romania 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 , the usa, france, that is, france left part of the structures in 1966 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 for and this gives for , and by the way, this concerns the european union for the senate is the main interest in the balkans than in the western balkans and ukraine as potential members of their alliances. of course, this is the next

thing to realize. but we ourselves need to do more than these 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 nothing happened with the exclusion of russia from the un security council. well, there is a very opportune moment, and we want to add to our conversation that you touched on the topic of the un on volodymyr yuriyovych yelchenko - he is a legend of ukrainian diplomacy, he was the ambassador of ukraine to the usa was the permanent representative of ukraine to the un, he was the ambassador to russia, and i think that volodymyr yuriyovych will help us understand the history not only of the un, but also in general. well, here is the fundamental question that we are trying to solve today and find at least some kind of answer.

the collective world security that existed before the start of the war on february 24, does it still exist, or has it become clear to everyone that we need to look for something new? good evening, i think that this system no longer exists and its disintegration began long before february 25. i would like to remind that during the creation of the un in 1945-1946, when this system was created, 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 war, let's say, they divided the responsibility among themselves, leaving

the main responsibility to themselves. that is, behind the five permanent members, there is a lot of security and this system began to work, uh, at first it worked more or less normally, but for example, well, the first failures began in the period of the late 40s, 50s and early 60s, when the soviet union. well, by the way, it is a generally interesting fact that in the first years of the 10-15th century, in the case of security, only the soviet union applied the right to this, and every time it applied admission of new members to the un. well, some were blocked by the soviet union, such as italy, japan, because they were former aggressors there, and the spectator union was against them becoming members of the un, then finland went there, and many, many other countries. a lot is already known, that is, no one knows everything i don’t particularly delve into the history, why am i saying this,

that if you look at the statistics of the use of the right of veto by permanent members of the security brothers, and it is precisely on this that the same collective system of e- e security in the world was built. it seems the last time it was somewhere at the beginning of march. when russia already exercised its rights this year, the soviet union, then russia, uh, this veto was used approximately 120 times , uh, that means that is almost as much as all the remaining four permanent members, that is, the usa great britain, france and china combined, i don't remember the exact numbers, but it seems somewhere like 125-130 times. well, it's actually a tool that neutralizes everything and all the broken work. imagine who actually did it all these years. well, if he didn't control it, he

tried to control this system eh mm and it was russia itself and before it the soviet union, but the figures are even more interesting if you look at them from 2014, eh, starting with the attack on russia, which she imposed eh, if i'm not mistaken, on the creation of an international tribunal for shooting down aircraft emh-17 it is or not it was still before, after the occupation of crimea, from that veto in march 2014 to the last one this year, it seems that in march, too, russia vetoed 20 times, the americans only three times. -e

you understand that it was clear and it was obvious, not yesterday and not the day before yesterday, and here objectively. so far everything is fine, so far everything is fine, why raise this issue? yes, but now about well, we won't call it a reform, let's call it a reboot at the level world leaders, but this is also not discussed yet, well, everything looks like this. well, i would say that the idea of ​​the president from zelensky to create the so-called u24, that is, a group of countries that in theory can guarantee the security of ukraine, but of course it is difficult the process raises many questions, 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 it does not replace

the un, then at least they will create some kind of alternative , i still want to go back to the 45th year when created the un, in fact, everyone hoped that this new system of collective security under the leadership of the un would replace all the military alliances that existed before the second world war, that is, it was the first time such an attempt was made to create such a universal budgetary organization, because the league of nations respect, it was not a university, it was actually created from european countries plus some countries in other regions , but it was by no means universal, then the un appeared in the 80s, it chose itself there are many african countries, asian countries that have gained independence, and finally today it is 193 countries, but due to the paralysis of the activities of the security council, where is this right to enter, which i said

is constantly abused? serious internal and external problems because some of the permanent members, and most often russia, was against the fact that this or that conflict should be regulated in this way. an alternative appeared and the role of e-e in some regional organizations, including nato , increased years but nevertheless it was also a regional organization plus the organization of african unity , now the african union of the league of arab states and

such that they and these regional groups began to take on more responsibility then the osce appeared, we all know it, which covered europe and for a certain time regional organizations more or less coped with the conflicts that arose on their terms, but in this - everything came to an end, here we are just standing with the events that began on february 24, and even more precisely i would say that began in 2017 with the seizure of crimea, by the way, it is a good question for the role of china . we will continue the discussion with you, but i want to include valentin a smooth political scientist, perhaps from a political point of view he will help us understand the uh-uh in this matter , oh-oh-oh, are there any countries in the world that threaten

