even in the warehouses of the united states, but it is partly determined by subjective factors, subjective factors, because for some reason there are still these conditional red lines drawn in cities, beyond which you cannot cross, there is always a risk of this ghost of the third world war, nuclear disaster , putin is playing, he has a whole set of factors with the help of which he is trying to control this escalation, including this... this blackmail, so about some extremely new ones, well, why go far if we are not allowed to strike , with long-range weapons to where we need them, and this actually applies not only to the territory of russia, but, sorry, sometimes also to the territory of occupied ukraine, we have to agree on almost every target with those who provided us with weapons, well, it is very difficult in such conditions to really lead war, it is not the only... with which this

war slows down, with which, it is not the only problem that we face, but it is also a problem, but the question arises under what conditions it can be changed, but it has already been said several times , you can beat, you can't beat, you can beat, no it is possible to beat, we don't even have accurate information, it is possible or not, well, let's fantasize, if, well, let's call a spade a spade , if at the head of... the states there will be a person more decisive than the current president of the united states, who will determine for himself the farthest red line, and it does not matter whether he is a democrat or a republican, if he decides and allows himself a certain risk, a certain leadership, as it is now fashionable to say, then the situation can change significantly, and this applies not only to the permission. let's say there, to apply

long-range weapons, this concerns, concerns both the nature and, let's say, the timeliness of the provision of military assistance, and in general there must be a politician who will have an attitude towards this war as a war he is waging, even if he does not take part in it directly participation, because no matter what anyone says, for all western leaders, with rare exceptions, this war is without limits. far and they do not consider themselves but participants in this process of the process, and they do not really believe that there is a serious threat, let's say a collision, an objective threat the clash between nato and russia there, and that is why they are so afraid of this unplanned occasion there, which could lead to this war, they do not think that russia is a threat, this applies even to the majority. those

of them who publicly say that russia is a threat there, they say so, but they do not fully believe in it, but why then they rearm, create new conditions for the military service of their citizens, that this is not all, with "an irrational fear has appeared so far, an irrational fear, why did it appear, because, well, what was nato, that that was, shall we say, the western military world for many years, it was such a bureaucracy... it was a system that was being disarmed, it was a system that was, let's say, covered in moss over there, and they, in their peace-loving mood, relied on analysis, which was given to them by the intelligence and analytical centers, and when it suddenly turned out that these intelligence and these analytical centers could be wrong, so far just such an irrational fear appeared, this fear has not yet grown into an awareness of the fact that there is a real threat, with appeared

only the fear of this threat, and guided by this fear, they looked at their arsenals of the storage base, the warehouses found out that there were empty, or there were rust and rats, and they began to arm themselves little by little out of fear, but this is not yet an awareness of the real threats, if it were otherwise, the production of shells, gunpowder and military equipment would not be happening at such a pace as it is now, now it is at the level of... commercial need, now it is not a state need to immediately arm ourselves. the united states has three times less artillery than russia. is there is it a problem for the united states, given its really powerful defense-industrial complex, to nullify this difference or even create an advantage? no. why don't they do that? because they do not see such a threat for themselves so far. well, let's not say anything about the germans or the french. is russia a real threat? for nato, taking into account

what it has achieved in ukraine in these 2.5 years. well, it is difficult to judge about it, well, let's try to assess, russia is a threat for one simple reason. russia is a large country with a large resource with, let's say, a crazy ruler. can russia conquer all of western europe? i have a huge doubt, can she start a war in europe? i have almost no doubts here. they are in brussels, in paris, well, i don’t know, in london, in berlin and, for example, there are definitely in athens, or in rome, but... but if putin goes further, if he likes it, despite the threat of nuclear conflict, despite the losses, theoretically he can afford it, he actually all this time, he is like a child, he is the limit of what is allowed

evaluates, he goes there, well, like water, it goes where, where it can flow, well, and that means that, in principle, there is a defeat in... it guarantees that the war will not continue further, in my opinion , absolutely not, it's actually a bit like the story of mussolini and hitler, for some reason everyone used to appeal to munich, the infamous year 38, but in reality it started much earlier, it started when the league of nations and the so-called victorious countries swallowed abyssinia, then as they swallowed. establishment of troops in the demilitarized rhenish zone, how they closed their eyes to the actual intervention of italy and germany in the military conflict in spain, and the anschluss of austria, the anschluss of austria was already further, yes, well, and then they were already judged, and every time they said, well, that’s it exactly

