in romania, this is the main such nation, the state will be france, in bulgaria, well, all this is still in question, of course, here it is still important to understand that nato has its own disputes, in particular, it is the usa, turkey , er, the usa, france, that is, france left the part in 1966 structures of nato when de gaulle was the president, and what is interesting is that the last countries that joined nato are the balkan countries, in particular albania, croatia, and north macedonia, and in fact, for and by the way, this applies to the european union, for the senate, the main interest is precisely in in the balkans than in western balkans and ukraine as potential members of their alliances. it is, of course, sad for us to work

, but we have to do more ourselves than all the countries , that is, regarding peacekeeping in general, of course there have been many conversations since the 14th year about peacekeeping contingents of the un, nato, and all that and all that but without the exclusion of russia from the un security council, nothing will happen, well, here is a very, very apt moment, and we want to add to our conversation that you touched the topic of the un on volodymyr yuriyovych yelchenko - he is a legend of ukrainian diplomacy, he was the ambassador ukraine in the united states was the permanent representative of ukraine at the united nations, was the ambassador to russia, and i think that volodymyr yuriyovych will help us understand the history not only of the united nations, but also in general. well, here is the fundamental question that we are trying to

solve today and find at least some the answer is the collective world security that existed before the start of the war on february 24. does it still exist? has it become clear to everyone that it is necessary to look for something new, that this system no longer exists and its disintegration began long before february 25? i would like to remind you that during the creation of the un in 1945 and 1946, in fact, when this system was created, as it was already said to me, it was built on the un charter and everything was closed to the security meeting of the united nations, that is, the countries that won world war ii er, let's say, they divided the

responsibility among themselves, leaving the main responsibility to themselves. that is, under the five permanent members of the security council, this system began to work, er, at first it worked more or less normally, but, for example, the first failures began as early as the end of the period 40s and 50s the beginning of the 60s, when the soviet union. well, by the way , it is an interesting fact that in the first years of 10-15 ce, in the case of security, only the soviet union applied the right to this, and each time it related to the admission of new members to the oun. well, some were blocked by the soviets in strya there are people like italy, japan, because they are the former aggressors there, and the audience union was against them becoming members of the un, then they went there, finland. well, we are many, many other countries, eh. a lot of this is already known, that is, no one, especially the whole history, they immerse themselves in what? it

i say that if you look at the statistics of the application of the rules, there are constant conflicts between the members of the security forces, and it is precisely on this basis that the same collective security system in the world was built. so, in 1946, it seems to me that the last time was somewhere in early march when russia already applied its rights almost the entire beginning of this year, the soviet union, then russia - this veto was applied approximately 120 times, which means that it is almost as many as all the remaining four permanent members, that is, the united states, great britain, france and china combined. i remember the exact numbers, it seems somewhere like 125-130 times. well, it's actually all these years. well, if i didn't

control it, then i tried to control this system . and it was russia itself, and before it the soviet union , but even more interesting numbers look from 2014, starting with russia's veto, which it imposed, if i'm not mistaken, on the creation of an international tribunal for the downing of the emh-17 plane. this or not, this was even earlier, after the occupation of crimea, from that veto in march 2014 to the last one in this year, it seems that russia also secured its veto in march 20 times, the americans, only three times. you yourself stated the sad fact that the system is de facto

incompetent or not. it does not exist. so far everything is fine, why raise this question? yes, but now about well, we won't call it a reform, let's call it a reboot at the level of world leaders, but that's also not being discussed yet . zelenskyi's attempt to create the so-called u24, that is, a group of countries that in theory can guarantee the security of ukraine, but of course this is a complicated process, many questions arise, why exactly 24 and not less or more, but in principle it can become such a prototype of some future international organization or coalition, which well, if not replaced with

the un itself, that is, they even create some kind of alternative, as i want, going back to the year 45 , when the un was created, in fact, everyone hoped that this new system of collective security under the leadership of the un would replace with it all those military unions that existed before the second world war, that is, for the first time there was such an attempt to create such a universal international organization, because the league of nations, well, with all due respect, it was not universal, it was actually created from european countries plus some countries from other regions, but it was by no means universal, then the un appeared, in the 80s it chose a lot of african countries, asian countries that gained independence, and finally today it is 193 countries, but due to paralysis the activities of the security council, where is the right of veto, which

