on drones and rebs, but we have made a good start, thank you, we hope that this will save the lives of other ukrainians, and now a moment of silence for those who are no longer with us because of the muscovites. we will observe a moment of silence in memory of the ukrainian military and civilian citizens of ukraine who died in the war. that it was unleashed by russia.

in ukraine, there are more people who are ready for territorial concessions in exchange for peace, the most agree to compromises in the south, the least in the center of ukraine. we are talking about the mood, but when did eba go to china? will they discuss the plan there? the truce , why did beijing invite kyiv to this meeting, the murder of iryna farion, why society learns about the details of the investigation from the media, and not from the law enforcement officers, who benefit from her demonstrative murder. this is svoboda ranok, my name is kateryna nekrecha and we are starting, join us. discussions and detailed negotiations are the purpose of the visit of the head of the ukrainian foreign ministry to china. the minister himself announced this on social networks. meanwhile, the visit was reacted to... it is important that china learns about the russian federation's war

from ukraine, the representative said of the us state department, matthew miller, reports ukrinform. he added that direct communication between kyiv and beijing is important. miller noted that washington has always clearly stated that it is important for every country in the world to recognize that there is an aggressor and a victim in this conflict. this is the first bilateral visit of the minister of foreign affairs of ukraine to china since 2012, to beijing dmytro kuleb on... at the invitation of the minister of foreign affairs of the people's republic of china, wang yi, the head of the ukrainian foreign ministry, upon his arrival in china, published a video on his instagram and there he said that one issue in the center of attention is peace in ukraine. we will talk, we will look for points of contact, we need to avoid the competition of peaceful clans, we need to move towards a just and sustainable peace, and china can play an important role in this. according to

maoning, the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of china, during the visit, the head of the ukrainian foreign ministry will meet with his chinese counterpart wang-gi, in addition to bilateral cooperation, they will also talk about the search for diplomatic ways to cease fire and hostilities. she noted, i quote: china will continue to stand for peace and dialogue. let me remind you that on may 16 , the special representative of the people's republic of china, li hui, arrived in ukraine. he met with the minister of foreign affairs , dmytro kuleba, after a telephone conversation. you are volodymyr zelenskyi and china's leader sidzenpinnya. it was li hui who headed china's special delegation to settle the ukrainian issue. then, in may, he visited four other european countries in addition to ukraine - poland, france, germany, belgium, as well as russia. during his tour, he convinced the europeans representatives that russia should retain the occupied ukrainian territories, and beijing can be an alternative to washington for europe. lihui previously held the post of knn ambassador. in russia.

rostislav khotyno, a viewer of radio svoboda joined our broadcast. rostyslav, congratulations, thank you for joining. here is the official statement that dmytro kuleba will visit china at the invitation of the minister of foreign affairs of the people's republic of china, wang. why did wangi invite kuleba now? well, firstly, in general, it is very prestigious when guests are invited to an eastern country according to eastern etiquette, they consider it very important, you can't refuse, it's the first thing. second, for 12 years the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of ukraine has not been to china, this is not normal, there has not been any kind of ukrainian-chinese summit since yanukovych, that is , china, as a global, powerful player , was not represented on ukrainian diplomatic radars, as if it did not exist, and it is clear , that ukraine began to review it, reassess it, and at the beginning of june there were even consultations at the level of deputy ministers of foreign affairs, andriy segiba and sibiga were in full swing. no,

western media report what they write, notice that kyiv, if it was not satisfied with china's position, so shaky, unstable, mercantile, still does not criticize china. does not directly and very sharply criticize what is being discussed, now kiev, it is about the fact that china was not represented at the first peace summit in switzerland, ignored it, it seems, as the international press wrote, putin asked all dengpin in may during a visit to beijing should not participate in the swiss summit, which china did, but ukraine would like to see definitely china at the second peace summit, which will probably be in november, and ukraine would also like china... not to promote, advertise its peace plan so that, as kuleba said in beijing , there would be no competition between peace plans. it is clear that china presents itself as such a global player that wants to settle the ukrainian war, it says, by the way, the ukrainian crisis, it never once mentions the war, but it wants to settle this ukrainian

