a month ago, at the same time, statements were made that if evidence is found that this is putin's property, she will be arrested and that's all. i have all the glory for ukraine . and to see everything they did to you, mother, it is so difficult to see the future and the past, as if in a fog, it is difficult to remember the smell of spring in kyiv, the peaceful cheeses of the cottage cheeses, the dawn on the roofs of lviv, how we dived with friends in the black sea, the taste of ice cream on the square in kharkiv and fear, the time of courage, the time of struggle, it was never so sweet for us to distinguish ourselves by language, origin, unity, even though

we quarreled with each other before, now we are all as one , everyone around you is ready and determined, one mother, oh , in ukraine, and volunteers, everything is possible, they will find everything, they will feed everyone all the tails will be saved , they will be given on airplanes, they will be supported by doctors, they will help the doctors, they will sing about the defenders, they will equip everyone, they will hug each other. glory to ukraine to the

whole world. of the occupiers, oleksandr makhov died. oleksandr worked for many years on ukraine and ukraine 24 channels and covered events on the front lines. oleksandr served in the armed forces of ukraine. work at the front oleksandr makhov professional - friend hero may 7 day ivano-frankivsk ukraine invincible congratulations

friends 1+1 returns to the air with you night watch and in this part, we will talk about collective security, because everyone understands that at the beginning of the full-scale war of russia against ukraine, the world changed and a lot of tools that we relied on and other countries relied on, well, let's be honest, they don't work, but recently a large article was published in the times magazine by the head of the president's office andriy yarmak, in which he frankly says that the global security system in the world does not work. we need to look for another one, but we, together with you, together with our colleagues, then we will argue about this and we will immediately look for it. arguing is very cool, let's argue . come on. you already joined nato. i understand what i'm for, so that i can live peacefully. i don't know what it will be

called . nato is not too anti-nato. on my own, how many times have i hit switzerland with bach missiles, but i don't remember sweden, you know, switzerland is neutral not because it has armed forces, but because it has a banking system and no one will attack it because the money is there for me it seems that if what andriy yarmak says, if it were true, if collective security did not work, then ukraine would have surrendered in the first week, because it is thanks to the fact that collective security is working that we have been getting all those weapons since the 14th year e.g. security, she knows that russia can attack it, and that is why she helps us in principle. because she understands that russia is knocking on their door, i will raise the question. and what is collective security, for example? so, for example

, natalya, you, being in ukraine now, think that ukraine is now safe, now there is a war in ukraine and i felt for myself whether it is safe or dangerous in ukraine now, it is dangerous, that is, we definitely cannot talk about the presence of security now. well, i do not agree with the stas, because he says that there we should join nato and we are actually already a part of collective security. hello, but we can use the fifth article of the alliance and receive physical assistance on the territory of ukraine from other troops . i think that today, by the way, it seems that an amendment was submitted to the congress by one of the congressmen that, for example, the united states will be able to enter the war in ukraine with your own armed forces if as soon as russia uses weapons

of mass destruction here constantly why if i am here and you remember - do you remember, friends, how they said the deployment of un peacekeepers from poland to ukraine well, this process dragged on well, that is, we don't see peacekeepers here in poland and all this is going on, and we have a war. and they continue to bomb cities and troops advance in donbas, in particular, there is an artificial division, division, so everything is good, it's allies, and everything is bad - it's nato, i would n't like it shared, well, i agree because uh, we well, we can't say that. so it would be very frivolous to say that nato is a helpless structure that is incapable of anything, that is incapable of defending itself, and so on. well, then let's be honest, if there was a desire then. so what is there for the same russia plus or minus to try the anti-russians now would not talk about the fact that they are fighting on the territory of ukraine not with ukraine, but with too much, they consider nato

a strong structure, they are afraid of it, the key word here is afraid in the past, i said that nato is about 60 or 70% of the world's gdp, and here is russia, which can not produce its own nails. i think that not only the gdp a and b of the military-industrial complex that we see now, which are fighting in ukraine, well, anyway, look at it. it seems to me that the structures that were built after the second world war, let's give a little bit of history , very, very little. yes, we're a nice historian, we'll add it now. and with we are yehor braylyan, this is an international journalist, a candidate of historical sciences, if i'm not mistaken, and here

, good evening, and in a soothing background. ukraine needs nato and that's it. it seems to me that within the framework of the modern world, the agreements and formats of world security that were built in the 50s of the last century are now uh, well, they are not relevant, they are not working, they are not working, maybe because they are poorly constructed. simply have already lost their time period for efficiency or am i wrong, first of all, it is necessary to understand that now security alliances are more informal than what was, for example, during the cold war, when the united states of america or the soviet union necessarily signed many agreements with other countries in relation to the usa, in particular , thanks to blocks like xiaomi, asia, uh, now

