some certain ground, perhaps, in relation to those states that are wavering now, yes, which should support ukraine or not, why today, why these statements now in this period, why putin is flying to belarus and again, by the way, is brandishing nuclear weapons, well, the fact that putin flew to belarus just during the period when training on the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons is underway, it is clear why. he flew to belarus to show that these trainings really bother him and lukashenka, he gave lukashenka the opportunity to speak on this matter. all by the way, this is happening against the background of a discussion in western countries about the possibility of using western weapons so that ukraine can destroy military facilities on the territory of the russian federation, on the sovereign territory of the russian federation. and you and i

have to understand a simple thing, what is putin's tactic, putin's tactic consists in deliberately raising rates, because in general, whoever stops raising rates will lose in this war. and so we started our program with this tragedy in the kharkiv region. i want to remind you that the intensification of russian actions in kharkiv against kharkiv in particular coincided with... successful ukrainian drone strikes on the territory of the belgorod region, remember, ugh, ugh, there were strikes, russian military infrastructure objects were destroyed, and what putin said: we will create a sanitary zone so that none of our regions would be affected by ukrainian strikes, although again, when it came to strikes on the territory of the donetsk, luhansk, kherson, and zaporizhzhia regions of crimea, no one said that...

that is, now russian propaganda has some such amazing terminology that this is the original territory of the russian federation, and it is not as if, you know, new russia, new russia, new moscow, in new moscow, as you know, life is worse than in to the old one, despite the unification of these territories of the moscow region with moscow, it is more difficult to live in the new russia than in the old one, because no one will take revenge for it, but it is the very idea that we have to destroy... and create there some kind of sanitary zone there, even if not so much in russia it turns out, it is now being presented to the west as a response to the successful strikes on the belgorod region and the destruction of the russian oil refinery, that is, we will not simply respond as we responded, we will simply destroy the city to them, so that they know, so to speak, and this training with tactical nuclear weapons, this is a response to the discussion. regarding the fact that it may be possible to allow

western weapons to hit russian military facilities, so that they understand that putin can raise the stakes even then, you will allow conventional missiles to be hit on the territory of russia, and we will hit an unusual missile with a nuclear carrier on the territory of ukraine, what will you do next, you have a plan, so to speak, how you will respond, that is, this is an invitation to further escalation, and by the way, you understand that it can to take place to western politicians, not all of them are ready to agree to the fact that western-made missiles can be fired at the territory of the russian federation, who spoke out for this from all western politicians, only one person, in fact, it is the minister of foreign affairs of great britain, david cameron, whose mandate ends in july, well, somehow, jens stoltenberg said something carefully, but his father, no, he also said that.

carelessly said: yes, you have, but his mandate is also ending, who know that their political careers are coming to an end on stolpar, at least as nato secretary general, and cameron as british foreign secretary, as former british prime minister er, he thinks about the legacy, he wants to leave this position with dignity, but valid western politicians who don't think about the end of their careers, they talk completely differently, and i'll tell you more, we already see the advance of people who have always been associated with russia, in the direction of no, but just today absolutely categorically against the possibility of using of such weapons, said the vice prime minister of italy, matteo salvini, you know that his league party has always been against the use of the west, western weapons as such to help ukraine, after 2022 he changed his position, another italian politician who is against. ..

the use of western weapons for strikes on the territory, this is italian foreign minister tajani, he heads the party of the deceased prime minister berlusconi. that is, it really gives them. doesn't give putin that opportunity to say what, you're going to let them destroy a couple of russian airports, and what are we going to do with the airfields, and what are we going to do if putin hits them with nuclear weapons, we have a plan, and it can paralyze the will of the west , so it is clear why he went there, now regarding his talks about the negotiations, he is clearly not alone, but in the company of the head of the people's republic of china, xi jinping, decided to give zelensky a fight, one might say. on the territory of the ukrainian president, why? in principle, as we understand, zelensky cannot act on the territory of the russian federation with the help of troops. the whole war of russia against ukraine is taking place and will probably take place on the sovereign territory of ukraine. but zelensky