crisis, and the second point, china wants to present itself as the leader of the global the south as a country which, so to speak, is number one in the global south, well... ukraine also wants peace, not just any truce, but a fair and lasting peace, fair for ukraine and peace that russia cannot break , then easy again by attacking once more. what are the unshakable statements and visions of china that official kyiv wants, but cannot yet change. does china really need an end to the war, if so, what should this peace be like in their vision? look, and china. the peace plan that was on the second on the first anniversary war is represented by 12 points, and the may, this recent sino-brazilian peace plan, it somehow talks all the time, and pekin in his vocabulary of his representatives talks all the time about the territorial integrity of all countries, never once has china

called the territorial integrity of ukraine, some kind of of all countries, as if ukraine is somehow included, but cannot help but be included in all countries, that is, all countries, secondly, china... constantly talks about the ukrainian crisis in its lectures, never once talking about russia's attack, russia's aggression, even war does not mention, just some kind of optical crisis, then china does not see a problem in the fact that it economically cooperates very closely with russia and believes that this is normal, supporting the russian economy, buying cheap oil and importing russian gas, that is, china is here too does not see a problem, but one must also give credit if china... has done well, the positive thing is that it constantly expels moscow, sends signals that it is impossible to use nuclear weapons, it is impossible to intimidate with nuclear weapons, and security atomic of power plants is very important, this cannot be violated, this nuclear moment, this is where

beijing is given a very strong credit in this, so to speak. dmytro kuleba stated that they will talk about peace, a just, lasting peace, do many western media now write about... negotiations about a pause or about a lull, in general, which wording prevails, and the end of the war, peace talks, this wording, yes, is it still about some kind of pause that they are writing? absolutely, china is not talking about a stable and just peace, what is it talking about ukraine. china talks about an armistice and a conference, a peace conference, that is, this is the chinese position, a ceasefire, that is , the troops remain where they are, no withdrawal or withdrawal of russian troops. chinese initiatives do not provide for peace, that is, a ceasefire where we are now, where we stand, and the second - an international peace conference with the participation of russia, by the way, china did not go to switzerland for the summit precisely because russia was not there, that is, this was his official reason, that is, china does not

say that the russians should leave troops, territorial integrity must be restored in the borders of 1991, which is recognized by china, that is, china does not talk about this, it is about... a cease-fire and it is about a peaceful international conference, but there is also an understanding in ukraine that china is possible is almost the only country that really has influence on putin and china has influence on russia, i.e. among the obvious allies of russia, iran, north korea there, it’s all shallow fish, shallow fish, it’s a small fish, china - is the only serious, global state, which can have influence and force, that is why china... is so important for ukraine, because it is the only country with serious influence. the chinese position is also important in that china, maintaining political, diplomatic, and economic ties with russia, gives moscow the illusion that it is isolated. when the whole world, the west isolates russia, then russia no, no, we are not isolating, we are not

isolated, because we have china, china is friendly with us, that is the ukrainian understanding, because in order to force china to distance itself from moscow and to use their influence in order to to force russia... to accept a fair and stable peace for ukraine. rotsislav, and in conclusion, well, you can't say that china is a country foreign to russia, that it is simply observing, because even from the last reuters wrote that the pentagon is worried. that cooperation between china and russia in the arctic is growing. bloomberg wrote that china is providing russia with intelligence from its own satellites, information that is also being used in the war on ukraine. what are western politicians saying, and are they really concerned that cooperation china and russia are growing, do they notice it? yes, they notice that cooperation is growing, well, it is not falling, or rather, let's say so, but it is falling, for example, a positive moment has just been an investigation that... china reduced supplies to russia of microcircuits, chips that are used in russian weapons, smart

