gurets, the director of the information and consulting company defense express was with us, and now there is a moment of silence, let's stop and honor, remember all those who died in ukraine because of the russian invaders. let's observe a moment of silence in memory of the ukrainian military and civilian citizens of ukraine who died in the war started by russia.

yarmak should organize a 2-0 peace summit, which should form the preconditions for an end to hostilities. will the summit be able to end the war, or is it a hint of preparation for negotiations, and if so, on what terms? between countries. there was a large-scale exchange between the west and russia, whether this is a warming of relations and whether it can be a step towards negotiations in the russian-ukrainian war, we are talking about this today, this is svoboda ranok, my name is kateryna nekrecha, and we are starting. ukraine wants a second peace summit to pave the way for an end to hostilities. bloomberg writes about this, referring to the comment of the head of the office of the president of ukraine, andriy yermak. this is exactly what yermak told bloomberg reporters. on

the most important expectation from the second summit - this is the formation of the main prerequisites for the cessation of hostilities. we need to end this war as soon as possible to achieve a just peace. it is yermak who is organizing this summit, this is what the article says: the meeting is planned to be held in one of the countries of the global south, possibly in the middle east, and zelensky is allegedly insisting that the meeting with the potential presence of russia take place even before the us presidential elections in november this year. i will note that these days about neob'. russia's participation in the second peace summit, he said president volodymyr zelenskyi. in an interview with french media, he suggested that negotiations could end the conflict if russia wanted it. the majority of the world wants exactly this, the majority of the world today says that at the second summit the representatives of russia must be, otherwise, differently, and we will not achieve powerful results, because russia is fighting against ukraine, and these are its... sides of this war,

and therefore the whole world needs russian representatives to be at the second summit. in the same interview, zelenskyi said that a just peace must include opportunity restoring the territorial integrity of ukraine, but this, i quote, does not have to be done with the help of weapons. as for the possibility of territorial concessions on the part of ukraine, the president says that no one has officially offered this to ukraine and that the authorities cannot take such a step, because it is a violation. constitution, it is necessary that the ukrainian people wish for it. meanwhile, russia announced that no peace summit on ukraine with the participation of russia is planned, the spokesman of the russian president, dmytro piskov, said this the day before. a summons that would suit moscow, for now not voiced, but you can talk to the current ukrainian government, but not trust it - piskov's words are reported by state russian media. let's discuss these topics with volodymyr fisenko, a political scientist. i congratulate you, mr. volodymy. thank you for joining. i congratulate you.

andriy yarmak said such an obvious thing that it is necessary to end the war as soon as possible and achieve a just peace. he was tasked with organizing this peace summit. and will the summit be able to end the war? no. at best, the summit can become a prelude, let's say, a prerequisite, for an impetus to start negotiations between russia and ukraine , of course, with the participation of mediators, but this summit and any other peace conference there, including the participation of ukraine and russia at the same time, will not end this war by itself. in general, it is necessary to understand that such large public events, in which dozens of countries participate, and all this happens in public, are not about negotiations, they are about the exchange of opinions, about the formation of a certain atmosphere, about the development of a proposal, but the negotiations themselves, as as a rule,

peace negotiations take place behind closed doors regime, in a narrow composition, and well, in our case, these territories, and to agree on these issues. it is practically impossible, but how can negotiations take place, not summits? i doubt very much, even if the summit will take place, rather it is being planned in saudi arabia, well, according to indirect indications, even if it takes place, i am not sure that putin will be there, zelensky may be there, but whether putin will be there, i don’t know. i have great doubts, but nevertheless, even if they are theoretically together there, well, it will be, you know, i call it the expanded composition of the un security council, each side will put forward its positions, its claims, blame the other side, and the participants will be divided, some will be for ukraine, others will say that we need to listen to russia, and the majority will say, let's make peace sooner, and nothing this