i said is constantly abused, in fact, the security council has blocked itself, that is, it has become unable to solve serious international problems because someone is always a member, and most often russia was against it this or that conflict should be regulated. if you don't want to go. thus, in recent decades , the role of e-e in some regional organizations, including nato, has grown as an alternative. the european union, which we are again we forget that there was still a western european union, it was called that at the time. it was, in fact, a military wing of today's eu, which has not existed for many years. however, it was also a regional organization plus the organization of african unity, the african union, the league of

arab states, and so are these regional groups began to take on more responsibility, then the osce appeared, we all know that which covered europe for a certain time and regional organizations more or less coped with the conflicts that arose on their terms. but in this all came to an end, uh, hmm, precisely with the events that began on february 24, and more precisely, i would say that they began in 2016, the seizure of crimea, by the way, it's a good question, this is the role of china, let's say it appeared in our country there is one speaker , volodymyr yuriyovich, we will stay in touch with you, and we will continue the discussion, but i want to involve valentin glykh, a political scientist, maybe from a political point of view, he will help us understand uh, in this matter, oh-oh- are there any countries in the world

that threaten nato countries in some military way? sense or political sense, well, hypothetically so, and let's remember that when the pro anti-missile defense system was deployed in europe, they clearly said that in fact we were not deploying it against the russian federation, but most likely it was about north korea, there were also certain fears about iran and its nuclear programs, that is, if some countries pose a threat, because some states pose a hypothetical threat to the western world, to nato, then these are those states that have political regimes that are aimed at aggressive and in some places a destructive position regarding the current world political or international order, if you can say so. the fact that the russians have now

simply intercepted this flag and, in fact, have become a leader of this kind, he, who advocates some archaic approach to international relations, well, this does not remove it. agenda and other threats, let's not forget that, in principle, such a country at one time was, well, the state and iraq, well, during the time of estadam hussein, let's not forget that kadda sid, who also there he threatened in europe. he really liked to threaten , he even shot down a civilian plane at one time. let's not forget about the islamic state, which also tried to establish itself in certain areas , that is, in fact, it must be understood that certain threats are of a military nature to nato member states they do exist, but it was not the russian federation in the first place, i.e. nato, in principle

, never professed any aggressive policy towards the russian federation, but the russians viewed nato as an alleged threat to these national interests, but as the previous speakers correctly said, well, for them, it is now well, now it became clear to us what they meant, in fact, they considered not too much, not too much, as a threat to their interests, they simply viewed nato as a threat to their expansionist and imperialist interests. that is, they were afraid not of expansion nato scared them that in the accession to nato of the countries of the former post-soviet space, in fact, it should be a restraining factor that makes it impossible to pursue an aggressive and realistic policy, well, in relation to, for example, krymbalkas, that is, they understood that it was probably hopeless to go there, and it was also hopeless to go to georgia or ukraine or moldova if they had gained membership in nato, so they were afraid not so much of nato itself, but that nato

would attack them there, but rather the realization that the accession of the states of the post-soviet space to nato essentially puts a stop to any efforts of the russians to pursue their expansionist policy and seek to restore this soviet or russian empire. and in general, regarding the collective security i want to say that yermaka recently published an article in time and it very coolly puts the problems of global security on the agenda. puts the current security situation on the agenda, that is, it cannot be a bloc confrontation or any bloc confrontation of military-political blocs , it means that it can put humanity on the brink of war, well, world war with nuclear weapons accordingly, the destruction of that is the logic that it is necessary to create some semi-states as guarantors of global security and to delegate to them the right and authority

to observe this world order, well, by and large, it is the same only at the global level and the very evo that we once came at the level of an individual state. yes when each of us delegated certain powers to the state, that is, we renounced blood feuds, an eye for an eye, and transferred this right, for example, to the state to regulate . after all, we should move in the direction of nato, because we have discussed a lot now, and the only thing that remains unclear is that the speakers at the end yes, i confused volodymyr yuriyovych yes, and valentin, your short thesis is to move, let's try to get there, to join nato, or to build something of our own even if this opinion is not very pleasing to someone at the bank, i personally believe that it is necessary to move in this way because there is nothing better, let's say, european humanity or euro-atlantic humanity has not created and uh, in response to your question about what a has