weapons, so to speak, china may have been suspected of providing russia with lethal weapons, but this has not been confirmed, and there is also a suspicion that china is providing satellite images to russia, but so far there is no 100% proof of this, it is clear that china also wants to use russia to get to the arctic, due to the fact that climate change is melting the ice and already china can export goods to the northern arctic. by the way, he even talks about the polar shock path, so in principle china has its own mercantile interests, but in the pair china and russia , china always plays the first violin, with its weight, power, china makes russia a smaller partner after all, and this is because of this russia's discomfort, but russia pretends that everything is okay, everything is fine, everything is fine, we are honest and equal, but in fact it is clear that china , with its power, overshadows russia. thank you rostislav, you can find more materials of rostislav khotyn. on the pages of radio svoboda rostyslav columnist of radio svoboda, thank you, we talked about kuleba's visit to china, what he

might bring. peace in exchange for territorial concessions. sociologists found out how many ukrainians are ready to give up territories for the sake of ending the war, as of may this year, more than half of the respondents, that is 52%, were against giving up territory to russia in exchange for peace. at the same time, a third of 32% believed that for achieving peace. the country may cede some territories, this is evidenced by a survey of the kyiv international institute of sociology. this study showed that since may 23, the share of those who are ready to give up territories for peace began to grow. in the first year of the war, in the period from may 22 to may 23, the situation was stable, about eight or 10% of respondents were ready for territorial concessions, and the absolute majority - 82.87% - spoke. against any concessions. the kmis survey showed that in all regions, compared to may 23, there were noticeably

more people who are ready for such concessions, but at the same time, in all regions, no more than a third of them are. the most agree to territorial compromises in the south, the least in the center of ukraine. the majority of those interviewed would like to be fenced off from russia, so that borders, visas and customs are closed between ukraine and russia. sociologists of kmis conducted their own experiment with... proposing three possible packages of proposals, which include both positive and negative aspects for ukraine. and one of the conclusions is for him results, ukrainians are flexible and open to discussions about the parameters of peace agreements, but at the same time, at the same time, they do not agree to peace on any terms, this was a quote. this survey was conducted by the kyiv international institute of sociology from may 16 to 22, 2024, among 1,067 respondents, and 2,008 respondents were also interviewed on june 20 and 25. during

this period, the experiment was conducted. the sample did not include residents of territories temporarily not controlled by the ukrainian authorities. and then we will talk about interesting ones aspects of this study, anton grushetskyi, executive director of kmis joined our broadcast, anton, congratulations, thank you for joining, good morning, i want to start by asking you to make it clear why the questions about territorial concessions, they and for... once they started to appear in surveys, you have been conducting them there for the past two years, but why exactly now in may, in june, you decided to re-ask this question, what guided you and your colleagues, some informational changes, the international situation in relation to the statements authorities, why was this decision made, you know, the city hall conducts its own surveys four times a year, that is, one at the request of customers and with its own questions, and from may 22nd , we began to add monitoring questions that were related to the general. readiness for certain territorial concessions, because we know that since march there have already been some attempts at negotiations with russia, and each of our

polls, that is, we ask this question four times a year, that is, we try to monitor the dynamics of mood, and in may we simply there was a regular poll in which we added a question, in june we conducted an additional experiment, taking into account, you know, the sensitivity of this issue, taking into account the different packages of possible peace agreements, we decided to conduct the experiment and expand it and publish already at the end of july such more complete results, if we published only the readiness to concessions, we would not be able to demonstrate that in fact the ukrainians are not ready for peace on any terms, and that in fact the ukrainians have, in particular, strict requirements for security parameters, if any peace will not... include serious security guarantees, the ukrainians will not agree to this, and this also applies to conditional territorial concessions, but the fact that such questions are heard in polls is not an influence on ukrainian society, because one way or another there are conversations about what ukrainians can now be prepared to make such concessions, you know, the influence of sociological surveys is greatly exaggerated, because you know, if we do not

publish and ask such questions, then we will conditionally close our eyes to those public attitudes that exist, which we... can be used, by the way, by enemies, then against us, because there are different ways of conducting polls, i can say that we have almost 90% of customers of commercial polls, these are western friends of ukraine, these are international organizations, these are western universities, these are governmental , non-governmental organizations, and the issue of territorial concessions is heard in a large number of polls, so that you don't think that only ukrainians are interested in this issue, our friends are also interested in it, so we should also understand it, we should react and correctly submit this information, we emphasize, in particular, that... although, of course, the dynamics are not eastern and more people are ready to make concessions, but in the conditions in which ukraine lives, it is more than two years of war, in may, by the way , the offensive in the kharkiv region, the destabilization of the internal situation due to the legitimacy of the president, other issues, the fact that more than half of us are against any concessions, and the majority is generally against peace on any terms, once again shows this resilience of ukrainian society and unpreparedness, you know, simply go, as many intellectuals in

