defense is not exactly a counteroffensive, it is exactly a counterattack, it can even be considered as an element of active defense, because defense was not only positional, it is active, that is , mobile, maneuverable, point and so on, that is, people in the army fight according to protocols and according to the rules, and not according to some know-how, or they are sitting around inventing something, for god’s sake, the army must fight protocols and follow clear rules, and the commander’s specialty is to use exactly those rules, exactly those tactics that are most convenient in a given place, at the moment , given... a couple of years and so on and so on, given the strength and means. the second thing that is interesting about the offensive on kurshchyna is the possibility, it is quite possible to assume that we can reach the kursk nuclear power plant, then the situation with our zaporizhia nuclear power plant will look completely different there, and grossi, the head of magat has already talked about this certain conversations begin about what should be done there, what should not be done there, and exactly what can be done...

it will be interesting to look carefully at the map, you don't need to be a great strategist right away to to understand that if we move further from the direction of kursk, for example, to the south, then we will enter teleprost and the kupinsky-limansk grouping and pokrovskomn, so simple, huh, mr. oleksiy, thank you, i hope that we will have you have more opportunities and reasons to analyze what is happening now, truly historically. of the scale of the event, oleksiy hetman, a reserve major of the national guard of ukraine, a veteran of the russian-ukrainian war, joined the saturday political club, which continues and will definitely continue with a conversation with vitaly portnikov at the end of the current hour, and before that we will have a few more conversations with the esteemed guests, ihor eisenberg, a professor at new york university from the states and vadym polishchuk, a historian, political observer, will be in touch with the studio, we will talk about the situation... in the near east, don't

switch. every week, maria gurska meets with the head of the committee on foreign affairs of the polish sejm, pawel kowal, the representative of the polish government for the restoration of ukraine. as always, we talk about the most important thing that happened recently week in poland, ukraine, europe. what is being said about ukraine in the eu, how should we perceive the statements of european politicians and what will our accession to the eu look like? the project is close to politics, close to the world with maria gurska. every sunday at 15:30 with a repeat at 22:00. in collaboration with au sisters. a journalist who joined the armed forces, a political expert who became a special agent. taras berezovyts in a new project on espresso. the real front is a thorough analysis of the main events. reports, comments of leading specialists and experts. analytics from the major of the armed forces. as make sense of disturbing news and distinguish truth from hostile propaganda. the real front program with taras berezovets every saturday. 21:30 at

espresso. the saturday political club continues. my name is khrystyna yatskiv. thank you for being with us, and we continue to talk about the devastating turn of the russian-ukrainian war, the events in the kursk region. i emphasize once again that in the historical perspective since 1944, this is the first time that the russian federation is faced with the fact that... it has problems of a military nature directly on its territory, and not like they like to periodically ignite, incite military conflicts of a completely artificial nature on the territories of neighboring states, or in general, states that can help them control a specific region. i am now pleased to add to the important conversation igor eisenberg, professor of new york university, united states of america, sir. igor, i congratulate you, glory

to ukraine. glory to the hero, i congratulate you, ms. khrystyna, i congratulate all viewers of express. already in a few days, i wonder what has changed. we understand that it is quite long time, our key partner, the united states of america, was very careful when it came to the work of the defense forces of ukraine on the territory of the russian federation. at first this work was. very veiled, this is how we talked about some incidents in bavovna, although we definitely understood what was being discussed, and then we began to insist that we need to justify the enemy's rear, because it is from there that they start their aggression, precisely from russian territories, their planes take off , their convoys go from russian territories and so on and so on, and had a careful taboo from of the united states for at least the application.

long-range weapons and weapons that can reach the locations we are interested in. now we 're watching the actual ground operation of the defense forces of ukraine in kursk oblast and we're seeing a very, very, very restrained american response to what's going on, i'll just quote the white house national security communications advisor, john kirby, i think , that i will leave a place here to allow ukraine, one way or another, to talk about its military operations, we maintain contact with our ukrainian colleagues, we are working to better understand what they are doing, what their goals are, what their strategy is, he refuses to characterize the situation in the course. region, explaining that it is worth waiting until washington has a better idea of ​​the events in the territory of the russian region. that is, and we in general, if we are not sure that we fully understand what is happening there. this is a game, mr. igor, i.e. rhetorical figures, can you imagine a situation when this operation was planned

without the agreement of a key partner? you you know, i would add what, say, the pentagon's deputy spokeswoman, sabrina sink, said. well, she simply approved the actions of ukraine and said that ukraine has every right to defend itself, including what it is doing in kursk oblast, that there is no problem with using american weapons for this, and the spokesperson of the state department said approximately the same matthew miller, and i would say that it's not surprising to me at all, because you know, all the restrictions that the united states has put on, let's say... on supplying ukraine with this or that weapon, or to the use of one or another weapon, they were conditioned by what we all call escalation, such a euphemism, because in fact, of course, in the neighboring states , escalation means an inadequate response

