why did he go 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 xizen ping, he decided to give, one might say, zelensky a fight on the territory of the ukrainian president, why? zelensky, in principle, as we understand, 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. ah... but zelensky can start an attack on russia's diplomatic positions, and by and large, this whole, i would say the story with the peace summit, with the previous meetings of 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 just watches this, at least the countries of the global south, decide that he does not care at all, and they will have the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to the west, without the risk of deteriorating relations with moscow. but russia has gone the other way, it actually operates through china. there are peaceful offers of de facto freezing of the conflict that have been expressed by china. and these offers are starting to become more and more globalized. china came up with this freezing plan, which it presented in the capital of the global south , lihui, then this plan was supported by xizen ping in paris. then the plan was supported by vladimir

putin in beijing, now vani discussed the plan with celsua marim, the chief adviser to brazilian president lula, who by the way refused to go to switzerland, and there is already a joint chinese-brazilian vision of zamorozka. 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 with a much more concrete document than the summit in switzerland, because the summit in switzerland with... still thanks to the presence there of representatives of the countries of the global south, will most likely end with absolutely vague wording, for everything good, against everything bad, and the brics summit in moscow may end in a clear cut the 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 russia's participation is doomed to failure. on the one hand, it reduces the interest of countries. of the south to such

participation, on the other hand, creates the conditions for the diplomatic defeat of the event, and we are already hearing that maybe president biden really will not be there, maybe not only because he wants to raise money, but because he does not want to be present at the event, which is nothing will be over, the next moment, and another moment, along with that, supporting the chinese plan, he's not giving up virtually any of his terms because what his spokesman says. petro piskov 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 to which 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 deyura, should recognize the autonomous republic of crimea, the city of sevastopol, and 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 , even those over there, relatively speaking, donbass, donetsk region, this is how much we control there, 40% approximately, and 30% of the zaporizhzhia region as well, no, well, it will be such a blow to ukraine then, huge, of course, of course, but that's it. withdrawal of bets, if they, if they will offer it, and 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 of the federation, and well, we will not go anywhere from the territory of our subjects of the federation, this is correct, these are negotiations according to the russian scenario, they understand that we will not get anywhere, but they understand that we will ask them to leave, this is what is called a russian trap , the second point where... militarization, they can achieve

demilitarization, from us, no, but they can achieve the absence of security guarantees, there is no demilitarization, and we say we will not... we will demilitarize, but then we will not give you security guarantees, if you do not want to demilitarize, then russia will not give you and real security guarantees, and the west, the west also does not give, well, we sign some agreements, but they are not guarantees, well, they are not ratified by the parliaments, so this is a classic freeze, that is, putin says that, in principle, if i have desire will appear, we we can freeze the conflict, so we raised the stakes, they raised the stakes, we are below them. and froze on the contact line, but now the next point, which is really interesting, is legitimacy, if russia does not consider president zelensky legitimate, she says, he says, well, let them sort themselves out in ukraine, then this means that after signing any what kind of armistice agreement,

they can say, we apologize, but we don't understand who signed it, especially... if after that, imagine a different situation, if after the armistice, new presidential elections will be held, and their winner will raise the question of the legitimacy of his predecessor, it may be, we do not know who will win the elections, well, in theory, anything may be, such a person, who during the election campaign will be in strong opposition to president zelenskyi and wins the election from him, he can apply to the constitutional court the next day after his election. a question about whether the president of ukraine was legitimate from may 20, 2024, if this person says, and you know, the constitutional court does not agreed, the russians will say, well, you 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 wave, he will recognize this agreement, because we are not sure, that he was legitimate, and the new president of ukraine will say: what should i admit, there is a signature, no, but this signature, if you do not sign it, in blood, and now imagine that the entire election campaign of this person will be based on because it was a wrong deal, and that it was not gives us no security guarantees. you do understand that president zelensky's successor as president of ukraine, in the conditions, if this war ends in a freeze, in the absence of security guarantees, will be a person with a much more populist slogan than the person who won the 2019 elections. putin can understand this, he creates 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, uh, process. okay, and nato, here's how