a lot is being reconsidered, and on the example of britain, poland and ukraine, for example, we can say that this union is informal, so about it was announced at the beginning of february, but what will be invested, what content will be invested in it depends on us, and the british do not know what will happen to the end, and we do not know, the poles do not know, and that is why many analysts now actually agree on the fact that it is informal unions it is a guarantee of strength, i can cite the example of taiwan, which does not have direct diplomatic relations with the united states, there is an institute and ivaniv in washington, but together with those and ivaniv managed to come at a convenient time when your

phones had to sell weapons urgently on in the early 1990s under bush sr. and in other cases, i.e. in taiwan, in my opinion, it is a classic example that ukraine should follow. what is it necessary to distinguish between economic cooperation and security, and in relation to nato, there are generally such discussions within the alliance now continue around the adoption of the strategic concept of nato 2030, this is such a general document, which is a guideline according to which the alliance will exist for the next eight years , and the last such document was adopted in the 10th year. of course, i will now finish about the concept itself and russia was still an ally of nato there, and now nato is faced with a choice of how not only

to write down officially what to do with russia, china, and how to carry it all out. yes, it seems to me that we can eventually get such a certain military fiefdom, all education, that is, some 3-4 countries will start to create their own security alliances, and so, for example, there russia is creating its udkb eh, so they distanced themselves. yes, in fact, ukraine will be well, now i plan to create something in poland, britain, which we will eventually get. it seems to me that collective security is collective security, yes, this is the whole civilized world, and it protects itself from some uh, frankly idiots who want to

start something, some big war, yes, and this and there is a sense of collective security in this, but we see that even in the conditions when the war started, we all became interested in what kind of security guarantees are there for nato member countries, there is the fifth article, you yourself commented on it, 60 days to respond to the beginning of the discussion and the convocation consultations, convening consultations, points of nato were written so long ago that they need to be changed, but this does not negate the need for such a global union to be told about the strategy 23 this is just to supplement your words so that we here in the studio understand , uh, it is about what will be in madrid this summer the convened nato summit, where they plan to discuss and approve the new strategy of the alliance for the coming years, and this is probably the first thing we should be interested in . open sources, so far it

will be very difficult to say anything reliably. and to make some guesses. well, i don’t really want you. what are your thoughts on the issue of ukraine at the nato summit in madrid? first of all, it should be understood that representatives of the ukrainian expert community, including me, met with representatives of bergen - this is canada and all this was finalized in certain recommendations, e.e., ukrainian recommendations regarding the strategic concept of nato 2030, and if it was to be finalized in general, and what was prescribed by my colleagues in particular from the perspective of ukrainian foreign policy prism of the analytical center of ukraine, first of all, it is nato that must reconsider its approach to russia, that russia has violated all possible and impossible norms of

international law and many other things; there are three nato member countries - romania, bulgaria and turkey, and in no way declares its rights, well, in fact, that it is also the territory of responsibility of the security alliance, thirdly, it is quite important to understand that nato should revise its partnership for peace program, which has long been outdated and essentially does not meet the norms and requirements of the time. well, perhaps the fourth important thesis among the eight points is that it is necessary to clearly write down which ones, that is, in what there may be further cooperation of ukraine with nato, of course, the maximum program that ukraine can

count on is an action plan regarding membership, but we now see that countries that have been central for quite a long time, such as sweden and finland, are already half a step to the alliance and this is where it is an interesting story that these countries can become members of nato faster than ukraine, which is fighting for european freedom, but i want to assure you that the representatives of the ostenberg office understand the situation in ukraine quite well, but they are facing quite difficult challenges, that is, they have not only russia, but also china and climate change are many other things. but we hope that in madrid, ukraine will receive, well, if not the pdc, then at least a clear

understanding of what will happen next, that is, how the staff of the member of the extended program will be filled opportunities and opium, that is, i want to intercept your opinion, recalling the nato summit in 2008 in bucharest. when in fact, then nato was frankly scared, they were considering the possibility of providing this plan for the membership of ukraine and georgia, and putin frankly stated that if this happens, i will simply the attack on ukraine, the attack on corruption, in fact, nato was scared then, and in fact, putin started what we saw after a few months, i don't remember. yes, after the summit, there was an invasion of georgia, then there was the annexation of crimea and the invasion of donbas. if it had been, what do you think well, what does it mean if if if yes history history i don't

know about you, but we see the fact that in fact nato, giving us hope that this could happen , eventually gave up and pushed putin. well, i believe that it pushed putin to what he did, because if you see the weakness of the opponent, well, why wo n't it be used, i want to, maybe even agree with the moscow propagandists on one thing, you know that ukraine is now ukraine is now the territory of nato's influence to a certain extent because that's what you and i talked about today actually what ukraine is more now in nato than some other countries that are actually members of this organization, you know that, but we receive military aid from nato member countries, not as from nato from the collective security system, but thanks to the decisions of individual governments, parliaments and presidents of these countries, that is, we are not talking about

kolek let's try to figure out the format of nato ah ah ah he is, for today, he is relevant. please tell me why nato was created . expansion from the soviet expansion, as far as i read correctly, nato was created to repel soviet expansionism, and then 12 countries signed the washington agreement, and during the cold war, by the way, this concept of resistance risilins er-er arose then, the truth is, it related to completely different things than what we have now against of hybrid threats, but uh, in this strategic design, this will be the ninth one adopted in madrid. they were classified until 1991. well, according to the

