biden will definitely lose, and the democrats had no chance, and in general , the democratic camp was in such despair, because somehow it seemed that they were going straight to death, from the time that biden announced that he was actually resigning and that on the spot, and now kamela harris has taken his place, then the situation, at least psychologically, has changed quite significantly, since once upon a time everyone... believed, the democrats believed, that they would definitely lose, now at least there is hope, a possibility, well, what a great one, which is another question, but at least there is a possibility that something will be positive, so that the situation has changed, at the same time it feels like a kind of, how to say it, this oppression on the part of the republicans, on the one hand they have become much more aggressive, in

their criticism of kamel harris, at the same time it feels like this is something for them unknown, unknown, because after all, remember, they spent months preparing for the election campaign against biden, there were slogans ready, sleeping joe, incompetent joe, suddenly here is a young woman who presents herself as normal, well it is necessary to change everything suddenly, so they, they are at the beginning, but... it feels like they are looking for the right approach to it, so the situation has changed, how will it end, of course, this is the main question, i don't know, but at least you can say that now the democrats have some chance, maybe even a good one, to keep the white smoke in their hands. as far as we can say that we understand the real positions of both candidates regarding ukraine, here is donald. with his

controversial comments, and kamala, kamela garis, who is never particularly about it expressed herself, but, of course, with her, on the one hand, she did not express herself very much, on the other hand, she still went to the munich conference, after all, she is the vice president, so in principle it can be assumed that she at least supports biden's policy to a certain extent, this... is both good and bad for ukraine, because as you know, he was constantly criticized for the fact that he gave weapons, ammunition, etc. too late, too little, but it can be assumed that it will plausibly remain at such positions themselves, at least for a certain time, and maybe that will even become more radical in order to somehow assert itself, with trump it is more difficult, because , as you mentioned, no one knows exactly what he thinks, alone. side, he, like this

vance, speaks very negatively about ukraine, relatively positively about putin, pro-russia, and one gets the impression that here he is, ready to sell ukraine for nothing, on the other side, the same day, the next day an article will appear, some speech will appear, some analysis of his supporters will appear, in which he seems to act as a great defender of ukraine, as you know... a week or two ago, boris johnson met with him and came to the conclusion that trump would protect ukraine. a few days ago , a wall street journal column appeared, written by his former secretary of state mike pompeo, who allegedly presented his program, which is completely normal, in which he allegedly fully supports ukraine and ukrainian integrity, so where exactly is he...

what he wants, what he believes, i think that trump himself does not know this, but here is the question, all these texts by johnson, pompeo - are they from trump or for trump, here it is important, maybe there is a struggle for what should be in trump's head, well , rather for trump, i don't think he will stand up, i, well, this is just my personal impression, such an opinion, i do not pretend to some kind of special knowledge, but taking into account his character, taking into account how he has generally treated politics in the last eight years, especially in the four years that he was president, he, he does not have any stable line, he is once this way, once here, once there, once here, and i also assume that he he himself does not know exactly how he should relate to the question, to the question of ukraine, one thing that i personally assume, i am the one... i think that i am

right here, well, but again this is my impression, there is one thing that we know about trump, is that he is a narcissist, this is a person who is convinced of his own genius, and... on the other hand , we know that putin is the same narcissist, that he is also convinced that he is a god-given genius, and here is an interesting clash between two geniuses, and i assume that in such an essence trump will not want to surrender, it will of course be to ukraine, well, in principle, he should to be in favor of ukraine, that he will not be ready to simply surrender completely. well, to putin, to another genius and thus give this, well , the title of genius to putin himself, but again, this is my guess, whether it is true or not, i do not know, nobody knows, i assume that trump himself does not know this, but for

trump, as far as we understand, the main danger is china, and at the same time he hopes to negotiate with russia, which is building more and more friendship with this same china. relationship, how does it work in general, well, there is also a difficult question here, with on the one hand, yes, it is true, on the other hand, as you yourself mentioned, there is, well, whether it is an alliance or a semi-alliance between china and russia, russia is of course involved in the war in ukraine, and it is easy to focus your attention on china and pretend that there is no communication between china and russia and between china. through the mediation of russia and with ukraine, well, this is just nonsense, even trump and vance probably understand this. so, such a policy, where he would only focus his attention on china, because it is the biggest, the only, the most important threat to

america, it simply will not work, because rather or later, washington, the white house, trump would have come to understand that it is not only about china, but also about russia. so you can't separate them as it was once possible, now they are so connected that when you think of china you think of russia at the same time and vice versa, tell me, in principle, if we talk about how the election campaign will develop in the future, you see that , that ukraine will be the topic of this election campaign, or is it still, i would say, exclusively external. a political topic for the us today that is not in the spotlight candidates for the position of president, well , of course, joseph biden can deal with ukraine there, simply because he is not engaged in the election campaign, but trump and halis, are they really so interested in ukraine now and in the debates about it? well, that means, taking