the west call to simply stop shooting, the ukrainians do not want it, but anton, what are the dynamics over... these years, and can you compare what happened two years ago, when, as the question sounded, question, and how much has the situation changed, because you say that this is a good result, but if you look at the dynamics, what changes? in dynamics, of course , a decrease, if in our country two years ago, after the invasion, under 90% of ukrainians were as optimistic as possible, but it must be understood that this is for a democratic society's anomalous burst of optimism, which in any case could not last for long, and it would still decrease, and... that now, despite again a very difficult period in more than half, the trend is not eastern, but still more half are against any concessions and there are no signs that the majority of ukrainians would, let's say, simply agree to any peace, which, by the way, russian propaganda is trying to work on in the west, that let's just stop shooting in ukraine, but just as koleba was in china, and we saw one officially from the statements made before the visit of representatives of the chinese authorities, that the main thing is to cease fire, stop

confrontation, by the way, the ukrainians do not support this at all, and this is actually the most important thing so far... the result for us and for our western partners. and by the way, i want to add that almost 90% of our ukrainians believe that if the west will properly help ukraine, ukraine can succeed in the war. that is, many ukrainians, by the way, the fact that in the last six months there are more inclined to make certain concessions, this is largely due to less determination, i would like our western partners in the supply of weapons to ukraine. even before the wording, i will specify this, because you have formulated questions for how ours are. faster achievement of peace and preservation of independence, ukraine may give up some of its territories. it is this formulation that in order to achieve peace, you need to give up territories. why is it formulated in this way and isn't it such a certain construct that seems to be embedded in the heads of ukrainians in this way, that one can be exchanged for another? you know, the question consisted of two statements, and

each of these statements contains something positive and something negative for ukraine. in this case , there is a positive, the preservation of ukraine's independence, because let's remember. march, april of 22nd year, i.e. there was a question of the survival of ukraine in general, ukraine was conditionally given kyiv there for 3 days, ukraine there for three weeks, and it was a question for many people that it is better to keep a limited, in a limited territory, or in general at least some independence and statehood of the country. the second statement is again positive, we are fighting for all our territories, we we do not make any concessions, but there are certain risks that the war may spread to other regions, and by the way, while we had 90% of those who categorically... no concessions, this question caused fewer questions in analysts and observers, now there is more attention, but in fact here one should not criticize the question, but understand the very public moods that prevail, again, they are not dramatic, they are not capitulatory, unequivocally, but one must understand that many people are worried and primarily by the volume and speed of aid from west, and this forces many people, i would

say, to a conditionally pragmatic view of the war, we specifically added the point that even those who are ready to make concessions, among them absolutely... the majority want a barrier from russia, in another survey these people when asked what you associate russia and russians with, they said that they are occupiers, aggressors, murderers, that is, it is not latently pro-russian sentiments or capitulatory sentiments, that is, they are also ukrainians, but who believe that the issue of liberating the territory can be postponed. anton, i will quote you tatiana troshchynska, a ukrainian journalist, her post on facebook, she wrote in general about the surveys that are now appearing on this topic, the point is not in the numbers, the point is that each... such a survey shows that there is a considerable number of people who is convinced that territorial concessions can bring peace. anton, what affects people's moods, what do they resist, resist in... answering these questions, it's the political situation, it's the situation at the front, it's really, as you noted, there can be the quality of aid and generally the pace of aid from the west partners, for example, you know, in february we