the point after which europe will not fear another great world war, i don't remember who was prime minister then in the mid-30s, baldwin surrenders to chamberlain, and when it came to him... with the demand to increase spending on defense, he then said, drink aspirin and calm down, it even remained in the protocols of the british government, in the transcripts, that is why they were always told that, like the military, they always prepare for past wars, so do politicians, diplomats, they rely on past peace agreements, when it seems to everyone that it is always possible to find some historical analogue. in fact, there are historical analogues that directly deny this, i think that it is just the opposite, if due to uh, or rather, due to the pressure of the west , ukraine will be forced to sign some kind of agreement, some kind of agreement, then putin will take it as his victory, as i have seen , he

will go somewhere else, i don't know whether to kazakhstan or estonia, but he will definitely go somewhere else. thank you, mr. serhiy, serhiy. the people's deputy of ukraine was on our air, we will continue after a short break. there is a war going on, and not only for territories, it is also a war for minds. well, we are engaged in propaganda. russia is throwing millions of petrodollars into turning ukrainians into little russians. ukraine will become russia. let's counter the information attacks of the russians in the chronicles of information war project with olga ley. on tuesday, thursday. at 17:15, repeat, tuesday, friday, at 10:00 p.m. vasyl zima's big broadcast. my name is vasyl zima, this is a big broadcast on the espresso tv channel. two hours of airtime, two hours of your time. my colleagues and i will talk about the most important things. two hours to learn about

the war, about the military, front, component. serhii zgurets and what does the world live by? yuriy fizar is already in front of me and it's time to talk about what happened outside of ukraine. yury, good evening, two hours to... catch up on economic news, time to talk about money during the war oleksandr morchyvka is on the field with me and sports news, i invite yevhen pastukhov to a conversation, two hours in the company of favorite presenters, about cultural news, alena chikchenina, our art viewer, is ready to tell, good evening, presenters, who have become familiar to many, are already next to me, ready to talk about the weather for this weekend, as well as the distinguished guests of the studio, mustafa dzhemiliev, the leader of the crimean tatar people, is in touch with us, mr. mustafa, greetings, good day, the events of the day in two hours. vasyl zima's big broadcast, a project for intelligent and caring people, in the evening on espresso.

we continue the program of the political club on the espresso tv channel, vitaly portnikov is with you, and we will talk with the historian, political scientist, professor of rudger university in the united states oleksandr metal, about these pregnant women. that we are currently watching in the united states, congratulations, mr. alexander, i congratulate you and thank you for the invitation, thank you for being

with us on this air, and how do you assess the course of this election campaign now? well, you see, two weeks ago it seemed that everything had already been decided: trump would win, vance will be the vice president, biden will definitely lose, and the democrats had no chance, and in general, the democrats did. was in such despair, because somehow it seemed that they were going straight to death, since the time that biden announced that he was actually resigning and that he was in place, and kamela harris now took his place, then the situation, at least psychologically, betrayed quite a lot has changed, since everyone once believed, the democrats believed, that they would definitely lose, now at least there is hope, a possibility, well... how big, what, that's different question, and at least there is a possibility that something will be positive, so that the situation

has changed, at the same time there is a kind of, how to say, this oppression on the part of the republicans, on the one hand they have become much more aggressive in their criticism of kamel garis, but at the same time it feels like it's something unknown, unknown for them, because after all, don't forget... they spent months preparing for the election campaign against biden, there were slogans ready, sleeping joe, incompetent joe, here suddenly a young a woman who presents herself normally, well , everything has to change suddenly, so they, they are desperate, but somehow they feel that they are looking for the right approach to her, 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 house in their hands. to what extent can we say that we understand the real positions of both candidates regarding ukraine, i.e. donald trump with his controversial comments, and so forth haris, who never spoke about it in general. well, of course, on the one hand, she did not express herself in particular, on the other hand, she still went to the munich conference, uh, after all, she is the vice president, so in principle , it can be assumed that she at least to a certain extent supports biden's policy, this is both good and bad for ukraine, because as you know, he was constantly criticized for not giving enough too late. weapons, ammunition, etc., but it can be assumed that it will plausibly remain

