to her, providing data to territorial recruitment centers does not mean automatic mobilization to the front, it is about accounting and information, why do you think the authorities failed this communication? communication, when it was necessary to simply say that all men who consider themselves citizens of ukraine must be registered in... tsk and starting from may 18 we will not provide any services there or we will

provide these services in some limited way, and not as simply as the iron curtain was simply lowered and said : everything, the cantor is not working, there will be no exchange, sorry, the money ran out in the cash register, the case when - i understand it and agree with you, mr. vitaly, and we are with you, sir. serhiy in the fact that uh, well, this one was, it was stupid, yes, there is a type that we limit people there in the provision of public services there, that's what i wanted, i just... it's complementary here, that is, how can i say, i, for example, am a supporter of limiting evaders as much as possible, yes, but it is correctly said that it should be limited according to the law, according to some, which, well, first the law, and then the bylaw, yes, the regulation,

that is, first the law, then the resolution of the cabinet, and not the other way around, and when... our allies said, no, no, we will not play with it , because we act according to european norms, yes, that is the case when i would like to limit evaders, but they cannot be limited , why, because, unlike ukraine, in ukraine, well, mentally, mentally, in our country, in europe, the law is harsh, but it is a law, even from the time... yes, in ukraine, the law is as it should be, as you turn it, that's how it turned out, that's why not europeans, because in our country, law and justice are different concepts, and that's it, that's actually a problem, and in them, the right is equal justice, that is, if it

is written that it is not possible, then everything is not possible, and germany has already declared it, and so have other countries declared that... they will not chase ukrainians, hand them over, give them somewhere in ukraine, take your own, let them fight, that is, our government, well, as always, i messed up, yes i messed up and showed that we really have everything , they want to show that they are acting justly, but in fact it has nothing to do with the law, not only that, not only that, but let's imagine ukraine, in ukraine there can be... two mothers, and both there for 60 years conditional and one mom's son left on february 24, 2022, and the son is there for 30 years, now he is there conditionally 32, he left and she says: show me i have a law on mobilization, so that there will be a demobilization, when you return my son to me, i

want to see him alive and healthy, well, when will it be, when will he have a dembele or something? in 36 months, in 48, at least show me, and the other one, right here in kyiv on the site , another mother lives with her, whose son is 25 years old, and her justice is that there, like no, you can’t take my son, to call, why, because he is still young, he does not know how to fight, let those who already know how to fight, who have fought for two years, and we have two mothers, fight on the same platform, and they have different justice, and when... and there is also me, who is 53 years old with diabetes, i say, well, where am i going to go, yes, you can call me there, but hey will i be useful there at the front, yes, i have problems with my eyesight, and someone else, who is another justice of the one who makes drones, he says, well, i have armor, yes, that is, we have

100 people and 100 different justices, and for this you need, and for this precisely, you need a right. zelensky came out and said, i am the leader of the nation, well, as of now, i have made a decision this and that, and there will be this dodger, this one right, this one wrong, according to the law and then by-laws, not the other way around, but zelenskyi is the biggest dodger in ukraine, he evades decision-making, he wants to say, i am in the house and i am like that i haven’t made any decisions, they want to call up luzhunsky, it’s syrian... and one more thing, i don’t want anyone, all because zelenskyi wants most of all, he wants to please all the mothers on the platforms, and the mother who, in whose son is fighting, and to that mother who does not want to give her son away to war, she is him, and zelenskyi wants both mothers to vote for him further, it will not work out that way, volodymyr oleksandrovich, i want

to tell him, but they want to sweat it out, zelenskyi is the biggest evader in ukraine. well , this is how ukraine explains to the world, and in particular to the council of europe, that ukraine is withdrawing, partially withdrawing from compliance with the european convention on the protection of human rights and freedoms. on april 4, 2024, ukraine submitted a written statement about what, what is in this document? the measures taken are listed in the document in ukraine during martial law, which can be considered a departure from the convention on the protection of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights: the first is the inspection of things, transport, baggage, cargo and premises, the second is the prohibition of conscripts to change their place of residence without ... permission. the third is restrictions on the choice of the place of stay, the introduction of a curfew, a special regime for entering and leaving ukraine, the prohibition of peaceful assemblies,

meetings, demonstrations and other peaceful mass events, forced alienation of private or communal property for the needs of the state. at the same time, the head of the ministry of justice, denys smalyuska, says that ukraine has not suspended the protection of human rights in any way. this update is a regulated report. according to him , the government simply clarified the list of existing restrictions and even reduced it. in april, ukraine did not suspend the protection, but on the contrary revised and removed the caveat regarding the limitation of a certain set of rights - minister of justice denys malyuska emphasized. so, one way or another, this discussion is the reaction of society to... some decisions of the ukrainian authorities, they coincide in time with... the five-year anniversary of the inauguration of president zelensky, and it is obvious that in may we will see many different trends, trends of different vectors, and

obviously russia will take advantage of the fact that, they say, zelensky's powers have come to an end , and he is already illegitimate, this is absolutely all predicted, but how about this situation, when we understand that the next election will be late. after the victory of ukraine over russia, as in this situation, we should react, society should react to those trends which, well, maybe, let's say, do not match the norms of democracy in ukraine, or are considered a violation of human rights, and i wonder how long it can last, let's say, when the people who came to power before 2019 can sit in this power. well, i don't know, until the 27th year or the 26th year, mr. vitaly, well, i also have interesting questions, this is after the victory, when? not