conditions of the cold war, now they are open . documents and regarding the legendary fifth article of the 49th washington agreement, it was applied only once, it was the consequences of the terrorist attacks of september 11 , 2001, when the united states, together with its allies, launched an anti-terrorist operation in afghanistan and in its history it was a defense alliance that ensured peace and security on its territory. of course, not all of the 33 countries there can be equal, but it is quite important for ukraine that there is stable cooperation with the united states, great britain , and the countries of central europe, poland and ukraine, the baltic states, and now due to the aggressive actions of russia,

nato is strengthening its eastern flank, that is, if there were multinational battalions and battalion groups before that, that is, when military personnel from different countries are in one country, in particular , ukraine in the baltic states and poland. and now such multinational battalion groups will be created in romania and bulgaria in romania is the main such nation, the state will be france in bulgaria. well, there it is still under 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, in 1966, left part of the nato structures 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 in the balkans rather than in the western balkans, and in ukraine as potential members of their unions . in the 14th year, about the 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. and here is a very, very opportune moment, and we want to include it in our

conversation. you touched the topic of the un on volodymyr yuriyovych yelchenko is a legend of ukrainian diplomacy, he was the ambassador of ukraine to the united states, the permanent representative of ukraine to the united nations, he 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. the fundamental question is which today we are trying to resolve and find at least some kind of answer to 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? good evening, i think that this system no longer exists and its disintegration began long before february 24.

i would like to remind you that during the creation of the un in 1945-46, when this system was created, it was, as i was told, built on the un charter and everything was closed to the security meeting of the organization united nations ie the victorious countries in the second world war, let 's say, divided the responsibility among themselves, leaving the main responsibility to themselves, that is, under the five permanent members of the security council, and this system began to work, uh, at first it worked more or less normally, but for example, the first failures began in the period there is the end of the 40-50s and the beginning of the 60s, when the soviet union. by the way , it is generally an 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 each time it concerned the reception of new members to the oun. well, some were blocked by the soviet union, such as italy, japan, because they were former aggressors there, and the glyadyan union was against them becoming members of the un, then finland went there, well, and many, many other countries , eh. this is already well known i.e. no one is particularly immersed in the whole story, i am saying that if you look at the statistics of the use of the right of veto by the 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. -is it seems to me that the last time it was sometime in early march. when russia already exercised its rights this year, uh, the beginning of the soviet union, then

russia, uh, this veto was used 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 don't remember the exact numbers, but it seems somewhere like 125-130 times. that is, it's actually a tool that neutralizes everything and all the work . to control this system 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, starting with russia's veto, which she imposed, if i'm not mistaken, on the creation of an international tribunal for the downing of the mch 17 plane. this is either no, this was even earlier, after the

occupation of crimea, from that veto in march 2014 to the last one this year, it seems that russia also used its veto 20 times in march . there is uh you understand, this was clear and obvious, not yesterday and not the day before yesterday, and objectively here. so far everything is fine, so far everything is fine, why raise this issue? yes, but now about well, we won't call it reform, let's call it a reboot at the level of world leaders, that's about it is also not yet discussed whether or not everything looks like this well, i would say that it is a certain attempt to do something, it is the idea

of ​​president zelensky about the creation of the so-called u-24, that is, a group of countries that in theory can to give guarantees of ukraine's security, 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, that is, even create some kind of alternative, as i want, returning to the 45th year 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 alliances that existed before the second world war, that is, for the first time there was such an attempt to create some kind of such a universal international organization because the

league of nations, well, with all due respect, it was not universal and 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 in those years, it chose a lot of african countries and asian countries that gained independence, and finally today there are 193 countries, but also because of the paralysis of the security council, where is this right to enter, which i said is constantly abused, practically security has always blocked itself. that is, it has become incapable of solving serious international problems because someone is always a member , and more often than not, russia was against the fact that this or that conflict should be regulated in this way, as the children did not want. thus, in recent decades, as an alternative appeared and the

role of e-e increased in some regional organizations, including nato. the military wing of today's eu, which has not existed for many years. but nevertheless, it was also a regional organization plus the organization of african unity, now african shoyu from the league of arab states and such, and these regional groups began to take on more responsibility, then the osce appeared to all of us eh who covered europe and 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 eh the events that began on february 24, and more precisely, i would

say that began in 2019, the seizure of crimea , we became interested in whether this institution became convenient for an army of officials who simply launder funds through this institution. i do not want the discussion to simply move to us now in line, so let's well, roughly speaking, as an ineffective body, let's dissolve the only organization, the only one, no one dissolves the only organization on the planet that unites the largest number of countries in the world, because i tentatively imagine that russia is actually the same russia may also be interested in being transported, for example. yes, and you are right, if russia is, we know how russia operates on the territory of the european union. yes, a very large number of european officials who have already resigned from them are invited to the supervisory boards of russian state-owned enterprises. and they give