will not help much, but what can be done, well, first of all, the first step is to meet face to face, and try already... let's say this, on the sidelines of the summit, not on the official meetings, on the sidelines, to try to come to an agreement, because first than to start negotiations, it is necessary to agree on their format, how they will take place, who will be the mediator in the negotiations, what the agenda of the negotiations is, what they will be about, this can be done on the sidelines of the summit, and the negotiations themselves, i think, will be conducted by authorized representatives of both states, most likely, in my opinion, this is... my subjective opinion, my forecast, it will be possible to come to an agreement, and then only when russia matures to this, and when russia is forced to this, in principle, ukraine just, let's put it this way, hopes that such the summits will push russia to real negotiations without preliminary demands, by the way, the criteria

for the start of real negotiations, when russia abandons the preliminary demands, that's when the peremoor, as well as ukraine, well, ukraine is already demonstrating more constructively. position, i will remind you, we had a position of negotiations only after russia liberates the occupied territories, now we do not talk about it anymore, word and deed made infographics, we quoted on our broadcasts how president zelensky changed his rhetoric regarding negotiations, from that he was ready to meet putin face to face at the beginning of the full-scale invasion of the nsdc, and now we also see it, i want to clarify two points, you say that you have not proven your opinion, these negotiations should take place at the level of non-leaders of the countries, they can take place. at the level of whom? at the level of representatives of the administration of presidents or what? look, authorized representatives, who will it be, it is not so fundamental, by the way, why exactly, because it will be signed by authorized representatives, and

most likely it will again be my forecast and my subjective opinion, exactly mine , and not someone else's that this, let's say, will be only negotiations. on a cease-fire, plus an exchange of prisoners. it will be practically impossible to agree on other issues, and therefore it will not be an interstate agreement on permanent peace and so on, because it will be practically impossible to achieve this, due to the fundamental contradictions between the two warring states, but authorized representatives can agree on a ceasefire, in particular even representatives of the armed forces of both countries. as a rule, the ceasefire is fixed by the representatives of the military. but there can also be representatives, let's say this, civil authorities, who will it be, representatives of the president's administration, or just authorized persons, let me remind you that when the negotiations were held in istanbul, the russian delegation was headed by an assistant to president

putin, and on our side by the head of the servants of the people parliamentary faction, although in the delegation included the minister of defense and some other, let's say, state representatives... and on the other hand, why meet with someone different, well, there is none, but what you are talking about is very similar, there are some state representatives have to meet to talk about a ceasefire, well, during the anti-terrorist operation, there was no such ceasefire, which the unofficial representatives seemed to talk about, and one more point, well, what is the need for it? and just the experience of minsk proved it, it is not easy to stop the fire, it is necessary to agree on the procedure for stopping the fire, the fire, when it

will happen, how? by the way, in this case, unlike what happened in minsk, that is why the ceasefire is especially important for us, for russia, by the way. is also important and much more than before then, because the ceasefire will concern not only the land, not only the front line, the ceasefire in the air and at sea, it is important that there are no strikes, daily strikes on ukraine, on our cities, on civilian objects ects, but russia is also interested in this, because every day there are strikes both on their territory and on the occupied territories, so this is what is important, whether it will be, let's say , an armistice or an end to the war, well, let's understand, yes , it will only be a cessation of hostilities, a ceasefire, it guarantees complete cessation, no, by the way, it is necessary to talk about... the fact that within the framework of these agreements it is necessary to agree on who will monitor the ceasefire, then

there was the osce, and now there is, well, let's say this, social distrust of the osce, who will monitor instead of the osce , this issue is open, and therefore it will be difficult to agree, one of the most difficult things is precisely the procedure for monitoring the ceasefire, but even if there is such a ceasefire, which was in donbas, and it was never complete, at best several days. the longest suspension there was fire already during the time of zelensky in the 20th year, i think it was about two or three weeks, but everything was interrupted, and now the same situation may be, but it is better than large-scale hostilities, it is better when, for example, a month as part of the shelling there across the front line, several people die on both sides, than when hundreds or even thousands of people die every day, there is nothing to argue with, of course, but we are at such a stage... we are now, for example, mobilizations , western media reports that these are the largest such numbers,