on the same positions, at least for a certain time, and it is possible that it will even become more radical, in order to somehow declare itself, with trump it is more difficult, because, as you mentioned, no one knows exactly what he thinks, on the one hand he, like this vance , expresses himself very negatively about ukraine, relatively positively about putin... it has been growing and creating, the impression is created that, lo and behold, he is ready to sell ukraine for nothing, on the other hand, the same day, the next day from "an article will appear, some speech will appear, some analysis of his supporters will appear, v to whom he seems to act as a great defender of ukraine. as you know, boris johnson met with him a week or two ago and came to the conclusion that trump will protect ukraine. a few days ago a wall street journal column appeared, it was written by his former secretary of state mike

pompeo, who allegedly presented his program, which is completely normal, which, in which he allegedly fully supports ukraine and ukrainian integrity, so where exactly does he stand, that he wants what he believes in, i think that trump himself does not know this, but that's all the questions. these texts johnson pompeo - is it 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... i think he will stand up, i i well this is just my personal impression, this opinion, i do not claim any special knowledge here, but taking into account his character, taking into account how he generally treated politics over the past eight years, especially during the four years when he was the president, he, he does not have any stable

line, he is once this way, once here, once there, once here, and i assume that he himself... i don't know exactly how he feels about the issue, about the issue of ukraine, one thing that i personally assume, i believe that i am right here, well, but again that my impression is that one thing we know about trump is that he is a narcissist, this is a man 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 there are these... then such a clash between two geniuses, and i suppose that in such an essence trump will not want to give up, that's for sure will be in ukraine, well, in principle, he should be in ukraine for the benefit that he will not be ready to simply submit completely to, well, putin to another

genius and thus give this, well, this title of genius... to putin himself, but again, this is my assumption , whether it's true or not, i don't know, nobody knows, i guess trump himself doesn't know it, 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 with by this very china, more and more friendly relations, how is it in general works, well, there is also a difficult question here, on the one hand, yes, it is true, on the other hand. as you yourself mentioned, there is, well , an alliance or a semi-alliance between china and russia, russia is of course involved in the war in ukraine, and just focus your attention on china and pretend that there is no connection between china and russia and between kayetai through mediation russia

, too, with ukraine, well, this is just nonsense, even trump and vance probably understand everything. 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 won't work, because sooner or later, washington, the white house, trump would come to understand that it is not only about china, but also about russia, so that they cannot be separated, as it once was maybe 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, do you see that ukraine will be the topic of this election campaign, or is it still, i would say, exclusively foreign policy today

a topic for the usa that is not in the focus of attention of candidates for the position of president, well , of course, joseph biden can deal with ukraine there, simply because he does not. so now it will still remain a kind of question, whether it will be the main question, of course not. 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 mediocre way, the debate, it's basically about... do you want trump, do you want garis, do you want a conservative, do you want a liberal, do you want someone who kind of supports family values ​​or not , here is the main thing, here, here are the main questions, and ukraine, of course, is mentioned, but again, in a mediocre way, in certain contexts, when it comes, when it will be discussed about this or that, about the role of america in the world, well in in this... context, as it is for trump after all it is important, because he constantly talks about the fact that america should again be the first city, should be grandiose again, and thus ukraine. not to or hinders or contributes to this desire, so that it will remain a topic, but not the main and not the most important. but the middle

east, it is an internal political topic for democrats and republicans, does it divide them? yes, well, here it is a completely different issue, you understand, 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 kind of balance between those two issues, harris - the same, trump - the same, where exactly to find this sweet middle, i personally do not know, but at the same time the question is important, because all these are happening, well, they happened, and i am sure that various demonstrations and manifestations will take place in the future. these, protests, etc., not only on campuses, but in washington itself, in other cities, it will all start again in september, pick up speed in

october and in november, and so this is question, it becomes a household question, because i went outside and there are two, two students of some kind standing there, one, one is handing out placards against israel, the other against the palestinians, and in this way, at least... you have to be yourself somehow, you have to take a position there , there is no such thing regarding 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 the side on both sides, and it therefore then gains a lot of other importance in... 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, so to speak, right now? absolutely,