ukraine's possible accession to nato fits into the framework of this of the entire process, because we understand that ukraine will not immediately join nato, but on the other hand, we must understand that... whether russia wants, conditionally speaking, to prevent ukraine from joining us, we understand that this is basically one of the list of 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 are 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 the issue here is not about ukraine, but about nato itself, but 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 do not, we want to solve these problems peacefully, we have been saying this since 14 24th of the year, right? putin accuses us that we wanted to fight, that we bombed donbas there, both of our presidents, from the 14th year to the 24th , president petro poroshenko, president volodymyr zelensky, at least after the signing of the minsk agreements, when russia used its regular units, in order to defend their positions, at least in part of the occupied territories, said that they wanted to resolve the territorial problems of ukraine peacefully. the peaceful way is the minsk agreement, and the peaceful way is the crimean platform, on the crimean platform everyone already talked about a peaceful way to solve the problem is not... about a war for the return of sovereignty in crimea, so what, so ukraine will have a serious dilemma, whether they can accept a country that is not

under threat of a new war and without established international recognized borders, that is, there are no guarantees that ukraine will join nato, under these schedules there is no... there is no, because ukraine does not control its internationally recognized borders, if the war ends like this, and does not recognize the territories that are under the control of russia . together with nato countries, russian so, these are the foundations for a new conflict. you see, there is one problem that may need to be discussed or clarified, i don't even know how to solve it, but we just need to understand it with you. so you and i are always talking in the logic of the 20th century, not the 21st century. in the logic of the inviolability of borders, which was adopted after the second world war and enshrined in the geltsin act on security and... stability in europe in 1975. and nato, nato countries, and the united states, and the countries

of the european union, they come out of it. not, the inviolability of borders is a sacred thing. in the 19th century, if we talked with you, if there was television, we would not talk about it at all. in the 19th century, some regions of some countries moved to others with such speed that very often the inhabitants did not even understand where they were. do you 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, as an autonomous moldavian ssr, part territories 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 this territory, which was part of the ukrainian ssr, as an autonomous republic with a part. territory, part of the territory of the autonomous republic was annexed to ukraine, left as part of the ukrainian ssr, simply as a part

of the odesa region, and from this emerged a real independent state, which now does not control part of its territory, which is the former moldavian autonomy as part of the ukrainian ssr, for with the exception of the city of bendery, which was not in this autonomy, and it is the so-called transnistrian republic, well, that is not the whole problem, there is also gagauzia, there is gagauzia, which has never been considered separately, but... conditionally speaking, i am just telling you i say how it looked, they just took the territory of moldova, look at the territory of ukraine, we will also see, there is 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, was territory as part of hungary, there is a territory that after during the first world war, it became part of poland, not only the territory of austria. territories 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 the territory that was the territory of soviet russia was added to them, this is crimea. this is how you can talk about every european state, if you and i start talking about poland, what it consists of before the war, poland after the war, and czechoslovakia. that is, you understand, and the czech republic and slovakia now? you can talk about this forever, but i am not talking about this, i am saying that when, when the collapse of the soviet union and yugoslavia began, we all decided, in order to prevent a big war, the borders should pass along the borders of the former soviet republics, despite the fact that this were not real states, we understand that ourselves, they were conditional states, it was more convenient for stalin. to rule these countries and their states, but the problem is that it was

the right, good decision that allowed just start normal relations between these new countries without war, keep calm there, keep peace there, keep international peace there, but russia and serbia undermined it, first serbia, then russia, look from the 90s, from the 90s... serbia is fighting in bosnia and herzegovina, in croatia with the help of paramilitary formations. first they expel the croats, then they expel the serbs from croatia. bosnia and herzegovina is actually a country in which ethnic cleansing is legitimized for the sake of preserving its territorial integrity, but republika srpska does not want to be in bosnia and herzegovina. this state actually does not exist. like a normal institution. let's look at kosovo, its independence is recognized by a number of countries, but they demand from the albanians that... kosovo, that they create autonomy for the serbian municipalities on the border with serbia,

whose inhabitants do not want to live in kosovo at all, that is, all of this territory, but no one says, we can transfer them to serbia, because this is the same, because this is the same issue of the territorial integrity of kosovo, which was actually an autonomy within serbia, again, the question is what is the territorial integrity of kosovo, it is just an autonomous region that was created by the yugoslav communists so that the serbs would live together with the albanians and control them. at least here, now the soviet union, near dniester we have already mentioned, abkhazia and south ossetia, from where the entire georgian ethnic population was expelled, ukraine, part of the territory of which it annexed. russia, that is , there are no established borders at all, 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 how president vučić