from russia, that is, in the form of, say, the use of nuclear weapons against ukraine , and the united states, of course... constantly wants to avoid this, but i would, you know, i would mirror what your colleague vitaliy bortnikov likes to call the tactic of selyami on the part of russia, that is, when russia thinks that it can cut off like that piece for a piece of ukrainian territory from ukraine, but the west is doing almost the same thing, in particular the united states, constantly bit by bit, allowing ukraine to do more, sending ukraine... more weapons, more types of weapons, i think that the united states just thinks that by taking these steps gradually, and they are doing this, they are achieving a very important thing, that is, that russia will not react inadequately, i am

more than sure that this is the reaction of the united states to this operation of the armed forces in the kursk region , it shows that american intelligence is absolutely sure that there is no inadequate one. there won't be an answer, let's say, in the form of using nuclear weapons from russia, mr. igor, and we watched for a long time the transfer of specific weapons to ukraine, weapons that actually belong to, let's say, some european country, but the manufacturer of these weapons is united states, then this country had to ask permission from the united states to transfer these weapons to us. now we follow with... how in germany, respectively the head of the security committee declares that from the moment we handed over the tanks to ukraine, even though they are of german production, they are already ukrainian tanks, they can use them as they see fit, that is , this interesting moment is happening again, when,

when in principles, if not out loud, but they give good news to what is happening, in your opinion, how will it affect the... in general, the situation of a political nature in the united states itself, does it already have an appropriate response in the hearts of americans who besides after all, there are also voters, they need to make the appropriate decision in the near future, to make the appropriate decision of an electoral nature this fall. in the united states, this is an operation of the armed forces of ukraine in the kursk region, it is very much so, it is covered in the media. with details, with very large details, a lot of articles in leading newspapers, and there is a television report, there are corresponding comments on television, there are articles on the websites of news tv channels, and where the key word here is humiliating putin,

humiliating russia and slandering the actions of ukraine, that is, the americans, respectively are perceived precisely yes. as for how this will affect the american election campaign, you know, foreign policy and generally everything that is done in the world is not traditionally the subject of... a presidential election campaign in the united states, and this election campaign, it, well, practically , it does not differ from the previous ones, that is, it will revolve around internal things, around the actual protection of democracy, or or opposition to democracy around various social problems, around economic problems, economic policy, and this... what voters are most worried about when they elect a new president, and there will be no changes this

year, that is, let's say, kamela harris and tim waltz, in recent days they spoke in key for the elections in the states, foreign policy matters were not discussed at all in their speeches, and it will be like this until the end of the election campaign, because the main thing for americans is economic policy, social policy, well... how much is there such a confrontation between the forces led by trump and liberal forces, then this is also a matter of protection democracy, or on the contrary the defense of democracy, if you say what is meant by trump? mr. igor, we understand that we can expect a debate between donald trump and kamala garis in the near future, perhaps we are talking about a multi-stage debate. what are your expectations from this purely

pre-election campaign, we understand that even before they were official candidates of their parties, donald trump and joseph biden met at the debate, and this actually led to drastic, drastic changes in the situation, what can we expect now? debate in general, it has been held for the last 50 years a national commission with... and trump refused the debate organized by the commission a long time ago, that is, he said that he would not participate in such a debate, and the debate that was held between trump and biden, which was also offered by the abc channel on september 10, now it will be a debate between trump and caris, and this is a debate in a different format, that is, it is a debate without an audience in the hall with only moderators, presenters and debaters. will they be? i'm not sure, by the way, that they will, because

trump said just a week ago that he wouldn't won't engage in any debate with harris, other than an audience-only debate possible on fox, on thursday he said something diametrically opposed that he will engage in the sept. 10 debate hosted by abc, which i frankly don't expect nothing so special, because the debate... actually, well, it is such a television product, which is well understood by television journalists, why such a television product is popular among viewers, and for voters, well, voters already know their candidates, and hardly a large number voters, thanks to debaters can change their views on the candidates, decide to vote for the wrong candidate they were planning to vote for, i think kamalagaris has every chance. well , to beat donald trump in a debate, because you know, it's going to be a debate, as

kamala harris herself, a professional prosecutor, suggests, with a criminal who was convicted, not too long ago, of 34 felonies by a jury, but i don't think that this can have any significant effect on the mood of the voters, certainly the debate between. with trump and biden on june 27, well, they really had a big impact because joe biden blew that debate, and it ultimately led to him dropping out, but in the caris and trump debates, if they 're going to be, well, that's not going to happen, so, well , trump will be trump, he he's going to act like he always does harris if she prepares well for the debate she'll beat him but well let's just say hillary clinton beat trump