asked the question, what are the success factors of ukraine, and in fact, then we talked about the factors that ukrainians focus on when perceiving the situation, and the main factor is unconditional support for the measure, if ukrainians will see unconditionally an uninterrupted flow of weapons, the appropriate nomenclature, volume, and they will see that this affects... at the front, it will certainly increase optimism and conditionally reduce readiness for any concessions. when ukrainians see these disruptions, they see how it affects ours defense forces, of course, this leads to a more pessimistic mood. but the second moment in february is a call to the authorities to be united. at that time, people saw a conflict situation between the president and the then commander-in-chief, which upset a large number of people, because many ukrainians trusted both zaluzhny and zelenskyi and wanted to see them as a single team. and the third point, which...contextually upsets many people, is a conditional accusation of insufficient efficiency and transparency of the activities of the ukrainian authorities, because it seems to many that the presence of facts of corruption, certain

corrupt trips abroad or war profiteering, this also oppresses many people and creates a certain despair there, but again the number one factor is how reliable a partner ukrainians feel our western friends are, if ukraine conditionally receives weapons, will receive a certain promotion and success on the battlefield, you will immediately see how this will affect... improving the optimism of ukrainians. and you, as a sociologist, taking into account all your research, what do you say about this, are there such events and are there such fractures that are long-lasting? for example, zelenskyi's conflict with zaluzhim, yes, what you mentioned, for example, the issue of corruption, which constantly pops up somewhere and obviously constantly worries ukrainians. is there something that could have happened a year ago, a year and a half ago, and it still affects people's mood. you know, it was precisely the false expectations of the 23rd year that were superimposed on... the watering down of corruption cases and volodymyr zelenskyi’s conflicts, well, not a conflict, we’ll call it conditional, friction, and valery zaluzhny’s different vision of the situation, because just after the successful operation in the kharkiv region in

kherson oblast felt incredibly optimistic and expected that the necessary weapons would now arrive, and the 23rd year would be the year of ukraine's success. expectations did not come true for various reasons, on top of that there were cases of flagrant corruption, on top of that there was friction between volodymyr zelenskyi and valery zaluchnyi, and we are seeing just such a conditional trend of the situation from the fall of 2020 to the spring of 2024, and by the way, even trust in the president at the end of the 23rd year, it was roughly 85% there, by the beginning of february it had just decreased to 60-65%, just in the background this friction with valery zalushyn. now the confidence in the president has actually stabilized, but he felt this way and that, and now in the absence of clear successes on the battlefield, although, let's be honest, the ukrainian armed forces are doing everything possible, and in fact it is already a charisma. the current situation is an achievement, but such a media effect as people saw when kharkiv region was liberated, when kherson region was liberated, now people conditionally do not see such situations, and this makes you feel, you know,

that russia has bottomless resources, that it can to be for many years, and this is a part of our citizens, can incline them to a more pessimistic scale, which manifests itself in the readiness to postpone the liberation of all territories. anton, you asked and even offered people such separate packages of peace agreements. and these are three options: the number one package is that russia retains control over the occupied territories, ukraine renounces nato, but becomes a member of the eu and receives the necessary financial assistance for reconstruction from the west. package number two: ukraine does not officially recognize but de facto russia retains control over the occupied territories, ukraine becomes a member of nato and has real security guarantees, and becomes a member of the eu, also receives financial assistance for reconstruction. and the third package ukraine de facto forgets about donetsk, luhansk and crimea. but returns control over the newly occupied so-called territories, after a full-scale invasion, joins nato, the eu and has real security guarantees, the same funding, which option did the ukrainians

support the most? here is precisely the last option, which, by the way, is very consonant with by the proposal of boris johnson, although, by the way, this is a coincidence, in fact, the poll was in june, and this is conditional, also due to our communication, we formulated options, these packages are not exhaustive, of course, they are just illustrative things to show what the difference is , but the last package, if 57 are unenthusiastic, but support it, then in fact the package gives only eu membership and the loss of control over all the occupied territories that are currently occupied, less than 40% of ukrainians will support there, although this is also quite a high figure, but at the expense of membership in the eu, which many perceive as both economic prosperity and the physical security of ukraine, but we see that ukrainians are especially hurt by kherson oblast and zaporizhzhia, if we conditionally set priorities there, which should be liberated first, then the liberation of the south of ukraine is especially painful, ukrainians... it would be first of all, but again, the key point here is that without nato membership, as such a security guarantee, the majority of ukrainians would not approve and would reject any peace package of agreements at this point, i.e.