wrapped himself in the serbian flag during this week, when there was a vote on the genocide in srebrenica at the un general assembly . .. 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 it is not the serbs of serbia who are accused of this genocide, but the paramilitary formation of the bosnian serbs led by general radkomlach, who is sitting in the hague, to the uncle, to how and to serbia, as to the state, this attitude is not mine, but they perceive it as their own, like putin ukraine, about what, why am i about this... "if we are going to live, we live in 19 centuries, we are trying to pretend that we live in 201, and in fact we are on the hook of these ideas, and our western partners tell us, we want you to return, your borders are internationally recognized, and after that everything will be fine, and when we return, we for this, we need to

expel the russians from there, by force, if we cannot by force, then we are in gray zone". we can still be accepted, conditionally speaking, into the european union, well, as cyprus was accepted, well, yes, yes, because it does not obligate anyone to anything, you understand, but in nato to provide us with security guarantees, it is unlikely , and i think that if you and i do not say to ourselves and the west, listen, let's forget about these established borders, that is, a modern state, a state of the 21st century, is not a state with established borders, it is a state that can preserve its sovereignty where... to preserve it, and you, please, give it to us, give it to moldova, give it georgia guarantees their security where they exercise their sovereignty, don't bother kosovars with these kosovar serbs, if you can't deconstruct bosnia, give republika srpska a chance to join bosnia, give bosnian

muslims and croats a chance to build a properly functioning state, do something and then maybe when there are changes. russia, when serbia will change, in 30 years, like after the war, there in the 54th year, in the 60th year, we will hold a new conference in helsinki, and we will solve all this, all border issues, when, and what should we do in in such a case with those who will be resettled by russia, but again, this is a question, look, and what should we do with those who live in the kaliningrad region of the russian federation, that's a thing of the past. on the territory of east prussia, what should we do, nothing, this is already an established fact, you are talking about a situation that can happen in 30 years, if we manage to return these territories that we are not recapturing after 30 years, then i will tell you that to do there, what the baltic countries did 50 years later, we recognize as ukrainian citizens those who had

citizenship at the time of occupation and their heirs, we will distribute passports for citizens to all others. what is the problem but it is still a destabilizing factor, when, you understand what, i am leading to, you and i talked very well about territorial issues, that is, we talked about territories, about accession, about sovereignty, about administrative and territorial division, but russia always involved one very bad feature for us and for other nations, and very good for themselves, and this feature consisted in the fact that they ... as soon as they installed effective control over some territory, they immediately started mass resettlement, they did it in crimea, they did it as soon as 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

occupation, yes, what did they begin to do, they began to settle in... evict those nationalities, those peoples who 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 of the soviet union, they always did it, they, they did it in the baltic countries, they, they, they did it in the crimea, when they were thrown out of there crimean tatars and... staged a genocide, they staged a genocide against ukrainians and settled them, that is, russia, no matter what it is called, it lays the foundation for the future, even for the future. problematic, relatively speaking, points, regions, and now, she is doing the same, mariupol, berdyansk, we see what's going on there, i

'm not arguing with that at all, but i'm telling you again, we have a pretty simple dilemma, we can either get russia out of here militarily, if we don't have it, if we have the power, or she's there will remain, if she remains there, that's all i'm talking about, and the west will insist on sanctity. borders and on the fact that he will agree with us on everything when we restore these borders, well, we will live in a gray zone, as long as russia wants it, because it will not give anything away, and we absolutely we will calmly wait for her new attack, and we will wait not for her to populate berdyansk or mariupol with russians, but for her to populate kyiv and poltava with russians, you see, it's very simple, we stopped the war, eh, we... er, a ceasefire was agreed, we did not get security guarantees, the russian army is standing there, and imagine that a few more years passed, and they

attacked us again. therefore, you are not discussing the problem that is relevant. i have no doubts that russia will populate these territories, which it occupied, with its own citizens, moreover, i think that she will deal with the russification of those ukrainian citizens who will remain there, but i am telling you about something else, i am telling you what we should do if we keep under our control. 70, what to do with this territory, if this territory, due to the fact that we ourselves demand 100 and cannot release them other than by force, we do not have enough power for this, if not the lack of control over this territory allows us to become members of nato and receive real security guarantees. this interests me because i say 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 simply destroyed internally, this is what we were offered as a plan, special areas of donetsk and luhansk regions, just this putin didn't want to, but milosevic really did. bosnia, as a state, it supposedly exists, it supposedly wanted it and got its way, actually destroyed it, it does not exist, i am confused by this, because i believe that we may find ourselves in the gray zone, in this civilization refrigerator, for another 30-40 years, and putin only needs this, and i have a simple idea, which, again, many may not like, but i have no other recipe, we recognize... the entire territory of ukraine as ours 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 possess can get all these security guarantees and all these, i would say other trade preferences that all other members of the european union and nato have. this is if, if you want, this is what the president of moldova maisandu said, integration of two speeds, first let's integrate moldova, and then think about transnistria, because if as a result we conduct, moldova conducts negotiations on joining the european union, and then they tell us, both of you will enter when moldova comes to an agreement with transnistria, but 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, how is everything. ok, there will be a political agreement with transnistria, contact us tomorrow, it can also happen, because i tell you once again, we have left the situation of the second half of the 20th