now it is 30,000 mobilized people per month, and on the other hand, we hear that there will be a peace summit there in the fall, and that means someone has to organize it, and after that it may be that negotiations will start there, it does not invest a little, but you said it, we talked about it, but you also said, just now, that it is not yet clear that putin has matured to this, so this is the most important moment in this story, i probably want to... have time to clarify why president zelensky seems to be insisting that this peace summit should take place before the us presidential election? well this is not true, there was an idea, i explain, it is easy to check, the idea of ​​holding this summit before the us presidential elections belongs to the president of switzerland, she said about it at the end of the first peace summit that it should be done before the us presidential elections, our first. supported, but look at what zelenskyy has been saying lately, he says, we are preparing proposals, our

expanded peace plan, at the end of november, just in time for the new summit, at the end of november , the elections in the usa are taking place, let me remind you, on at the beginning of november, so i think that the president's office has already understood that it will not be possible to hold a full-fledged peace summit with the participation of, let's say, at a high level of different countries of the world before the us presidential elections. it is now absolutely obvious, particularly from the point of view of russia's interests, that no real negotiations or attempts to negotiate can happen before the us elections are over. it is simply impossible. yes, and it is completely understandable, that is why they are preparing for the end of november, when the winner will already be known elections in the usa. what do you have, vladimir, finally , i want to ask about the large-scale exchange between countries from the west and russia, well, russia gave political prisoners, the west gave

killers and murderers, so many reactions to this very moment from various observers, on the other hand, whether this could be the case is also being discussed, whether this means a certain or warming of relations between the countries of the west and russia, and whether this could also be some kind of step towards conducting negotiations regarding the end of the russian-ukrainian war. no, the simple answer is no, the only point that may... affect the future peace negotiations in connection with this exchange, this is an important nuance that we pay little attention to, there was also a mediator in these negotiations, it was turkey again, turkey was again a platform for negotiations about this and contributed to this exchange, by the way, like our first big exchange in the 20th year, in the 22nd year, sorry, turkey also contributed, so let's say, turkey earned new points. but in this fierce competition for who will be the mediator, this is important, everything else is not

will affect the approach of peace talks, there is no warming, this is an exchange in the style of the cold war, and now it is mentioned that this is the first large-scale exchange since the cold war, right, and this indicates not a warming, but the return of relations between the west and russia during the cold war, the main bonus for putin, why did he go for it, the negotiations lasted for a year and a half. one and a half years, even more, but it started in the 22nd year after the detention of herchkovych, and why so long, because putin wanted to paint. the main bonus for putin krasikov, this professional killer, an employee of the russian special services, putin demanded this, and grasikov was in a german prison, plus life imprisonment, and that would have been a problem for a long time, then they began to negotiate about navalny , they broke up because of his death, and here i am i think that, paradoxically, it accelerated this

exchange, plus, well, the russian side found an additional tool of pressure, in particular on germany. a german citizen was detained in belarus, he was sentenced to death , but i think that this became rabies at the last straw, germany agreed to this exchange, because, well, even there, the negotiations at the level of scholz and biden did not solve the issue with beauty to the full extent, so this is a different logic, and this is the logic of the cold war, that is even the propaganda effect that we see, putin meets personally. these own spies who were returned, that is, by the way, the logic of the special services, the interests of the special services dominated this exchange for russia, this is a signal to the entire russian agency now, do not be afraid, guys, if you are detained, we will return you, that's what the meaning of this exchange for russia, russia returns its own, and for the west, and the west, on the contrary,

is a valuable, valuable component of this exchange, political prisoners and their citizens who... who became hostages in russia, yes, so this is the nature of the exchange , the composition of the exchange, it is also demonstrative, and this is precisely evidence that the west of russia is returning to the times of the cold war. thank you for the interesting conversation, volodymyr fesenko, a political scientist was a guest of svoboda ranok. and then there is more detail about this large-scale exchange since the cold war, which we just talked about with volodymyr fisenko. now we will tell you more about it. plane with three freed us citizens. this morning already landed at the airfield of the american military base, they were personally met by president biden and vice president kamela harris. among them, in particular, the american journalist evan hershkovich, former marine, paul vilenad and our colleague, alsu kurmashova, journalist of the tatarobshkir service of radio liberty. this exchange between russia and the usa the day before in the white house was already called