can start an attack on the diplomatic positions of russia, and by and large, this whole story, i would say, with the peace summit, with the previous meeting advisers on national security issues, all this was connected with the desire to get as much support as possible for ukraine's view on the end of the war, so that the war ends justly, justly. now the question arises, quite important, i think, if putin will just watch it. at least the countries of the global south will decide that it does not care at all, and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to the west without the risk of worsening relations with moscow, but russia

has gone the other way, it actually acts through china, there are peaceful proposals of actually freezing the conflict, which were in... expressed by china, and these proposals are beginning to become more and more globalized, so china came out with this freezing plan, which it presented in the capital of the global south , lihui, then this plan was supported xizen ping in paris, then the plan was supported by vladimir putin in beijing, now vani discussed the plan with celsuam arim, the chief adviser to brazilian president lula, who, by the way, refused to go to switzerland. and there is already a common chinese-brazilian vision frost, now they say that there will be an alternative summit in moscow of the foreign ministers of the group of seven countries, and this summit may end up with a much more concrete document than the swiss summit, because the swiss summit, again, thanks to

the presence there of representatives of the countries of the global south, is more likely to everything will end with absolutely vague formulations, for everything good, against everything bad, and the brics summit in moscow can end clearly-. that chinese plan, which will be the brics plan. what is putin doing? at the same time, putin demonstrates that he is so ready to support this idea that ukraine and russia should talk, that the very idea of ​​a conference without the participation of russia is doomed to failure. on the one hand, it reduces the interest of the countries of the global south in such participation, on the other hand, it creates the conditions for the diplomatic defeat of the west, and we are already hearing that maybe president biden really will not be present there, maybe not only because he wants to gather. and because he does not want to be present at an event that will end in nothing. the next moment and another moment, along with this, supporting the chinese plan, he practically does not give up any of his conditions, because what his press secretary dmytro piskov says is no

different from what moscow said in february 2022. we have special operations goals, and we can achieve them politically, what are these goals? there are subjects of the russian federation that ukraine should stop claiming, and we just have to clearly understand for ourselves what this means. this means that ukraine, at least de facto, if not de jura, should recognize the autonomous republic of crimea, the city of sevastopol, donetsk, luhansk, kherson, and zaporizhzhia regions, part of the russian federation, and ukrainian troops must be withdrawn from the territory they control in these, that is , on...

them, if they will offer it, and of course we do, but this is raising the stakes , if we say, we will not go anywhere, they will say, well, we will not go anywhere, you do not want to go anywhere, you do not want to leave the territory of our subjects. federation, and we will not go anywhere from the territory of our subjects of the federation, that's it, that's right, that's what the negotiations with russian nations, they understand that we will not get anywhere, but they understand that we will get rich from them, that... they left, this is called the russian trap. the second point is demilitarization. can they achieve demilitarization? no, from us, no. but, they can achieve the lack of security guarantees. there is no demilitarization. and we say, we will not demilitarize. but then we will not give you security guarantees. if you do not want to demilitarize, then russia will not give you real security guarantees. and the west. the west also does not give, well, we sign some agreements, but this is not a guarantee, well, they are not ratified by the parliaments, so this is

a classic freeze, that is, putin says that in principle, if i have the desire, we can freeze the conflict , so we raised the stakes, they raised the stakes, we lowered them and froze them on the contact line, but now the next moment is really interesting, legitimacy, if russia does not consider president zelensky legitimate, she... he says: well, let them be there in ukraine , it means that after signing any armistice agreement, they can say: we apologize, but we are not clear with whom we signed, especially if after that, imagine a different situation, if after the armistice, there will be new presidential elections and their winner will raise questions about the legitimacy of his predecessor. maybe, we don't know who will win the elections, well, in theory, anything can happen, such a person who will

be in strict opposition to president zelensky during the election campaign and will win in his election, he can submit a request to the constitutional court the next day, after his election, about whether the president of ukraine was legitimate from may 20, 2024, if this person says, you know, the constitutional court did not agree with this, the russians will say i don't see. they are devaluing our agreement, well, we will now start a special operation, or even vice versa, that is, they themselves will say that it turns out that now there is a legitimate president, he will recognize this agreement, because we are not sure that he is legitimate, and the new president of ukraine will say and what do i have to admit, there's a signature, no , that signature, if you don't sign it, in blood, and now imagine that this man's entire election campaign is going to be based on the fact that this was a wrong deal, and that he does not give us... any guarantees of security, you understand that the successor of president zelensky as