there are security issues. is now an absolute priority, and even security agreements are perceived positively, ukrainians consider them useful, but the majority do not consider them sufficient to effectively repel russia, that is, we are grateful to you, but let's still either nato membership, or nato troops in ukraine, or for example, nato bases there, or a really uninterrupted supply of weapons, so that it would be noticeable to ukrainians. anton, you proposed such an option for the last very briefly, that there is no nato, there is no eu, and ukraine gives most of the territories there, or all the territories, for example, that, but in exchange for peace, with us. that is, we wanted to evaluate these three options reliably enough, but you are right, we wanted to put it, but we did not put it, because in context we see that the absolute majority would reject this option, the majority of ukrainians here, 60%, believe that russia wants destroy the ukrainian nation, or even just physically be ukrainians, only 5% conditionally share the pro-russian narrative, that is, for the majority of the population, the war is existential, the majority has someone who died or was wounded, so any such capitulation option, it will definitely be rejected by ukrainian society. thank

you, thank you. thank you for this conversation, anton hrushetskyi, executive director of the kyiv international institute of sociology, we talked about the mood of ukrainians today and in dynamics. we see your comments under this broadcast and many comments specifically about iryna farion, specifically about the death of iryna farion, so we continue to talk on this air about this important topic, you can continue to share your thoughts on this, what questions you have, what you have there are concerns about investigation is possible, write for sure. one of the streets in lviv can be named after iryna farion, the deputies of the city council made such a proposal, this is reported in the press service, which of the streets will be renamed, it is not known, for this purpose consultations will be held with the family of mrs. iryna, meanwhile, the investigation of the case the murder of the linguist continues, and the police refrain from commenting, however public sources in the law enforcement agencies reported that the assailant had been preparing for the murder for at least a month, the murder was

committed: on order, and the executor could to be accomplices, but it is not known how exactly they were involved, according to law enforcement officers, the perpetrator is a man who is wanted by the police, he is also pointed out by witnesses, and he chose such clothes, in particular, glasses and a hat, specifically for disguise. for the first time, surveillance cameras recorded him near iryna farion's home on july 11. he came to the yard where the attack was committed every day in the same clothes. weapons for... the source of the social could be in the bag that the man sometimes took with him. a shell casing was also found at the scene of the attack. now it is being conducted expertise. the law enforcement officers also noted the atypical body language and strange gait of this man. ukrinform writes about this with reference to its sources. the publication also notes that the man's daily route was the same. he did not go into shops, did not attract attention to himself. on the day of the murder, the attacker was already

waiting for irina at 5:03 p.m. near her house, when the woman came out, he fired one shot. social sources noted that the man acted professionally and calculated all options for the development of events. during the attempt in the area where a linguist lived, the cameras did not work due to a power outage. the head of the ukrainian intelligence service, kyrylo budanov, reacted to the murder, saying, i quote: "the enemy seeks to use any tools to divide our nation." according to him, iryna farion died. precisely for the ukrainian position, i will remind you, on july 19, an unknown man shot at her, it happened on masaryk street in lviv, near her house, farion was hospitalized with a gunshot wound to the head, but they could not save her. irina farion was 60 years old, she was deputy, deputy of the verkhovna rada of the seventh convocation in 2012-14 from the vo svoboda party. she was also a professor at the lviv polytechnic, had radical views on the functioning of the ukrainian

language. some of her statements caused loud public discussions, this is what was told about her in lviv to our correspondents: i understood that her position is something that is unchangeable, and slime towards iryna harion can only be twofold: either you respect, love and admire her, either you despise her, you hate her, she was very true to herself, that is, to her unshakable principle, she always said that everything she does comes from... from her deep convictions, the fact that she was shot, i have the feeling that a part of me was shot, and i think that thousands of people in ukraine feel the same way, and hundreds of people, maybe thousands, who came here, her death is also a challenge for all of us, because now we have to take over her mission and defend all of ukraine.