historic, which had not happened since the cold war, other countries were also involved in it: germany, slovenia. poland and norway on the american side, and belarus on the russian side. turkey acted as a mediator here, and it was on the territory of ankara, under the coordination of the country's intelligence, that the prisoners were handed over. in total, according to cbs, 24 people participated in the exchange. as part of this exchange, russia released political prisoners and opposition politicians, ilya yashin, volodymyr karmurza, political activists, associates of the deceased russian oppositionist, i'm sorry, oleksiy navalny, lilia chan. ksenia fadeev, vadym ostanin, and as us presidential adviser jake sullivan reported, navalny himself was also supposed to be part of the agreement on the exchange of prisoners between the us and russia. instead , as part of this exchange, russia returned russian spies, hackers, fraudsters, as well as a convicted murderer of the fsb officer, vadym krasikov, who was serving a life

sentence for the murder of a chechen field commander in germany. putin, as the wall street journal writes, before his release from 2021, putin personally met him and other released persons late at night at the airport vnukov and announced that the released russians will be presented for state awards. ukrainian political scientists who analyze the significance of the exchange for ukraine say that it will not change anything. the former head of the ministry of foreign affairs of ukraine, pavlo klimkin , believes that this does not mean a change in the paradigm of relations between the west of the russian federation, but it can contribute to the discussion of others. issues on an informal level, this exchange should not be considered an improvement of diplomatic relations between russia and the west, it is purely a connection between special services, according to ukrainian diplomat volodymyr ogryzko. russian political scientist dmytro oreshkin believes that this exchange is only the fulfillment of the tasks that the country's governments have set before themselves. instead , timothy fry, a professor at columbia university,

draws attention to the consequences that such cooperation between the united states and russia may have for ukraine. let's listen. i do not think that this is someone's success, it is a draw, because each country solves its own task, i assure you that putin would not allow the agreement if it could be interpreted as the success of, say, america, germany or the conventional measure as a whole. for putin, the hostages are taken from the western world with american passports have value, because he understands that through them he can influence the policy of the governing circles of this country. released prisoners from the russian side are cybercriminals, sleeper agents and in one case a prisoner convicted of murder in germany for life. those released from russia are mostly journalists, human rights activists

and anti-war protesters. therefore, the moral equality of the types of liberated groups is very different in both cases. negotiations continued for a long time, secretly. from time to time there were rumors that there was a breakthrough, but nothing of this magnitude was expected. turkey played an important role as a mediator between russia. and the united states. turkey has good relations with russia, being a member of nato. therefore, president erdoğan could play the role of a mediator and still have the trust of both western european countries and russia. i think putin wanted to make this deal before the us election. of course, the kremlin would prefer to see donald trump in the white house, but their experience during the trump presidency has been that trump has promised a lot and delivered little. and i think they could worry that even with a trump victory , it would be difficult to get a prisoner exchange of this magnitude through congress. so that's one factor. the second strategic factor is that this move could have been made to strengthen those

in the west who favor a peace deal in ukraine that would be very beneficial to russia, that is, a peace deal that would allow russia to keep the captured territories of ukraine and prevent accession of ukraine to nato. the move thus helps strengthen the position of those in the west who argue that the kremlin can. be a reliable partner. the united states today is a challenge, and there are risks that no one can predict. this is how ukrainian president volodymyr zelensky commented on the upcoming american presidential elections in an interview with representatives of the french media. zelensky said that he communicated with kamela garis six times. he and his team also spoke with the candidate for the us president from the republican party, donald trump. however, what will be the next dialogue. it is not known, one story today is our dialogue, and it was normal, absolutely adequate, what will happen after the elections, you and i do not know,