be that trigger or well, what should attract only distant countries to some new system, i think very simply, security guarantees, that's what i want, ukraine wants the same thing, and thailand and burma are drunk there, and brazil and korea, and even small islands in the south pacific of the ocean they need safety guarantees some here here there is a question of a guarantee of nuclear safety, well, the problematic memorandum already knows, no one is talking about everything, it is tired of this topic, but we understand very well that after all this well, how can you eh to tell ireland or north korea that the security guarantees that will be written to you here will be signed by everyone there and china will be there and all of russia and you will have a bright future and no one will

believe it after ukraine mr. valentina is it for us in nato or not in its own way. look at the whole history and the security architecture that has developed in the world today. it corresponded to the realities after the second world war. well, this is the organization of the united nations. yes, it is the permanent members of the security council. yes, with the veto plan that entered of the winner in that war, er, more. this is about nato, which corresponded to the realities of the cold war and this confrontation, and the warsaw pact. today, global realities have seriously changed. well, i don’t know, that is, nato, as a military-political bloc, had an exceptional purpose. well, once upon a time, the warsaw pact the treaty when there was a confrontation between the west and the east, since one of the parties was annihilated, then by and large nato as a military-political bloc has never manifested itself as a political

as well as a military-political not a single case it was in afghanistan, yes, after uh, yes, the twins well , it was formally dissolved as an attack on the united states of america, accordingly, it was considered an attack on all nato countries, but we remember that by and large even in afghanistan, well, that is, it is difficult to say that three operations nato was an allied operation, just like in most other cases where individual nato member countries were involved, but as an integral nato bloc. formation on er-e there are some serious challenges, therefore, i am a supporter of the fact that, most likely, the system of collective security will be reformatted in the world . do we have to abandon the movement in nato, well, as long as nato exists and as long as nato can be considered as a guarantor of security, then definitely probably not it is worth

giving up, but it must be taken into account that there is a war, it depends, if you see us there yes and they do not want to guarantee us anything, well, then, accordingly , we must also look for alternative options and the option that is offered yes from the countries of the pool of countries that they guaranteed us safety, there can be no alternative , you asked about the guarantee, the guarantee is a kitch reading, well, that is, not yet. until you need them, you will not be able to check whether they are effective or not, and no one can guarantee the fulfillment of the guarantee. it's a pity, this world is arranged like this, but the only thing i would like to address is a very important point, in fact, there is a wonderful book by kissinger, yes, this is the world order, where he talks about what countries in the world are, in principle want to allow the use of military force in order to impose their will on others through military means and those who consider such a method an unacceptable name. well, today

in the world, this confrontation is taking place around whether humanity exactly where legitimizes the use of war as a way to achieve some goals, does it delegitimize, if it elitists, if it is different , now they will see that it is possible to achieve some goals by military means, then in essence we will let this genie out of the bottle again. i think that this it will inevitably end in a nuclear cataclysm of a global catastrophe, it's a matter of time, when, that's why i tend to think that the support that ukraine will receive today is just the final, final attempt to demonstrate that no one in the world has the right to use armed force to impose their will night there is such a concept as responsibility and sovereignty, but one must understand that in today's world the very concept of national sovereignty will be transformed. i

don't want to say that it will be there in a week or so after two weeks, but the first swallows were when you remember the cancer in the kuvey then for a couple well , in principle, you could also close your eyes and say that it's ok no, they didn't say that it was oh and it ended very badly for iraq, now the same thing must happen for of the russian federation, and then everyone else will look and understand that it is probably not worth attacking the neighbors , or it is not worth attacking anyone else there, not even neighbors, so in this stadium i am sure that it is clear . but there is a certain contradiction balance of opinions that it is necessary to change something, but first of all i want to thank our guests volodymyr yuriyovych yelchenko, a legend of ukrainian diplomacy . comment on valentin's words about what needs to be completed. yes

, that era actually reminds me of him. do you remember that we had yaroslav hrytsak on the air - a historian, and how aptly he said that war is the norm in the world and peace is an exception and it is very fragile that's why er, our dreams about the fact that now we will definitely defeat russia and there will be no more war in the world, well , they are breaking history textbooks, but we have different positions, and your opinion has changed about the fact that we need to join nato, search yes or search well some kind of new format after we have discussed with very interesting speakers for such a long time no, in principle, we actually reached the point with the speakers that we need to join nato, we need to go straight to nato, we just need to rebuild nato, but i don't see a way forward the possibility of entering into another union , it will remind you how when an operation is going on in a hospital, you have to rebuild the whole hospital or build a new

