political scientist, head of political and legal programs of the ukrainian center for social development, mr. igor, i congratulate you, thank you for joining our broadcast. so, gentlemen, since we are asking our tv viewers and viewers whether they see parallels, direct parallels between putin's and hitler's regimes, let's take a quick quiz, and you, mr. oleg, will answer this question. yes, the parallels are direct, but there are also certain differences. the russian regime is cosplaying, or simply playing in the reconstruction of the nazi regime germany, inspired by this, in some places even the texts, taking just a tracing paper, copied, pasted, replaced germany, the reich with russia, the russian world, etc., and in this way they try to repeat the completeness, but the problem for them is that nazism implies a certain picture of the future a certain idea of

​​an ideal world, while the russian regime is postmodern, it is built with its head 180° backwards, which is why it actually looks like a chinese counterfeit of european isms of the 20th century, well, like zhigul and fiat, came out of the same assembly line, but two absolutely different machines, but putin's russian world is about the same today, it is racism, similar to german nazism, its caricature, but no less... a bloody and humanistic copy. thank you, mr. oleg. mr. igor. you know, once upon a time , umberto ecca described 14 signs of fascism in his famous article. and today, russia meets 13 of these signs. therefore, of course, there are direct parallels here, the russian regime in many spheres not only imitates, in some respects even surpassed the nazi regime. i think that in the context of propaganda, everyone is present propagandists which are in russia, they already gave

a head start to goebbels and everyone else who engaged in this propaganda in the third reich, but it is clear that there are certain specificities, there are certain differences that are characteristic of the 21st century, but this the version that is currently, well, actually already built in the russian federation, it seems to me that it is even more dangerous, because the world conditions now are different, different, yes, and the problem is that there is a significant part of the countries for which this model which... is being built by putin, well it looks attractive enough, and they do not oppose this regime, even indirectly support it. today, gentlemen, is the day of remembrance and victory over nazism in the second world war, a war that lasted from 39 to 45, and why do you think a part of the world, remembering the crimes of 85 years ago or 80 years ago . there is talk

about russian racism, well, not because they do not reach german fascism or nazism there, but because they do not want putin to be compared with hitler, why am i talking about this, because i wrote a book about putin and ukraine and about the anatomy of hatred, about the causes of the russian-ukrainian war, and here i am... don't try to put hitler and putin on the same level, because that's not entirely correct and you won't be understood in europe, although it seems to me that there are absolutely direct parallels to both putin's crimean speech and hitler's court speech, that is, very, very many different parallels, which, mr. olezh, you said that they are just trying to copy. licensed further copies, but there is such

a thing as racism and there are signs of this racism, why is this concept and why is the perception of this concept and the spread and condemnation of this racism, well, as a phenomenon, why does it not become as widespread in the world as the same nazism? well, if you allow me, because there are several. to me objective circumstances, and here we just have to face the truth, first of all, we are still in the crucible of war, and we are very close to it, we just feel this, these fraternal embraces in the clutches of racism, and accordingly therefore, we understand all the horrors of racism as such, as well as the real thing jews could be asked in 1938, 1939, 1940 about the nazi regime, and they understood all its horrors.

feeling as a people, but if you ask someone in europe in the year 39, the average european, does he think that nazism is... is the personification of evil, well, in the year 38, for example, or the year 39 , it is not a fact that the opinion would be unequivocal, if at this moment in the year 39 in the united states , an american citizen is asked, but is hitler a threat to the united states, is he the personification of evil on earth? i'm afraid the answer is an american of that time would have surprised us. let me remind you that the united states entered the second world war only after they were attacked, when perhar happened, before that they helped arms, they helped, and not as actively as they wanted in europe, and actually prepared to help britain conduct a guerrilla fighting already on its own territory, expecting that germany would succeed in seizing at

least part of the british peninsula, and many other things that we know from the history of the second world war, nazism began to be perceived as such after the world has experienced it to its full extent, when most of those who today condemn nazism have experienced it themselves, i.e. post facto, we are currently still in the initial phase of realizing what racism is, and most of those , from whom we expect that they should see these analogies, say yes, putin is the new hitler, they do not feel this hitler, they felt that one, and only then realized it, and the second one, in my opinion, not. .. a less important point is what was done with nazism the stage of its condemnation, and accordingly, we are already talking now, comparing one ideology that was condemned, passed the tribunal, that was banned, disassembled into atoms and entered