we cannot predict one hundred percent, but the tymes publication claims that zelenskyi has not too warm relations with the vice president of the united states, kamela harris, who is running for the position in presidents, writes journalist simon shuster, who published zelensky's biography last year. and memories of the beginning of the full-scale invasion of ukraine and has its sources in the circle of the president. according to his information, the tension between politicians began on security conference in munich in 2022, just days before a full-scale invasion. at that time, the ukrainian delegation, already having information from intelligence about a russian attack being prepared, asked the us to introduce sanctions against russia and transfer heavy weapons to ukraine. and haris, they say, refused. she argued that the threat of sanctions. a more effective method of deterring russia than bringing them in right away, and transferring weapons to ukraine would mean to putin that ukraine is a nato client state. after that attitude became

cool, writes schuster. garis publicly sympathized with ukraine, but, as time writes, it was protocol, and she never visited kyiv, although she represented the united states at the global peace summit in switzerland. roman bezsmertny, a politician and a diplomat join our broadcast. roman, thank you for joining us, we will continue to discuss on the air, explain to us your opinion about how the relationship between the leader of the ukrainian state and the future president of the united states can develop events and that tensions, as simon shuster writes, on the eve of a full-scale invasion, they existed between zelenskyi and garis, which could affect zelenskyi's relationship as a leader. of ukraine and as, and haris, as the president of the usa. good afternoon, ms. kateryna. the first thing i must say is that everything simon schuster writes, he

is more concerned about his reputation than what he is writing about. therefore, when reading schuster, one must be very careful from the point of view of evaluating people, from the point of view of perspective. and, we can see very well, even in ukrainian to fly as what happened yesterday and today, as they say in odessa, these are two big differences, but what will happen tomorrow is completely different, the first thing to note when analyzing such a situation is to proceed from the point of view and characteristics of the persons kamala harris, from the point of view of experts, is one of the toughest politicians in american history, even if compared. by the most rigid republicans, so it is necessary to understand that she is not only called a tiger of american politics, but some also call

her a shark. therefore, expect a secondary one from her the role she played as the vice president, it is obvious that the approaches that even the democrats and even joe biden had in the event of her election as president will be radically revised, moreover, i will note that the position of trump and the position of harris are quite close even in the current situation, the role of the vice president in the... of the united states of america, she conditioned the behavior and the position that harris took as the vice president, especially under joe biden, so she actually provided and continued the policies that the administration pursued joe biden, so from my point of view, these approaches will be revised. now, as for the interview itself, it struck me with its pessimism, and with my... point

of view, well, it was necessary to place accents in a completely different way, especially in ukrainian-american relations, which, from my point of view, will gain momentum , which will bring the positions of both sides together, and in which more and more priority will be given to strength, because whether it is the position of donald trump or whether it is the position of kamal harris, the essence of it comes from the fact that both... candidates are insisting now during the election campaign that the main component of the further development of events is a bet on force, it is another matter that both say that at the end of this road there will definitely be some dialogue, and the parties look at this dialogue in different ways, but i want to emphasize once again that the beginning of everything is the strengthening of europe's position in the russian-ukrainian war, and

europe... which would increase its aid to ukraine and increase aid to ukraine from the united states of america, but there are some nuances here, the essence of which is in that trump insists on increasing funding from europe for these programs, and kamala harris believes that it is necessary to maintain a presence in the financing issues of the united states of america, as it is motivated by the growth of the economy, although in issues on the one hand lendlease, on the other hand. let's say, financing one's own economy, these are the same eggs, only from the other side, so in this case, from my point of view, the dynamics of relations, convergence of positions, in any case, this is the perspective of relations between kyiv and washington. you, mr. roman, on his youtube channel , biden's speech was evaluated after he dropped out of the race, after which the race, well, many people say, became much

more lively. entered with new energy, although there is a lot of it, i understand the audience and in the usa they also say that her position is not fully understood, because she was not involved in international relations there, for example, and it is not always possible to understand donald trump regarding his position regarding ukraine, do you now notice that kamela harris and donald trump construct their rhetoric in a different way precisely in the matter of supporting or not supporting ukraine. well, let's say this, experts and people close to trump in matters of foreign policy, they insist that precisely this unpredictability of trump is one of the key arguments that will provide influence on russia in parallel with the key component, as i said, force.