the president of ukraine in the conditions, if this war ends in a freeze and lack of security guarantees, will be a person with much more populist slogans than the person who won the election 2019, and putin can do it to understand, he is creating a situation for himself, so to speak, an open chance, a pause, and the ukrainians themselves, from his point of view, will give him the opportunity to start a new one. ugh, the process. okay, and nato, here’s how the possible accession of ukraine to nato fits into the framework of this whole process, because we understand that ukraine will not join nato right away, but on the other hand, we must understand what russia, relatively speaking, wants to do so that ukraine does not join us, we understand that this is basically one of the... from the list of those postulates that russia puts before itself,

of course, but russia will not be able to demand from us in the freeze agreement that we do not enter somewhere, because it will not be an agreement with conditions, if it is a freeze, then we do not recognize their sovereignty over our territories, they do not recognize our sovereignty over our territories, they do not provide any security guarantees, the west does not provide security guarantees, they cannot achieve anything from us, we cannot achieve anything from them, this is a ceasefire . but here the question arises not about ukraine, but about nato itself. nato knows that there are two armies standing against each other, there are no guarantees that one of the armies, even the russian one, is not ukrainian, they say, we don’t, we want to solve these problems peacefully, we said that from the 14th year to the 24th, it ’s true, putin accuses us that we wanted to fight, that we bombed donbas there, both our presidents, from the 14th to the 24th, president petro poroshenko, president volodymyr zelensky, at least after the signing of minsk. that's when russia used its regular units in order to defend its positions, at least in part

of the occupied territories, said that they want to solve the territorial problems of ukraine peacefully. the peaceful way is the minsk agreements, and the peaceful way is the crimean platform, on the crimean platform everyone already talked about the peaceful way of solving the problem, not about the war for the return of sovereignty in crimea, so what, so what, the country will have a serious dilemma , can they accept. as part of the country, a country that is not under threat of a new war and without established internationally recognized gimbals, i.e. no guarantees. that ukraine will join nato under these schedules, no, no, because ukraine does not control its internationally recognized borders, if the war ends like this, and does not recognize the territories under the control of russia, together with nato countries, as russian, so these are the foundations for a new

conflict, you understand , there is one problem here that may need to be discussed or clarified, i don't even know, solved, but we just need to understand it with you. so you and i talk all the time in the logic of the 20th century, not the 21st century. in the logic of integrity borders, which was adopted after the second world war and enshrined in the geltsin act on security and stability in europe of 1975 . and nato, nato countries, and the united states and the countries of the european union, they come out of it. no, it is not the violation of boundaries that is sacred. thing in the 19th century, if we talked with you, if there was television, we would n't talk to you about it at all, in the 19th century, some regions of one country moved to another, with such a speed that very often the inhabitants did not even understand where they are, remember not even wars, conflicts, ultimatums, this continued until 1945, look at

our neighbor the republic of moldova, part of the territory was in the ukrainian ssr on the moldavian rsp, part of the territory in romania, and before that in the russian empire, and the part that was in romania was returned to the soviet union by ultimatum, united with the territory that was part of the ukrainian ssr, as an autonomous republic with part of the territory, part of the territory of the autonomous republic was annexed to ukraine, left as part of the ukrainian ssr simply as a part odesa region, and this resulted in a real independent state, which now does not control parts of its territory. what is the former moldavian autonomy as part of the ukrainian ssr, with the exception of the city of bendery, which was not part of this autonomy, and it is the so-called transnistrian republic, well, this is not the whole, not the whole problem, there is also gagauzia, there is gagauzia, which has never been separate , but gagauzi was not at least a separate factor in 1991 there,

relatively speaking, i'm just telling you how it looked, they just took the territory of moldova. on the territory of ukraine we will also see, there is the territory that was part of the russian empire, there is territory that was part of the austro-hungarian empire, there is territory that was part of austria, there was territory that was part of hungary, there is territory that after the first world war became part of poland, not only the territory of austria, but also the territory of the russian empire, there is a territory that became part of czechoslovakia, there is a territory that became part of the soviet union, all these territories in the 45th year. became the ukrainian ssr completely and then annexed to them the territory that was the territory of soviet russia, that is crimea. this is how you can talk about every european state, if you and i start talking about poland, what does it consist of, before the wars in poland and after the war, and czechoslovakia, that is, you understand, and the czech republic and slovakia now? you can talk about it