in the '16 debate too but lost the election, say mitt romney beat obama in the first debate in '12 but lost the election. ronald reagan narrowly lost the '84 debate to walter mondale, but won the election. that is, the debate does not determine the winner of the election, after all, the winner is determined by the vote. interestingly, you actually noticed and even. tv viewers and voters made a little distinction, as if these are two completely different categories that do not intersect with each other, for me it is interesting from the point of view that in 2019 we actually watched the elections here in ukraine. in which television and the actual television activity of our current president played a role, and i not sure if it wasn't for that plane you could count on some high high points there but it's such a small trailer sorry sorry if you can s i don't want

to interrupt you but just want to add the same thing is happening in the united states exactly, look... already on thursday , two events were happening at the same time: kamela harris was speaking at a meeting of the auto manufacturers union in detroit, and at the same time donald trump was holding a press conference, but all the tv channels were broadcasting live, what do you think trump's press conference , why? well, because it definitely allowed them to increase their rating, because many people, they, they willingly look at trump, even those who do not like him, willingly. they watch, well, because they want to see something like that, unusual, and this, in my opinion, is a problem, a big problem, because that's how people watch tv, many people watch tv, but journalists should be responsible for the product that they broadcast, and at least when elections are held, still the tv channels must ensure that there is no advantage

one of the candidates on the television airwaves, even if it brings the ratings of the tv channel. i think that this is wrong, because it is necessary for the tv channels to position themselves as neutrally as possible to the candidates for election positions, and finally, in short, the united states and the situation in the middle east, the possibility of iran's response, in fact, to those events , which took place last week, in particular in tehran. er, can we say that the united states is waiting and actually knows, traditionally knows what to do in this situation, in a situation of escalation? the united states, i think, is also in anticipation, and they are preparing for possible iranian responses, but they are very active on the diplomatic

front to prevent a major war, to prevent possible responses from iran, possible attacks. iran on israel, because the middle east is the kind of region where you can light a match, and from this there will be such a fire that simply, simply it can, can turn into the third world war, so of course the united states is absolutely not interested in this , and so the commander of the central us command, let's say, he was in israel, he discussed with the chief of the israeli general staff, the minister of defense, joint actions in the case of iran. but at the same time, the united states is making a lot of diplomatic efforts. the united states does not have diplomatic relations with iran, but through intermediaries, through countries that have relations with iran, the united states is trying to do everything possible to prevent the flames of a very large war from igniting there, which could absolutely have

unpredictable consequences. mr. igor, thank you you for joining. to the saturday political club igor eisenberg, a professor at new york university from the united states, on the air of the espresso tv channel, and continuing the topic of the development of events in the middle east, and possibly the responses of iran and israel to the events that took place in tehran, actually in the context inauguration of the new president, information is still appearing, in particular from zatelegraf. citing unnamed aides to the iranian president, iran's current president, masoud pezeshkian, offers less radical options than the corps guardians of the islamic revolution, that is, there are certain differences in the interpretation of the events that will develop in the near future, if they will, of course, develop. queer is traditionally in favor of

more drastic actions, but the president has a more restrained view. about this and not only that, we will talk now with vadym polishchuk, a historian, political commentator from israel, we welcome you, mr. vadym, glory to ukraine, glory, good evening, yes, in fact, what is the current state of the situation directly in israel, when we are talking about, on the one hand, hamas, in a certain way decapitated, on the other hand we already understand that they appear there. contenders for leadership of both a military nature and a political nature, on the other hand, and the side of lebanon. all this in the context of the threat from iran. i ask you to speak. well, the country, israel is now waiting to see what iran and its proxy hizballah will do in this situation, or the events,

this persuasion from the united states, to reduce the intensity, maybe the responses, and also, i think the idea of ​​persuading israel to reduce , reduce the intensity of the response to the answer to iran, because you know here. thus , the flywheel of responses will spin, which, from the point of view of the united states, can lead to a major escalation, which the united states does not need now. from the point of view of hamas, there is already a leader there, that is, these hamasites have decided on the direction of their movement, because the election of sinvar as the head of the political flight. the wing that united, that is, before there was a political wing, there was a military wing, now all this has formed in one person, and in fact it radicalized the situation, because sinwar is a man

more drastic, more risky, more prone to some adventures and to hope that this will lead to a reduction in tensions, to the same agreement that the united states wants to reach on the hostages and through this agreement actually end the gas conflict and freeze the situation. israel does not agree to such a development, even if it agrees to an agreement, but only on the condition of a possible continuation of the liquidation of hamas as a structure, because only this can prevent a repetition of what happened on october 7. from the side hizballah israel now understands that the existence of hizballah in general is threatened by investment israel, due to the fact that we see that