hospital, when an operation is going on in a hospital, you have to complete this operation in this hospital, and actually i think that we have to complete our way to nato and actually try to change something there from the inside, well, in any sense, i think that these discussions lead to the final opinion that the world order is around some security guarantees, it will change, it will be with the reform of nato, or is it there will be the creation of some other alliance, if ukraine will participate in this process, and all through the free blood of our citizens of ukraine, yes, ukraine will stand by what it has the right to do in the list of fundamental countries that will be reformatted after the war into such special operations forces that currently exist in ukraine and that have such experience in conducting such military operations well, oh,

there are no more such countries in the world, well, you have to understand that planetary histories are global histories they are not are accepted there in a day, two weeks, a month, and in fact, the more or less logical point in our discussion today is may, may will be raised in the summer, in july, when they will gather in madrid for the nato summit earlier . further, at least until 2030, at least in july, we in ukraine will find out for ourselves. and even if we are four, on behalf of a representative part of the country, we have decided here. okay, our path to nato is at least in the summer, we will find out. we are moving, they are open to us because going to a place where, roughly speaking, you are in the press into a closed door

well, it is possible that there is no point in going there and this is a fact well, it is not that at least in the summer we will learn the position and it will also be clear that if we we will know the position earlier. god forbid they will use weapons of mass destruction. but first let them occupy chernobaivka, you know what friends say, yes. and i think that until this day we exactly by the time of the start of this nato summit ukraine ukraine will already win we already won and uh we today we are talking about things like this. that is to say. well, that is why we need to understand further. people are still concerned about the first question, when is the victory? thank you to our military . 1+1 stanislav yasynskyi natali ostrovskyi i'm evgenplitskyi see you in the next broadcasts and we pass the word to our colleagues let's meet friends let's see each other we'll

convince we'll win we won't you no news together we are strong ukrainian superheroes who today became legends. meet the hero of ukraine dmytro kashchenko, a personal example of heroism that inspires fellow servicemen. he met the enemy in 2014 by leading a sand storm that made it possible to unblock the donetsk airport and will see off the enemy army in 2022. extremely effective combat operations to preserve the position of our army. glory to the heroes glory to ukraine who searches and does not lose hope always finds it together with the team we created a telegram channel search from the sky

every day caring ukrainians join us together we find those who have not been in touch for a long time together we return lost children and adults to their families together we are stronger remember that even after the darkest night dawn comes victory for us oh in ukraine and volunteers everything is possible nations everything will find everyone feed everyone they save their tails they give them a gift on airplanes they lean on they help doctors sing a lullaby they sing defenders they equip everyone they hug glory to ukraine to the whole world ukraine they glorify

the volunteer family there is no translation all ukraine thank you today you are an example for this world how selflessly one should defend one's homeland i am just proud of you you are just unreal cool thank you all thank you i am paying now we are waiting for you home alive and have a peaceful life our native ukraine hold on we are the best thanks to you we believe in our victory and everything will definitely be ukraine thank you glory to ukraine glory to the armed forces of ukraine i'll bandage it we 'll win you're not news the unconquered cities of ukraine is cozy kherson, the pearl

of the protected territories of ukraine, the city played a significant role in the formation of statehood, it became the southern center of the ukrainian revival during the great terror, the nkvdists shot for nationalism . the enemy column will come out, but the occupier will not sleep. protects the whole world from the russians, we have always defended democracy and were the first to create a democratic constitution, 10% of world grain exports are

provided by ukraine, we are accelerating the global digital transformation and were the first in the world to create a state in a smartphone. and today, for the sake of democratic values ​​and our victory, we have united the whole world that knows that ukraine is a country of free people, the victory is ours, millions of us are forced to live away from home, that is, they came they do not work, they lost their jobs if you moved from the territory where hostilities were or continue use the support program and receive up to three thousand hryvnias per person per month, receive the status of an internally displaced person and receive payments in action, update the application and use the service section, the certificate of an internally displaced person will appear in the application, and the funds will go to the

support card, or register with the tsnap or social security agencies and submit an application for assistance there. more details on the website of the ministry of social policy of ukraine. peace and pyrotechnics of the state emergency service successfully defeat this abomination 24/7 because if the enemy did not sow death, love for ukraine blooms in our hearts, we will win, we will rebuild, we will clear every corner of our native land.