absolutely, i think you are right, yes, to what extent can ukraine revive, let's say, this interest in itself, what should be done, in your opinion? well, of course, it would be best if there were some breakthroughs on the battlefield. "if ukraine could liberate, well, let's say, part of kherson or even all of kherson oblast, or the crimean peninsula, well, something like that, of course, it would immediately draw all attention to ukraine and change the tone of the discussion, because as you know, until now, or especially recently, there is constant talk about what is here, well, a kind of impasse appeared, neither about nor about. and the other side are not advancing, so it is, so it will be, and 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, well, of course, this had an effect would very on discussion, and then the situation is no longer a deadlock, it turns into a situation in which ukraine. may win, and not somewhere in the distant future, but right now at this moment, maybe even before the american elections, or now after, it would certainly change the tone of the discussion very much, nevertheless, the attitude of kyiv, it should be, so to speak , balanced, because on the one hand it seems that trump will win, but on the other hand, well, i'm not sure that it will be absolutely so, so ukraine. interfere, should not interfere in the internal affairs of america, well, that goes without saying, true, but at the same time maintain warm and

, if possible, even productive relations with one camp and with another camp. thank you, mr. oleksandr, oleksandr motil, a historian, political scientist, professor at the argher university in the united states, was in touch with us, as you heard, he actually confirmed what serhii rakhmanin, the people's deputy of ukraine, told us in the first episode. 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 in the russian sidelines now, if anything is happening there at all. congratulations, congratulations, mr. oleksandr, well... if you are talking now, the question is not about society, but about the elites, i understand, well, yes, let's start with the elites, it may be possible to move to society, so to speak, well, actually,

very underestimate him and... just the elite, which well, they call the russian opposition, yes, they really do not want and do not like to talk about the results of sociological research in russia, calling it that it is impossible to conduct research, people are afraid and so on and so forth, there is justice in their words, but nevertheless, it seems to me, because of my political interests, some involvement or a lot of involvement. 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 be based on this, and accordingly they do not want to repeat it, if this is a part of the russian elite, and as for the kremlin part of the russian elite, well , those who make decisions, let's say this, is also important, we are with you now, we

see with you now very large-scale... the process, on the one hand, of a soft transition of power, when the principle is no longer just promised to a generation, this transit is already being implemented, well, we can cite many examples, starting with patryshev jr., kovalchuk jr. and putin's direct relatives, and on the other hand we we see with you every day, in fact every day, a mass purge among the security forces. 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, you may be ready for some separate negotiations, so this is what we are now we observe on such a large scale, of course there are some such interesting bursts,

such as ... uh, such inter-clan clashes, someone was detained in particular, for example, the same ivanov or kibovskyi, this is the shiigu clan or the sobyanin clan, but in general this is only the background, the main process itself is the soft transition of power and the clearing of the field from any, even formal, possible, potential disloyalty, and how do you see the transit of power, do you think that putin is... even ready to hand over power to someone during his physical life? no, he doesn't exactly fit into the transit of power. putin is a solipsist. if i do not exist, then russia does not exist, if russia does not exist, the world does not exist. why do we need such a world without russia, and as we know, russia is putin. just this soft transition of power is a guarantee of his preservation in

power. it. a guarantee of his loyalty, his inner circle of this elite, because it is guaranteed, you will be loyal to me, and after my death your children will inherit this country, but if you are disloyal, first you will be moved at least, like a human being number two and person number three patrosheve teshaigu, well, at most you will simply die from a broken trom. therefore , precisely in this is the trick, that no, well , one candidate, i will hand over power to him, will not be named, then putin will turn into a moron, this is such a stretched soft transit of power, which will last for an indefinite period of time, and it will exactly coincide 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 mistake, well, this is an interesting moment, so in fact we are his hostages an effort not so much to transfer power as to retain it, to what extent is war a tool for maintaining power in such a situation? well, what he had completely replaced by an internal summons, a replacement. on the outside, 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, uh, another dam that was simply washed away by a downpour, fires that are equal to several european countries in terms of their territory, and so further and so on.