forever, but i'm not talking about it, i'm saying that when, when did the breakdown of the soviet union begin. yugoslavia, we all decided, in order to prevent a big war, the borders should pass along the borders of the former union republics, despite the fact that these were not real states, you and i understand this, they were conditional states, it was more convenient for stalin and tito to rule these countries and their states, but the problem is that it was the right, good decision that allowed simply without war. start normal relations between these new countries, keep calm there, keep peace there, keep international peace there, but russia and serbia would undermine it, first serbia, then russia, look, since the 90s, since the 90s, serbia has been fighting in bosnia and herzegovina, in croatia with the help of paramilitary formations, they first expel

the croats, then expel the serbs from croatia, bosnia and herzegovina is actually a country in which ethnic cleansing is legitimized in order to preserve its territorial integrity, but republika srpska does not want to be in bosnia and herzegovina, this state actually does not exist as a normal institution. let's look at kosovo, its independence is recognized by a number of states, but they demand from the albanians, kosovo, that they create autonomy for the serbian municipalities on the border with serbia, whose residents do not want to live in kosovo at all, that is, annexation of their territory, but... he says : we can them transfer to serbia, because it is, because it is a question of the territorial integrity of kosovo, which was actually autonomous within serbia, again the question of what is the territorial integrity of kosovo, it is just an autonomous region that was created that way. by the communists, so that the serbs would live together with the albanians and control them, at least here. now the soviet union, we have already mentioned transnistria, abkhazia and south ossetia, from where

the entire georgian ethnic population was expelled. ukraine, part of the territory annexed by russia. that is, established borders in general no, do you understand that? neither here, nor in the balkans, that is, bosnia and kosovo now. these are countries with very problematic borders, and serbia, instead of developing, is busy destabilizing bosnia and kosovo, you all saw president vučić during this week, when there was this vote on the genocide in srebrenica in the general assembly un, wrapped in the serbian flag, and we are talking about events in a city that is not part of serbia, which is part of another state of bosnia and herzegovina, and they are accused of this the genocide is not of serbs, of serbia, but a paramilitary formation, because... who sits in the gas to their daughter, to whom and to serbia as a state, this has nothing to do with it, but they perceive it as

their own, like putin ukraine, what, why i i mean, if we're going to live, we're living in the 19th century, we're trying to pretend we're living in the 21st, and we're actually on the hook for these ideas and... our western partners are telling us, we want you to go back to your borders are internationally recognized, and after that everything will be fine, and when we return, for this, we need to expel the russians from there by force, if we cannot by force, then we are in the gray zone, we can still be admitted to the european union, conditionally speaking, well, how they accepted cyprus, well, yes, yes, because it is nobody's business which does not oblige, you understand, but in nato to give us security guarantees, it is unlikely, and i think that if you and i do not tell ourselves and the west, listen, let's forget about these established borders. a modern state, a state of the 21st century, is not

a state with established borders, it is a state which can preserve its sovereignty where it can preserve it, and you, please, give us, give moldova, give georgia guarantees of their security where they exercise their sovereignty. don't bother the kosovars with these kosovo serbs, if you can't deconstruct bosnia, give the republika serb an opportunity to join bosnia and give the bosnian muslims and croats an opportunity to build a properly functioning state, do something, and then maybe when russia changes, when serbia changes, because 30 years, as after the war, there in in the 54th year, in the 60th, we will hold a new conference in gels. ugh, and we will solve all this, all the border issues, when was ros, and what should we do in such a case with those whom russia will settle there? he is asking this again,

look, what should we do with those who live in the kaliningrad region of the russian federation, this is the former territory of east prussia, what should we do, nothing, this is already an established fact, you are talking about a situation that can happen due to 30 years, if we succeed in 30 years these territories. which we do not win back, then i will give you i will tell you what to do there, what the baltic countries did after 50 years, we will recognize as ukrainian citizens those who had citizenship at the time of occupation and their heirs, we will give passports of non- citizens to all others, what is the problem, but it is still a destabilizing factor, when you understand what i'm getting at, you and i talked very well about territorial issues, that is, we talked about territories about... about unity, about sovereignty, about administrative-territorial division, but russia always involved another very similar a bad feature for us and for other nations, and a very