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

they simply intercepted this flag and, in fact, became a guide of this kind and well, who advocates some kind of archaism of international relations, well, that does not remove it actually, speaking, from the 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 this qadda sid, who also threatened there in europe, he really liked to threaten it , he even shot down a civilian plane at one time, let's let's not forget about the islamic state, which also tried to establish itself in certain areas , that is, in fact, it is necessary to understand that certain threats of a military nature, for the states of nato members, they exist, but it is not russian first of all, the federation was, that is, nato, in principle , never professed any kind of aggressive policy towards the

russian federation, but the russians viewed nato as an alleged threat to national interests, but as the previous speakers correctly said, well, for them, it is now well, now it became clear to us what they had on attention, 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 the expansion of nato; nato of the countries of the former post-soviet space should essentially be a restraining factor that makes an aggressive realistic policy impossible, well, in relation to krymbalka, for example, yes, 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 acquired membership then in nato , therefore, they were afraid not so much of nato itself, and that nato would attack them there, but rather of the awareness that the

entry of the countries of the post-soviet space into nato essentially puts any efforts at risk russians should pursue their expansionist policy and seek to restore this soviet or russian empire. and in general, regarding collective security, i want to say that yermak recently published an article in time, and it very well puts global security issues on the agenda. yes, i agree that it is unlikely that the un and nato in today's world can perform the functions that the current security situation puts on the agenda, that is, it cannot be bloc confrontations or any block confrontation of military-political blocs means that it can put humanity on the brink of a war, well, a world war with nuclear weapons, and accordingly, destruction, so this is the logic that it is necessary to create some semi-states to guarantee global security and to delegate to them the right and authority to comply with this world order ok,

well, by and large, it’s the same only at the global level and the very evo that once we came to the level of a separate state yes, when each of us delegated our certain powers to the state yes that is, we gave up blood enmity date an eye for an eye, and they transferred this right, for example, to the state to regulate. but if not, i still have a question about whether we should move towards nato, because we have discussed a lot now and still did not understand . volodymyr yuriyovych yes, and valentina, your short thesis is to move, let's try to get there in nato or build something of our own, even if someone at the bank will not like this idea. i personally think that it is necessary to move because there is nothing better. european humanity, or atlantic humanity, did not create it, and in response to your question about

what should be the trigger, or what should attract only distant countries to a new system? and thailand and burma are drunk there and brazil and korea and even small islands there in the southern part of the pacific ocean . because the topic is close to all of us, but we understand very well that after uh after all this well, how can you tell ireland or north korea and that the security guarantees that will be written to you here now will be signed by everyone there and china will be there and all of russia and you will have bright future and no one will

believe this after ukraine, mr. valentyn, is your position for us in nato or in your own way? look at the history of the entire security architecture that has developed in the world today. it corresponded to the realities after the second world war . this is the organization of the united nations, yes, permanent members of the security council, yes, with a plan of vetoes, which included the winner of that war, yes, then nato, which corresponded to the realities of the cold war and this confrontation, and the warsaw pact. today, global realities have seriously changed, and well. i don't know, that is, nato as a military-political bloc had expediency exclusively. well, once upon a time, well, the warsaw pact, when there was a confrontation between the west and the east, since one of the parties was annihilated 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 was it in afghanistan, yes, after uh, yes, the twins well, formally it was dissolved as an attack on the united states of america, accordingly, it was considered an attack on all nato countries, but we remember we believe that, by and large , even in afghanistan, it is difficult to say that the three nato operations were an allied operation, just like in most other cases where individual nato member countries were involved, but as an integral nato block. there is a very complicated procedure decision-making, which is essentially in my opinion, it is impossible for this entity to react promptly to any serious challenges, that is why i am a supporter of the fact that the system of collective security will most likely be reformatted in the world . do we have to abandon the movement in nato? as long as nato exists and as long as nato can be considered as a guarantor of security, it is definitely not worth giving up on it, but it must be taken into account that it is a war, then

it depends. look for alternative options and the option that is offered. yes, the pool of countries that have guaranteed us safety cannot be an alternative . you asked about the guarantee of the guarantee - which one is schrödinger? well, not yet. until you need them, you will not be able to check whether they are effective or not. are effective and no one can guarantee the fulfillment of the guarantee to anyone, yes. that is, it is a great pity that it suits this world, but the only thing i would like to address is a very important point, in fact, it is a beautiful book kristensh reminded us of this world order, where he talks about the fact that there are countries in the world that, in principle, want the permissible use of military force in order to impose their will on others by military means, and those who consider such a method unacceptable. well, that's how it is today day

in the world, these confrontations are taking place around whether humanity exactly where legitimizes the use of war as a way to achieve some goals or delegitimizes it if it elitistizes it if it is different , now they will see that it is possible to achieve by military means to achieve some goals, in essence, we will let this genie out of the bottle again, that it will inevitably end with a nuclear cataclysm, a global catastrophe, a matter of time, when, therefore, i tend to think that the support that ukraine will receive today is just the final, final attempt to demonstrate the fact that no one in the world has the right to use armed force in order to impose their will, there is such a thing as responsible sovereignty, but it is necessary to 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 two

weeks, but the first swallows were when you remember cancer in chickens, then on the hill 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 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 that's for sure, it's clear, yes the opposition is very interesting, of course there are contradictions, but there is a certain balance of opinions that something needs to be changed, but first of all i want to thank our guests volodymyr yuriyovych yelchenko, the legend of ukrainian diplomacy . it was interesting. but i would like to comment on valentin's words about what needs to be completed. yes, that era actually reminds me of him. do you