into account, let's say, eight, four, eight, 12 years ago, ukraine was not mentioned at all in the debates, it was not mentioned at all in the camera, well, at all. zero, then now it will still remain some kind of question, will it be the main question, of course not, eh, because american elections, as it seems, elections in all democratic countries, are decided mainly by domestic issues, we are talking about the economy, inflation, unemployment, a sense of some dignity, etc., and to one degree or another the issue of china, the issue of russia, the issue of ukraine, the issue of... europe, it will influence to one degree or another, but in a very indirect way, the debate, it's basically whether you want trump, or you want garis, or you want a conservative, or you want a liberal, or you want a person who seems to support family values ​​or not, here

the main thing is here, here are the main issues, and ukraine , of course, is mentioned, but again, in a mediocre way in certain contexts. yes, when it comes, when it will be about this or that , about the role of america in the world, well, in this context, since it is still important for trump, because he constantly talks about the fact that america should be again in the first place, it must again be grandiose, and thus ukraine either hinders or contributes to this desire, so that it will remain a topic, but not the main and not the most important one. but close the east, it is an internal political topic for democrats and republicans, does it divide them? yes, here, here is a completely different question, you see, because on the one hand, as you know, america fully supports israel,

but at the same time, to one degree or another , is critical of israel's behavior in the gas sector, biden somehow tried to find some. the weight between those two issues: harris - the same, trump - the same, where exactly to find this middle ground, i personally do not know, but at the same time the question is important. because all these things happen, well, they happened to me too sure, there will be various demonstrations, demonstrations, protests, so that, not only on campuses, but in washington itself, in other cities, it will all start again in september, will gather momentum in october and in november, and so this is the question, it becomes a domestic issue, because he went outside and there are two two... two students, one, one distributes leaflets against israel, the other against the palestinians, and

thus, even if you don't want to, you have to somehow be yourself, you have to take a position there , that there is no such thing in ukraine, because in principle everyone agrees that ukraine is important, there are people who are not particularly convinced that it is, but no one is hostile to ukraine, unlike israel and palestine, there is either love or... hatred from both sides, and that's why then takes on a much different importance in various discussions, well, that is, we can say that there is a positive attitude towards ukraine, but it is not at the forefront of the interests of american society, that is what we can say now, absolutely, absolutely, i think you are right, yes, as far as in general, ukraine can revive let's say this interest in yourself, what do you think should be done? well, of course, the best thing would be if there were some breakthroughs

on the battlefield, if ukraine could liberate, well, let's say, a part of kherson or even the entire kherson region or the crimean peninsula, well, something like that, it would of course immediately attract all attention to ukraine and changed the concrete of the discussion, because as you know, until now, especially... at the same time, there is constant talk about what is here, well, a kind of deadlock has appeared, neither one nor the other side is making any progress, so it is, so it will be, and so in this way, it is necessary to end all this as soon as possible, because there is simply no other way out, if ukraine could break through, push out, let's say , russian troops from the crimean peninsula, well , let's say, of course... it would greatly affect the discussions, and then the situation would no longer be a deadlock , it turns into a situation in

which ukraine can win, and not somewhere in the distant future, but right now at this moment, maybe even before the american elections, or now after that, it would certainly change the tone of the discussion very much, however, the attitude of kyiv , it should be, so it would be to say, balanced, because it seems from one side. trump will win, but on the other hand, i am not sure that it will be absolutely so, so that ukraine will not interfere, should not interfere in the internal affairs of america, well, this is true of itself, but at the same time, keep warm and if possible, even and productive connections with one camp and with another camp. thank you, mr. oleksandr, oleksandr motil, historian, political scientist, professor of the argher university of the united states... was in touch with us, as you heard, actually confirmed what he told us

serhii rakhmanin, people's deputy of ukraine, in the first part of our program, that victories attract attention, and the static front line , of course, creates a completely different attitude to war, unfortunately. oleksandr shulga, doctor of sociological sciences, head of the institute of conflict studies and analysis of russia will be in touch with us and we will talk with him about what he thinks is happening on the russian sidelines now, if you... something is happening there, i congratulate you , congratulations, mr. alexander, well, if you are talking now, the question is not about society, about the elites, i understand, well, let's start with the elites, it might be possible to move on to society, so to speak, well, in fact, they greatly underestimate it, precisely the elites, who are called the russian opposition, yes, they just really don't want to and don't do not like talk about the results of sociological research in russia, saying that