holding elections - how long? let's imagine that our war in the regime of such a flicker, as they say in russian, there in a regime of low intensity, continues for 5 years more. we have not held presidential and verkhovna rada elections for all these 5 years, will there be any special law that will regulate the holding of elections in conditions of real war. there is no discussion about this issue. that is, then we conclude that victory is expected this year, or the next, or whatever it will be, that is. it is a postponement, a postponement raises questions, a postponement raises not just a question, it raises no, vagueness, blurring of

the situation, uncertainty of expectations, and this uncertainty is legal uncertainty, it provokes a conversation about illegitimacy, about the fact that temporality can become long-term, that the emergency... regime will become a permanent emergency regime, that even a decrease in intensity will not lead to the withdrawal of all these restrictions on rights, which malyuska says, that this can become the norm of the new political reality, that new restrictions will be introduced to the already existing ones, and they may be disproportionate to the challenges and threats that exist. and what's more, in our country these restrictions of rights are not regulated by laws, by-laws, and sometimes they say one thing and do something completely

different, i.e. deception becomes a tool of coercion, these issues are of concern to society, i have no objection to malyusk's statement and to these, to this statement and to the appeal to the council of europe, because first of all, this application is directed to the european court. person, since people can file lawsuits against the state of ukraine for violation of rights, referring to the restriction of their rights, and since if there were no such appeals, and accordingly, there would be whole cases when the state of ukraine would bear losses and the decisions could be brought against the state of ukraine. since there is a state of war, there is an explanation, there is a suspension of these norms, accordingly, this does not allow the european court of human rights to make decisions against the state of ukraine in these cases. this does not mean that in others we will, will not have decisions against the state of ukraine during this war, we will have, unfortunately, they are not yet gathered in one bloc, but

well... these decisions will be , and the problem is that we cannot go through all the instances in ukraine to protect our rights, the courts cannot they accept the lawsuit, referring, by the way, to the law on martial law, and therefore the decision of the military on martial law, so i , in my opinion, do not solve this problem yet, moreover, i believe that... by and large, if the government wants to remove the issue with conversations surrounding the legitimacy of the president, then it should turn to the constitutional court, in our country the constitutional court of the free constitution provides an explanation of the norms of the constitution in terms of extending the powers of the president, in particular, and this would be the instance, it would be the last instance, the position of which would actually not be the norm of the law, ours.

what is happening in our country is not addressed to the constitutional court, in our country they are addressed to the cec, to the central election commission, which does not have the competence to make statements regarding the possibility or impossibility of holding presidential elections, this is a matter for the constitutional court, which would remove these issues, okay , you suspended the constitutional court, you made it ineffective, you have a conflict with the leadership of the constitutional court, okay. spend then a discussion website of lawyers, a round table, a public round table, with a public manifestation of the position, all lawyers, and not only the defenders of the office of the president by post, who are now commenting on this situation, all legal experts who would have a consolidated position on this issue, well, it's simple, it's simple enough, i don't even go to that, because they are afraid of critics, they are afraid that someone

will say the wrong thing, because among legal scholars... there is also a question that there is a white spot in the constitution, there is a white spot in the legislation that our constitution does not provide for such a situation, we do not have, we already have elections, if they were held, they were held outside the borders, they are not premature, not extraordinary, we do not even have such type of elections in the electoral legislation, which should be held in the near future, if the conditions are so will be formed, even this is not discussed. we have all the work done, proposals for a law to amend the legislation, which provided for such elections, it is done in a cool way, closed in some working groups with vultures for official use, well, this is also wrong, so we will be doomed on the discussion about the legitimacy of the president, they are doomed, and it is not only the kotovinors, and the russian ipso, it is the miscommunication

of the lack of explanations, positions that would... could remove this excessive politicization of this problem, if only to put it aside: in our the war, the mandate is extended, and we will come back to that if, or at least put a temporary varnish, that we anticipate that if the situation drags on, then we can enter into a situation of discussing a special law, and then we have different options for an electoral system, which can be involved, including choosing a smartphone, if they want it that way, they are talking about it, about elections in a smartphone, and of course, in this situation, a lot of questions arise, the main question is probably, what will happen after may 20, 2024, that is, if there is no decision of the constitutional court, it is clear that the powers of the president are extended, the powers of the verkhovna rada have already been extended, because the elections were supposed to be held in october of the 23rd year, but well... absolutely

logical and logical conclusion and logical question: and why, why this decision there is no constitutional court, mr. viktor, why do you think the government, where, in principle, there are lawyers who can lay it out on their fingers and say that this is how it should be done, well, we remember how kuchma at one time drew the conclusion of the constitutional the court that he can be president for two terms, well... a number of two terms, and they were then. the constitutional court gave the conclusion that kuchma had started one term before the adoption of the constitution, and that is , even then he can do it like that, well, that is, for a third term and that's just the situation, which was quite difficult in ukraine after the case gongadze and this tape scandal, in principle, apparently kuchma took her away from the third presidential term, right here.