a security zone has been created in the north, which was actually created by hizballah, several large enough settlements have been evacuated, a large number of israelis are now in temporary places there ... hours, in hotels, and it is unacceptable for israel that this whole situation is maintained, and even if some conditions are reached by chance, there is no hope that these conditions will be valid for a long time, and thus these people will be able there is no way to return and feel safe, so in fact now israel is interested in some kind of radical solution to the situation, and this is already being discussed... conversations among experts and , i think, among the military and political leadership, and if our army did not actually act like that a political party that was

not radical, but more, let's say, prone to compromises, i think it would have already started to be resolved in a more radical way, and when we are talking about a more radical act and variant of the development of events, what is at stake here mind, decipher, please, what would it look like? well, it would look like full-scale military operations in lebanon and the creation, well , not even to the litani river, because the litani river is there, there from 6 to 15 km, it is not enough for security, there would most likely be a coming to beirut, as it was in the first lebanon war, and the liquidation of hizballah as well as the military structure, that is, this weaponry that was brought there by iran at that time , a large... quantity of these, all their caches there, what they buried there and so on, and so on just now there was a window of opportunity

to eliminate the iranian threat, including the iranian nuclear program, which managed to develop thanks to the policies of the democrats obama and biden for some flirting with iran, and the impression is that they... iran is some kind of party that could regulate some relations in the middle east, although in fact they radicalize them and lead to such a flare-up of some conflicts, and this, in my opinion, is precisely the wrong position of the united states, just as it behaved with russia, this constant obama reboot and biden appeasement of the aggressor, will not be allowed. escalation, that is, they escalate, as russia and iran want, and their countries that oppose them must constantly restrain themselves, thus it inflames

the situation even more. mr. vadim, as we understand, iran is looking for support, or at least is currently enlisting the support of its allies, and the same applies here to russia, because, to be honest, why then would visits by quite high-ranking, but already ex-russian military officials to iran, for example, and putin in general, we will remind, called on iran to limit its revenge after all. israel, reuters wrote about it. will russia openly support iran in any actions of this country in relation to israel in the near future, or will it still be cautious? well, i don’t know how it can support even more, well, unless these military men, who are currently in syria, they will take the side of the conflict at the behest of iran, this is the only possible participation of russia, even greater than now,

i.e. they support them in all, let's say, international organizations, they support them militarily, just as iran supports russia, they are military allies, and if anyone in israel still doubts that, then i don't know what else russia should do, well , why hit with your planes from syria, well , it’s good that compared to the israeli military and air force, they are weak, that is, israel would repel this attack and... they understand this well, but they help in whatever way they can, they teach iranians, iranians they teach the russians, that is, there is a measure of love, as they say, and there is a lot of information, of varying degrees of confirmation, but still there is information in the world media that russia is supplying iran, possibly the s-400, and iran, for its part , even insists on receiving

su-35 flanker fighters are those... su-35, like the new fighters of the russian federation, with which, purely theoretically, the f-16 can meet in some kind of aerial battle. well, that's another question. russia can provide weapons to iran, which means that it is in the hands of the russian federation less weapons to attack ukraine. but in any case, as we understand it, russia should not benefit from an escalation on the part of iran right now, right? well, in principle, let’s look at it , first of all, if there is an escalation around iran, it will again divert attention from russia’s war with ukraine, and this is good for putin, in principle, on the other hand, thanks to this, oil prices may jump, which have recently started to decrease, and it is also beneficial for russia, so why is it not beneficial,

beneficial for any aggravation in the near future. in the east, this is normal for them, but if, there , taiwan and china get involved, it is even more normal for russia, so it will do anything to escalate, they can say anything, there, well, lie to them, that you know, a normal phenomenon , just like for iran, but you have to look, even you see, they are about for them this situation with kursits, in fact, turned out to be quite disadvantageous, including. especially because of the fact that they are forced now, because of the fact that they are firing at any ships that go through the gulf of aden, through the red sea, then russian ships with russian cargo are now passing through africa, but still this escalation around the near east, they still support it, and still no one tells iran, neither china nor russia, that let’s somehow tame them, so they the only

thing that could stop them was a blow. huddey, who slightly reduced their opportunities, and no persuasion works. uhu, well, a few words, very briefly, mr. vadim, in what state are the relations within israel between the authorities and the people in view of the successful operations to eliminate high-ranking terrorists, what is netanyahu's understanding with the israelis? well , israeli society, it has actually been divided for several years now, and this division is precisely what the political forces opposed to netanyahu personalized, i.e. took it out of the ideological plane into a personal one, that is, they actually attacked him, without touching any such, well, specific problems.