good feature for themselves, and this feature was that as soon as they established effective control over some territory, they immediately started mass resettlement, they did it in crimea, they did it . only ukraine was essentially occupied by the ukrainian people's republic, then the directory, as soon as it was occupied by the soviet union, and i frankly believe and always say that this is an occupation, so what did they start doing? they began to settle and evict those nationalities, those nationalities that lived on the territory of the then ethnographic, relatively speaking, territory of our country and resettled. from any other, from any other part of the so-called russia, or then the russian empire, the soviet union, they always did it, they, they did it in the baltic countries.

they they they did it in crimea, when they kicked out the crimean tatars and staged a genocide, they staged a genocide against the ukrainians and settled them, that is, russia, whatever it is called, it lays down for the future, even for the future, problematic points, relatively speaking, regions, and now, she is doing the same, mariupol, berdyansk, we see what is happening there, i absolutely do not argue with this, but... i say again, we have a fairly simple dilemma, we can either throw russia out of here by military means , if we do not have it, if we have the strength for it, or it will remain there, if it remains there, i am only talking about this, and the west will insist on the sanctity of the borders and that it will agree with us on everything when we will restore these borders, ugh, we will live in a gray zone, as long as russia wants it, because she will not give anything back, and we will

absolutely... we will calmly wait for her new attack and wait not for her to populate berdyansk or mariupol with russians, but for her to populate kyiv and poltava with russians, do you understand? it's very simple, we stopped the war, we agreed on a ceasefire, we did not receive security guarantees, the russian army is standing there, and imagine that a few more years have passed, and it attacked us again. therefore... you are discussing the wrong issue that is relevant. i have no doubts that russia will populate the territories it occupied with its citizens, moreover, i think that it will russify those ukrainian citizens who remain there, but i am telling you about something else, i am telling you what we should do if we keep under with our control of 80% of our territory, 90, we freed another 10, or lost another 10, 70, what to do with this territory, if this territory is due to the fact

that... that we ourselves demand 100 and cannot free other than by force, and we do not have enough force for this, if not the lack of control over this territory does not allow us to become members of nato and receive real security guarantees, this interests me, because i say once again, the fetishization of the inviolability of borders in europe in the 21st century, destroyed by russia. and almost destroyed by the yugoslav war, well, in fact the borders of bosnia are destroyed, you understand, they are just internally destroyed, the fact is that , according to the plan, we were offered special areas of the donetsk and luhansk regions, putin simply did not want this, and milošević really wanted it. and he achieved his goal, actually destroyed it bosnia as a state, it supposedly exists, it supposedly doesn't exist, it... weighs me down, because i believe

that we can find ourselves in the gray zone, in this refrigerator of civilization, for another 30-40 years, and putin only has that and necessary, and i have a simple idea, which again, many may not like, but i do not have another recipe, we recognize the entire territory of ukraine as our territory, no one else looks at it differently, but at the same time, there is no idea, that we cannot, that we... cannot become members of nato, that we cannot become members of the european union, and the territory that we actually own can receive all these security guarantees and all these, i would say, trade and other preferences that all other members of the european union and nato have. this, if you like, is what the president of moldova maisandu said, the integration of two speeds. first, let's integrate moldova, and then we'll think about transnistria,

because if as a result, we will carry it out. moldova is conducting negotiations on joining the european union, and then we are told that you will both join when moldova agrees with transnistria. so imagine such a story, ideal: we liberated our entire territory, and transnistria is under the control of russia, we enter together with moldova, and they tell us, oh, everything is fine, there will be a political agreement with transnistria, contact us tomorrow , it can also be so, because i tell you once again, we have left the situation of the second half of the 20th century. it does not exist, but your discussion with me also takes place in this context, you again look at it through the lens of the end of the 20th century, and i suggest you look at it in optics on the 19th, and i have already told you about what a legal decision would be if we regain control over these territories peacefully as a result of changes in russia or the crisis in russia, and this will happen in 10, 15, 20 years in... .