into european historiography as something unacceptable and as an evil that was simply beyond the limit, and with about racism , we are not at this stage of awareness, and its previous predecessors, russian peace, leavened patriotism, as saltakovin himself wrote about russians, the crimes of both the soviet union and the crimes of the russian empire, russian colonialism, all this is not was condemned at different stages, each time russia was allowed to simply turn the page and say: well, now the soviet union and all the crimes of tsarist russia are over, what to think about them, what to reflect on? we start with a clean slate, then the soviet union fell apart and the world again wanted to be very friendly and said: that's all, we're sorry, then there were other things, then there was the bloody soviet regime, but now there will be a democratic russia, and as a result , each time a new regime followed and inherited all those bloody pages, them

glorifying, elevating and making them part of his political myth, and not condemning them, as the spirit of the time and history demanded, and responded. currently, when we talk about putin, about racism, we hear from the pope, no, some northern peoples of the caucasus can kill, well, russians are tolstoy, chekhov, tolstoyevsky and all the others, we take it in quotes, it’s bolshoi theater, you are talking to a european intellectual, he says, well, listen, there is such humanistic literature, yes, i would go to the russian ballet, well, we are talking about different russias with you, no, well you can't compare putin and hitler, because we work with... timplast in a century of russian propaganda, building a facade image of russia, customs in ukraine, the baltic countries, others who felt russian influence on themselves, we know the reverse side of russia, we know the real russia , at least, due to the evil joke

of history, we all speak the russian language and know russian folklore, we know what a byut is, which means they love it, which means they respect it, we understand how they think, far from everyone west of us knows this. and therefore such a gap, that is why there are two points: the first is the historical context of our war, in which we are now, its stage, and secondly, the fact that we are now fighting not only racism in the name of putin, but racism in the name of all gentseks of the soviet union, reaching to stalin and lenin, and all the russian imperial oppressors, reaching there to catherine, peter, ivan the terrible and all others who are well inscribed in the russian, european. today , president zelensky called for stopping the revival of nazism in his address on the occasion of the day of remembrance and victory over nazism in after the second world war, he said that it is necessary to create an anti-putin coalition and stop the revival of nazism. let's listen to what

zelensky said. the world fell asleep, the revival of nazism. at 5 am on february 24, 2022. and today, everyone who remembers the second world war and lived to this day feels deja vu. pages from textbooks about the second world war, russia turned back. snares of the world media, russia returned the terrible past to the daily news feed, proving with each new crime that nazism was reborn, only with a new marking, made in russia. mr. igor, zelensky says that the world fell asleep from the birth of nazism, do you agree with this statement and... why is racism not such a concept that the world protests against, that

condemns, because judging by what mr. oleg, i understand that we are somewhere, relatively speaking, in the year 38, well, if we draw analogies, everything is still ahead in the world, and , accordingly, in ukraine as well, well, in the year 37-38, here we can also agree in parallel with the president, said he didn't sleep. some to some extent even ignored it, and there are quite obvious reasons for this, there are three of them: the first, oleg has already partially mentioned it, current russia is not yet at least at war against western countries, countries of western democracies, moreover, it is constantly, at least publicly declares that he is not going to fight, well, we know what their promises are worth, but they make them, they make them, putin makes them, lavrov makes them, this modern goebbels, they make them... some other representatives of the so -called political class of the russian federation even make them people who call

consider themselves philosophers, but of course they are not such, but are frankly inadequate there , for example, like the same dugin, who said in a recent interview that russia is not going to fight there with the western world, on the contrary, it can make peace with it there and live normally , simply dividing the spheres of influence there, and this is the most important reason, because if there was an attack on a nato country or a european country. union, well, probably the reaction would be different, the world would be forced to react differently. the second reason, well, we might not like it, but we have to name it. for many western countries, even to this day, i am already silent about the countries there in latin america, africa, for example, there, a large part of asia, what is happening in ukraine, it is happening in their opinion, well, almost not in the sphere of influence, by and large account of the russian federation. they still live in this stereotype. that this is some former soviet union, and accordingly, that there are some wars between them, this is inside