century, it does not exist, your discussion with me also takes place in this context, you are again looking at it through the optics of the end of the 20th century, and i suggest you look at it through the optics of the 19th, and i have already told you about what legal solution, if we regain control over these territories, peacefully as a result of the changes in russia or crises in russia, and it will happen in 10, 15, 20 years, in each of these regions there is a beautiful baltic approach of latvia, estonia to the so -called immigrants. people can not be evicted if they have property, apartments and so on there, they can simply be denied citizenship if it is ukraine, and this, and we say what, what this ukraine. returned here, what does it matter after how many years, tell me, they, these are occupied territories, the occupier, from our point of view, and from the point of view of international law, has no right to change their ethnic composition, changed. so what

we have no claims against the people, we have a claim against the occupier, we can give these people the right of our citizenship only through naturalization. regarding the property, it is also a question of how legally it was obtained, if it was about the fact that you illegally confiscate property from the citizens of ukraine and transfer it to the citizens of another state, i apologize, the ukrainian state must return this property to their legal it's called restitution, and i, what, i'm sorry, and the baltic countries that didn't do it after 50 years, they they calmly told the people who came there after the 45th year and settled in other people 's apartments, sorry, you live in other people's apartments, it belonged to a citizen of latvia, he is the owner, he will come tomorrow, and you will leave tomorrow, this even applied to citizens of latvia who lived in illegally. purchased, or

simply in state property that was taken from private owners, with legal, how to say, with legal decisions, and passportization, and restitution, there are no problems, the problem is completely different, so that we do not end up actually with the desire to enter the situation that russia is offering us, and which, by the way, he is talking about... viktor orban: i want ukraine to become a gray zone. i do not want to have russian troops on the hungarian border. so, then let there be a filter. and for us, why be such a filter? let the filter between us, europe, and russia be that part of ukraine, which we cannot liberate by force, and which we must

return politically. again, yes. this is just in case, i want to emphasize this again, if we do not have the strength to retake this territory, because when the president of ukraine says that he would like to discuss the withdrawal of russian troops from the territories occupied by russia in negotiations with the president of russia, i always have only one question, and how will he force him to do this, it must be something that will force vladimir putin to agree to such a decision, and what about an occupier of the type like putin ? there is only one possibility to leave somewhere, it is when they are expelled by force, remember, on may 8, 1945, the surrender of hitler's germany was signed, right? and when was is prague liberated? if i am not mistaken, a little earlier, well, in general, we are talking about what we will check now, well... in fact, we

understand that from the absolute majority of the territories occupied by hitler, he or his army was pushed out by force, of course, all almost everywhere kyiv, warsaw, even berlin is the same, but on may 6-11, 1945, in fact, the complete liberation of prague took place 3 days after hitler's germany ceased to exist. the troops of this country, which are located, continued the resistance, ugh, and by the way, the famous story that to say, the russian liberation army under the command of general vlasov returned the weapons against its recent allies, if it had not switched to the run of the insurgents in prague, the fate of warsaw could have awaited prague, but all this was already happening when everything was over.

you see, prague was liberated by the troops of general vlasov from the hitlerites, who even after the surrender wanted to continue to fight for the territory, i believe that the putin regime is just like that, you see, this is the problem of such a regime, and therefore we must clearly say that if in we will have the strength to liberate all our territories from the enemy, we will not have this problem that i am telling you about, they say, we say that the war, if we go... to the borders of ee in 1991 , may not end, may not end , but we will have control over this line of the internationally recognized state border, and we can say to our allies: give us security guarantees for all of ukraine, and if they fight there, then you will defend the internationally recognized borders of ukraine with us, what is the problem, and here they will be very happy it's hard to say no, appeal to us at least yes, and if we to them...