remember that yaroslav hrytsak was on the air - a historian, as he aptly said that war is the norm in the world and peace is an exception and it is very fragile, that's why these are our dreams that we will definitely defeat russia now and there will be no more in the world. have become and your opinion has changed about the fact that we need to join nato, are you looking for a way or are you looking for a new format, after we have discussed for such a long time with very interesting speakers ? nato must go to nato must it is simply necessary to rebuild the nato campaign, but i do not see the possibility of joining another alliance, it will be reminiscent of how when an operation is performed in a hospital, the entire

hospital must be rebuilt or a new hospital must be built, when an operation is performed in a hospital, this operation must be completed in this hospital and so on actually, it seems to me that we should complete our path 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 it will change around some security guarantees, it will be with the reform of nato, yes, or it will be the creation of some other alliance, if it is already ukraine, it will participate in this process, and all because of the war, so-and-so, with the blood of our citizens of ukraine, yes it's just that ukraine has the right to stand on the list of fundamental countries that will be reformatted after the war of such special operations forces that currently exist in ukraine, which have such experience in conducting such

military operations. there are no more like them in the world there are no countries, well, you have to understand that planetary histories, global histories, they are not accepted there in a day, two weeks, a month, and in fact, the point is more or less logical in our discussion today, may, may will be raised in the summer, in july , when they gather in madrid for the nato summit earlier. they are not they will gather, this is a planned meeting where they will adopt an action plan, what to do next until at least 2030, at least in july, we in ukraine will find out for ourselves. we decided, ok, our path to nato is at least in the summer , we will find out. are the doors to where we are moving open for us, because going to a place where, roughly speaking, you are in the press. to a closed door. well, it is possible

that there is no point in going there. and that is a fact. well, it is. not that at least in the summer we will find out the position and it will also be clear that if we find out the position earlier god forbid they will use weapons of mass destruction but first let them take chernobaivka you know what friends say yes and i think that until this day we the beginning of this summit nato ukraine ukraine ukraine will already win, we have already won and here we are today talking about contractual things like this that is, well, therefore, it should be understood like this, but all the same, people are worried about the first question, yes , when, and when will the victory be for our military. thank you for being uh with us on our broadcast, we hope it was interesting in the studio yevhen kuchin journalists 1+1 stanislav yasynskyi natali ostrovskyi i am yevgenplitskyi see you in the next broadcasts and we pass the word to our colleagues we will meet friends we will see each other we will convince

we will outplay and win the news together we are strong ukrainian superheroes who today have become legends meet the hero of ukraine dmytro kashchenko, a personal example of heroism that inspires his colleagues 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 actions to preserve the position of our army, you are able to carry out until our victory, glory to the heroes, glory to ukraine who seeks and does not lose hope, always finds it together with as a team, we created a telegram channel, a search from the sky,

every day caring ukrainians join us, together we find those who have not been contacted 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, victory dawns for us oh in ukraine and also volunteers all possible nations find everything feed all tails save them give them gifts for airplanes collect doctors help lullabies sing defenders equip everyone embrace glory to ukraine to the whole world ukraine is glorified by the volunteer family, there is no translation all of ukraine

thanks you today you are an example for this world how selflessly you should protect your motherland i am just proud of you you are simply unreal cool thank you all thank you i am paying now we are waiting for you to come home alive and healed peacefully life in 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 will rebel we will overcome, we will overcome that you are not news, together we are strong, we will overcome, we will overcome, we will win and that you are not news, together we are strong unconquered cities of ukraine this is cozy kherson pearl of the protected territories

of ukraine, the city played a significant role in the creation of statehood, became the southern center of ukrainian revival during the great terror, nkvdists shot by nationalism almost 2,000 seats, and the kherson leadership of the oun led by bohdan bandera actively fought against the german invaders because an angry kherson man stood bare-handed against the enemy column it will work, but the occupier will not invest kherson unconquered ukraine, the glory of ukraine is the support of our country, everyone says that ukraine protects the whole world from the russians, we have always defended democracy and were the first to create a democratic constitution

, ukraine provides 10% of world grain exports, we accelerate the global digital transformation and were the first in the world to create a state in smartphones and today, for the sake of democratic values ​​and our victory, we united the whole world that knows that ukraine is a country of free people, victory is ours millions of us are forced to live not at home. many people who arrived. they don’t work. they lost their jobs when they are alone with problems. if you have moved from the territory where hostilities were or continue, use the support program and receive up to three thousand hryvnias per person per month to maintain the status of an internally displaced person and payments in action, update the application and use the services section, the help of an internally displaced person will appear in the application, and the funds will go to the card, there is

support, or register with the national security service or authorities social protection of the population and submit an application for assistance there, in more detail on the website of the ministry of social policy of ukraine, guests of the russian world 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 prepare, we will clear every corner of our native land, a couple we will carry, we will win, we will win , news, ships, ukraine