the so-called soviet union, russia, as a great power, a nuclear power, well, not that it has the right, but it can afford to deal with such things, unfortunately, there is such an opinion, i will say more, i met it even in completely academic scientific articles, it certainly did not sound as straightforward as i say about it, but its essence was, by and large , just like that, and people are talking about it. who studied russia in detail, researched russia, shift the responsibility to a large extent for this war partly to ukraine and even more to the west, which invaded the sphere of influence of the russian federation, and accordingly russia reacted in this way. and the third reason, she the most banal, it is very simple, but it is the most terrible at the same time. the west, well , you know, the democratic west today has no understanding of how to defeat russia in general and what... what to do with russia, that is the key point, what should be done so that the spread of this racism, this

model, which i mentioned, which is popular in some other countries, was not in principle the future, they do not know, they are not that confused, they are different scenarios are working now, but they do not know which the scenario will be implemented, and if at first they were able to find an answer to the question of how to prevent ukraine from losing, they never found an answer to the question of how to allow ukraine to win. and accordingly, how to lose to russia and then what to do with russia, which loses, because here, unfortunately, the parallel with nazi germany will not work in the 45th year, because no one is occupying russia now, plus nuclear weapons, plus completely different territories there, a completely different size, well , the geopolitical situation in general, it is very different from the 45th year, and these three factors in their totality lead to the fact that... the world very often tries to avoid altogether the question of what to do with the russian federation, they

will certainly support us, we do not need to doubt it, and they demonstrate it, but will they the next step, will they decide among themselves that russia should be, well , brought, let's say, to responsibility for what it has done and that efforts should be made to destroy it from the outside, this does not mean some kind of intervention or war, that regime , which... russia is built, but western countries do not have an answer to this question to date, and here is another problem, i would like to be very wrong, but i do not yet have facts that would indicate the opposite. i am afraid that even we do not have such a plan, that is , to understand, and what to do there in a year, two, five, 10, if the war ends, when the war ends, we will win there, but what will happen to the russian federation, what will happen to the regime, which is currently built there, we already have a very thorough analysis and recently they presented there a very thorough study by scientists of the kuros institute, it was done

about the current russia, about the regime, but there are actually not enough forecasts, these forecasts must be developed at the state level, and we must act as initiators in order to attract the attention of western countries, as, by the way, churchill once did at the first stage, whose country was already at war, and the united states was not yet, who was already making certain plans and thinking about what to do with nazi germany, and he was able to attract attention and then unite around it other allies who also later joined this war, well, while the world is thinking, while our western partners... are thinking, what to do with the russian federation, but at the same time they support putin, that that representatives of six european states were at the so-called inauguration of the so-called president of the russian federation shows that despite everything, despite the elections that took place, or putin's pseudo-elections that took place in the neighboring territory, the neighboring state, in

the temporarily occupied territories of the ukrainian states, and this is already an excuse about... to say that it is impossible to confirm the legitimacy of these elections, but representatives of six european countries appeared at this inauguration, the united states of america said that they do not recognize the results, or do not think that these elections were free, but they say they agree with the fact that putin is the leader of modern russia, for which the members of the european union, in particular the united states of america, confirm the legitimacy. putin and how it threatens the world, that is, what will happen as a result of this when he is brought to power again a dictator who has a warrant from the international criminal court, who is a war criminal, and the whole world says: well, listen, there is no one else, but putin, well, no way, but somehow

they were crowned or elected there, that is, he is a willing, willing... .or are they making this compromise, what does this painful compromise bring to the world in the future and in the near future, mr. oleg? well, this is a classic dilemma of choosing between a war of shame. it is clear that the world is still moving along the path closer to shame, but not falling there, but definitely not being ready, not being ready to walk on the blade of the knife called war. and this is a certain worldview choice, it is a certain response model. i think that it appeared for a reason now, and it is articulated in this way. first of all, there is a certain established tradition that a whole series of regimes with which the same united states cooperates in one way or another, not formally recognizing their leaders, not recognizing electoral processes, and