it is impossible to conduct research, people are afraid and so on and so forth, there is justice in their words, but still, it seems to me, because of their political interests, some involvement or great commitment, they see what they see in our research, in the research of the so-called independent russian sociologists, they don't really like what they... see and accordingly they don't want to base themselves on it and accordingly they don't want to repeat it, if this is part of of the russian elite, and as for the kremlin part. well, those who make decisions, let's say so, it's important, we are with you now, we are now seeing a very large-scale process, on the one hand, of a soft transit of power, when the principle is no longer it was just promised, this transit is already being implemented, well, we can give many examples, starting with patryshev jr.,

kovalchuk jr. and direct relatives, and on the other hand, we see with you every day, in fact every day, a mass purge among nightingales, among businessmen, in fact formal loyalty is now replaced by a totalitarian type of loyalty, if you clap your hands less than your neighbor, it means that you may not be trustworthy enough, maybe you are ready for some separate negotiations. therefore this is what we are now observing in on such a large scale, of course there are some interesting bursts, such as such inter-clan clashes, someone specific was detained, for example, the same ivanov or kibovsky, this is the shiguato clan, the sobyanin clan, but in general this is

only the background, the main process itself is the soft transition of power and clearing the field of any... even formal, possible, potential disloyalty. and how do you see the transit of power, do you think that putin is at all ready to transfer power to someone during his physical life? no, he is not, it just does not fit into the transit of power. putin is a solipsist. if i don't exist, then russia doesn't exist, if russia doesn't exist, the world doesn't exist, why do we have such, such a world without russia, and how do we... we know that russia is putin, just this soft transit of power is a guarantee of his preservation in power, it is a guarantee of his loyalty, his inner circle of this elite, because it is guaranteed, you will be loyal to me, and further after my death, your children will inherit this country, but if you are

disloyal, first you at a minimum, they will move, as it were... like person number two and person number three, patricia, in the taiga, well, at most, you just die from a broken blood clot, so this is exactly the trick, that not a single candidate, to whom i will hand over power, will not be named, then putin will turn into a muck, this is such a stretched soft transit of power that will last no not determined long and it will exactly match. with putin's physical existence, he does not need a clear, well, heir, we remember, even a hint that there could be a change of power, we remember, medvedev and ivanov, it led to some misunderstandings, equivocations, so putin will not repeat this one mistake, well, this is an interesting moment, so

in fact we are hostages of his efforts not so much to transfer power, but to get it, to what extent is war... a tool for maintaining power in such a situation? well, the fact that he had a completely internal summons replaced by an external one, this is not a secret, this is a truism, and we can see it from virtually all the troubles that are happening in the russian federation, another dam that was simply washed away by a downpour, fires that are equal there several european countries on their territory. and so on and so forth, me i think you and i will see it simply not even in months, but maybe in weeks , some new troubles, it has been completely replaced, although this subpoena is from now on, they are trying to make its norm the new normal, they are trying to make it instrumentalize it not only on the level

of the fact that there is no time for anything other than this, but also to get some kind of, well, like a new loyal elite of the lower level, it is precisely from this that we get these priymaries with participants in the war against ukraine, and even they are some they receive municipal positions, these are trial layers, it seems to me that they are doing it for pro forma, they do not yet believe that the renewal of the elite can really be done, and there is no way out, what then, that is, they are really on such a thing, i have meaning no... the highest level does not see an exit from the war without such serious upheavals, although our research, for example, when we conducted immediately after... kherson in russia, and asked whether it was correct that the russian troops left kherson 74% of russians answered that yes, everything is correct,

kept the soldiers, it was the right decision, so it seems to me that at least a departure to the status quo of february 22nd, it will definitely not be, well, you know, a point that... non-return and putin will be demolished, i don’t know, ultrapatriots, z-patriots, one of the most ardent z-patriots is sitting in sizo, and the other is lying in the grave. therefore, in fact, it seems to me that they are hostages of their fears. and why does the idea of ​​this line on february 24, 2022 arise all the time, which , it seems to me, has not been in the minds of russians for a long time. they have the donetsk-luhansk people's republic there, which expropriated, which they are trying or will be able to capture. or they won't be able to, and we live all the time in captivity of this strange line, well, the ldnr, the so-called donetsk people's republic,

they have been in their discourse since the 14th year, kherson, zaporizhia regions, they call them, but now they they are trying, they are trying new regions, navarosiya, now only they are trying to establish it in the discourse, while it comes out very badly, but we remember that in the 14th year it started the same way, it was also funny, strange, sinful, but constant repetition, constant, what is the main technique of propaganda, well, we have already talked about it a lot, what, what else to talk about here, well, you are talking about these borders again, well, crimea is already a closed issue, they also switched to the parts of donetsk luhansk that were captured at the time, as well now they are trying with all their might to talk about new ones. and regions, novorossiya, well, in fact , in this way to legitimize in the eyes of the russians not so much that they can leave there, but that it can capture something else,

as far as i understand, this is the idea, well in fact, this is a very interesting idea, because propaganda evolved and the russians could not, you know, manage it when we asked before the first anniversary of the start of a full-scale war. do you know what the goals are, the absolute majority said so, and when we asked the question, none of the options, except for the demilitarization of the de-nazification of ukraine, gained 20-25% there, these others there are 7 in 9%, the same , in fact, the same picture in and for the second anniversary in february in february in january in february this year we also conducted research. to the second anniversary of the full scale invasion yes the russians themselves do not have a complete picture of why all this is happening, that is, they repeat

what the propaganda says, and accordingly, here we return to your previous question and about the thesis that putin can actually afford to leave the captured territories, because propaganda has evolved so often, very often our interviewees, when i listened... the answers of the russians, they, they put questions to the interior in turn, that is, you know, you understand the objectives of the svo, well, we, since we are for the russians we do, we call it svo, so as not to arouse suspicion, the russians changed the question in their turn, and you understand, well, tell me what the goals are, and this actually gives a huge, huge maneuver, room for maneuver to russia, to putin, for ... to the russian elite, and how do you conduct such sociological surveys in russia in general, how can they be conducted realistically, just like russian sociologists, both kremlin and independent, and so are we,

after covid, the only such solid method, when it was not possible to walk by route method face to face, there is still a telephone survey, it is used by all sociologists without exception, in fact now it is. with the only exception, we do not say that we simply act as a russian sociological center, that is exactly what people are ready to say, but there is still no fear of what the russian oppositionists say, that people are simply afraid to talk to sociologists or tells them what they need to hear from an official point of view, we don't ask, our basic approach, we don't ask any political questions, any ratings. no trust in the authorities, in the opposition, in any issues that might put them in some awkward position, since,

secondly, we don't use the word war. we use all of them, indeed our interiors speak pure russian, and accordingly we try to understand the everyday life of russians, and we try to ask questions that are within the competence of the russians, that is, so that they are not the ones who shut it down, that is, we really have questions that are such parquet , which we show conformity, but there are questions about their direct life. experience, well for example, you have someone who was mobilized, yes or no, you have someone who died, yes or no, and in this way, in this way, we try to understand how much the war entered their everyday life, so that it is very important, to what extent it affects an ordinary russian, and not only there a small part, for example, and we can say that the war really affects every ordinary

russian now, or not? yes, it enters, it enters their life, for example, because of the number of people they know, whom mobilized and who died, this figure varies from study to study, we conducted the first study in december 22nd, and by the 24th we had already conducted eight studies, with a step of several months, this figure is simply unceasing and quite strong is growing and we can say that indeed a third of them already have someone among their close circle who died, and the majority have those who are mobilized, that is , it has long been impossible to talk about the svo, some kind of distant special operation, no matter how the kremlin tries to do it , further, well, you and i do not see a second wave of mobilization,

we understand that from a military point of view... they should have held it a long, long time ago, girkin, who shouted about it, is in prison because of this, although he could have died because of it, this is also objective data, why don't they do it, 74% of russians are against the second wave of mobilization, when we initially asked this question in december, 62% were against it, in fact a year. the number increased by 12%. these figures are also in the kremlin, they also conduct these studies, so we see a clear understanding that this will cause a very negative reaction and, accordingly, we do not see you the second wave of mobilization. here's a simple example of why you should do research. well , in fact, we can say that russian society is indifferent to the war, when it itself does not take part in this war. first yes,

it is first of all, secondly, this society does not accept any responsibility for this war, accordingly, when we ask the question, do you agree that in the case of a corresponding decision of the international court, it will be necessary to pay reparations to russia, 71% say no, it will be a weakness and we are not here for anything at all, it is to understand what we are dealing with in the future, and... with this, well, actually, what to appeal to our partners that , for example, the same 300 billion, there is no chance that they should be returned to russia, not only the kremlin, not only the russian government, but society in general does not want to pay for this war, the passive majority, liberal- minded z-patriots, there is a consensus of russian society that they do not want to pay for this war, even if it is there

will end tomorrow, this... this is important for our understanding of planning there for 5-10 years ahead, and in general, this society, it is not empathic, and really the only thing that we can influence, that we can push back from , it really is better to cheer from the couch than to participate directly in this war. thank you, mr. oleksandr. oleksandr shulga, doctor of sociological sciences, manager. institute of conflict studies and analysis of russia, we talked with him about the mood in russian society, and we see that the russian society is basically indifferent to this aggressive war started against ukraine by vladimir putin, at the same time, as is often the case with such societies, it wants all victories to take place without its direct participation, it wants someone else to conquer foreign territories, though. ..