saying that they are dictators, but nevertheless , at the same time in the african continent, in asia, america there were such examples, united the states nevertheless interacted with even conditionally humane regimes there. secondly, there are moments of negative inoculation of the situation in belarus and venezuela, such as cases when not only the elections were not recognized, but also the dictators elected in quotation marks in these elections, and accordingly, after that they did not know what to do, because they de facto leave. in power, they actually de facto concentrate this power in their hands, they make decisions, but it is not possible to talk with them, accordingly, you have to use the services of intermediaries through third parties, and that's it those who maintain communications with them capitalize themselves, that is, to say that it hits these dictators so critically that

after that they perish these regimes, no, it does not hit, and therefore after, especially venezuela less.. . to the extent of belarus, but nevertheless, most likely, conclusions were drawn that go against the values ​​that are declared, but lie in the plane of pragmatism and the understanding of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of such a mechanism at the moment, and the third point is that it is a minimization of risks that of putin will work out mechanisms and plans to force him to talk with himself, that is, by raising the stakes, to force western leaders... to take a step to call him, or meet him, or send some messages, etc., realizing that russia still has certain escalation mechanisms, reaching the nuclear warhead, which immediately ... everyone decided to get and shake, that is to shake with it, this nuclear voyeurism, of course, it annoys the world, first of all, by the way, it causes serious concern of the distribution in china, in europe

to a lesser extent, in the united states as well we saw that the situation with the reaction is already calmer and more mature, which is pleasantly impressive, but nevertheless, such factors still remain in russia, with which it can hurt and, accordingly, they do not want to give a basis to dry putin for this . european countries, then there is no surprise. france also wants to preserve the possibility of communication with russia, not to recognize putin, not to recognize the elections, but nevertheless to keep the embassy and diplomatic relations. for them, it is necessary in order to sit on an equal footing, communicate with beijing, with delhi, with washington, who have contacts with russia, and accordingly, so that france is not in a more vulnerable position and is not less subject in part of the conversations about russia and in part. where certain communications may be needed, to convey some messages to the kremlin, or from the kremlin to the elysee palace, on the contrary, and accordingly

the presence of an ambassador here is important. of course, in france they tried to remain silent for a while, but then, when it became clear that it was resonant, that their ambassador was taking part, a communique was made, in which it was said clearly, the participation of the ambassador does not mean that they recognize putin, it does not mean that they recognize the election process, it only means that they... there is an embassy in moscow, and their ambassador took part in a protocol event. by the way, the spokesperson of the european union's foreign policy service, peterstano, says that the participation of several eu diplomats in the so-called inauguration of putin on tuesday does not call into question the eu's position on supporting ukraine. he also explained that the european union did not refuse to recognize vladimir putin as the president of russia, because in this regard all the member states of the european union could not reach a consensus on the issue, but we know. that the european parliament adopted a resolution questioning putin's legitimacy, and we know that the resolution, well, has a recommendatory character, that is, it is

a declaration, a recommendatory character, mr. igor, what do you think, can putin get the status of a self-proclaimed the president, will anyone dare to do this, except for ukraine, of course, then... because it immediately puts all the emphasis on the status of putin and on the fact that is it even possible to negotiate with him, is it necessary to negotiate, and in general, do putin, who was crowned yesterday in the kremlin, have any prospects? look, i'm afraid that he will not receive the status of self-proclaimed president, and this will continue, well, at least until the end of the war in ukraine. here one could try to draw some parallels between him and lukashenko, but there is one nuance that is very important, and which is precisely understood in the west, putin,

unlike lukashenko, has no competitor who would say that he or she won the elections and respectively, but they stole this victory, putin did it more cunningly here and the elections were held almost without competition, some candidates there gained something, but he won with a crushing score... and even today many countries do not even have a formal reason for it to say that he is a self-proclaimed president because he has at least followed some sort of procedure, and the history of those statements, both from the united states and from many other democracies, is simply an acknowledgment of the actual state of affairs. here, by the way, putin does not need to be very impressed that someone there came to his inauguration, or some countries, the same united states, said: that we recognize him as the de facto president, because in fact they expected a completely different presence, a completely different representation at the same inauguration, and here

piskov's irritated statement that he made on the same day regarding many embassies and ambassadors who did not come to this inauguration was very revealing, it was clear that they hoped that they would , well, on this one the protocol event will appear, they did not do it, therefore, in fact , putin received a serious blow to his ambitions and to his ego even during this inauguration, that is, they expected that it would still go better and with more representation than it actually was, but due to the fact that he created at least the external picture of these elections due to the fact that he is the head of the country that has the largest, or the second in the world, there looking at how to calculate the nuclear potential, of course, what with... will be to keep this small hole for conducting some kind of negotiations, so that there would be an opportunity to pick up the phone and solve some issue there, well , god forbid, nuclear or some other

escalation, but look... on the other hand, we don't need to look for some huge betrayal here, why? because such an actual recognition, ukraine, i just want to say right away that ukraine did absolutely the right thing, we simply had no other choice and our position is correct from the point of view of not recognizing him, since he has not recognized ukraine for a long time, the president of ukraine there and so further, but we're fine should not worry about the fact that the western countries will be ready to talk about something with putin behind our backs, no, that is the case for now. testifies to one thing, that if there is an urgent need, then something will be discussed with him, but on the other hand, something tells me that if some document is ever signed, which will relate to russian-ukrainian relations, the russian-ukrainian war, the end of , the suspension of this war there, we do not know yet in what format all this will be, then something tells me that there will be no putin as a signatory of these documents, putin...

would write only one document that would guarantee him what he wants in principle, he will never get it in ukraine, and therefore there is no what to worry about, completely different people will sign something, and the negotiations will most likely be conducted by other people on behalf of putin, but not specifically putin himself, but for now we hope that putin will not sign and predict that he will not sign no documents, well maybe you... mean a single document, he could sign, an act of capitulation of russia, capitulation of ukraine, yes, yes, of course, this is a single document, or that he accepts half of ukraine there as part of russia, and all this is recognized by the world community, he will sign this, everything else, well, this is not the story under which he will deliver, but look, in moscow , hope that zelenskyi will not sign any documents on the part of ukraine either, because they are now dispelling zelenskyi’s illegitimacy on this topic after 20

may 20. 24th year 5 years from the moment the swearing-in of president zelenskyi, they are talking about the fact that, after this term, we generally, we generally do not know who to talk to in ukraine, and whether or not it is necessary to talk, the fact that russia is now trying so hard to turn this topic of illegitimacy or putin into zelensky's illegitimacy, does this mean that in russia, russia is not at all... going to negotiate with anyone, and it has only one goal, that is to destroy the ukrainian state, mr. olezh. you are absolutely right. russia always instrumentalizes everything. take a look russia replaced diplomacy with special services, and russian diplomacy today is nothing more than just a ministry of foreign affairs, foreign policy war. this is a kind of ministry of foreign policy attack. if we talk about the church, russia has

had it for a long time. mentalized by spying on her with agents and accordingly using the church as a ministry of religious war. the same is happening in all directions, and instrumentalization, including information, transformation of mass media into mass disinformation, the ministry de facto propaganda, and therefore they try to instrumentalize any information, and if there is none, then create it in order to subjugate it to war. in particular. and statements, negotiations, diplomatic statements, top officials. one of the interesting things is that in the western tradition, leaders of states usually do not lie, there are full-time people who, according to their obligations, can, say, tell half-truths, can misinform, can something later be attributed to mistakes or unprofessionalism, or they will

resign , but if anything... but official representatives of the state in the international arena, then this is usually true, the words can be chosen as you like, and one of the surprises of many western experts and politicians about russia was that putin came out and lied to his face, not only in front of the camera, but with behind closed doors, we can recall the same memories of mr. hollande or retellings, let's say merkel's words after these... a series of rounds in the norman format, and therefore putin's words should not be taken as real thoughts, because here the west very often does this mistake, continuing this logic that, well, maybe putin takes it, well, but in general, if they sat down and said their positions, then russia declares its position, no, russia never declares, russia keeps its own mind, that's all, what is said, this is already happening within the framework of waging a total war, everything that is said is for

the sake of waging. opponent's mana. they are playing.