the kremlin freaks are swallowing the words of propaganda , now you know a new word, it is possible that guns and a tank will rake wheat with me again, have lullabies and go to war, someone will kiss at the end and someone will wipe away an unbidden

tear, and maybe someone will lose faith and strength, their life saving one thing, but not me i will not be nominated, no matter how much it will hurt. for our dear and beloved land, all the lights are on me. we will see their faces in the news with dignity. you are going on the lists of those awarded, they are unknown but extraordinary. they report on enemy positions, put up leaflets and blow up traitors, they bring victory closer, and because of them the enemy is burning under their feet, the earth is burning because it is our land. glory to the ukrainian partisans, every vyshyvanka is

a symbol of the indomitability and revival of ukraine, we will heal our wounds, we will decorate the scars with flowers, the ukrainian destiny will blossom again, like poppies in the field. war wounded and dead missing missing deported and displaced if you know any information about a missing or deported child, report it on the state portal children of war for

at children of war.gov.ua or by calling 0850 5:20 p.m. help bring the child home, the marathon is in progress, the only news on the air, the intera information service, we continue broadcasting, this is the program, the accent , my name is oleksiy fadeev, i salute the war, the genocide , statements of the frankly fascist headquarters 80 years after the second world war the world war is again in europe, which, moreover, causes a persistent feeling of déjà vu, so much so that the actions and statements of the russian leadership resemble the ideas and actions of the leaders of the third reich of the nazi state, the victory over which russia is inclined to attribute or not exclusively to themselves for less than a

century, europe and the world tried to avoid a major war, but de facto all efforts did not save either ukraine or ukrainians, he bombs and rockets, acts of genocide, threats of nuclear strikes, so did the efforts of the world community fail, or did the european and global security architecture fail false and what should ukraine, europe and the world do now to guarantee a peaceful future, we are talking about it today with two guests, political expert volodymyr fesenko. greetings. good evening and eh political consultant, president of the agency for research and analytics, council, dmytro vasilyev good evening, i congratulate you. so, gentlemen, you have heard the text at the beginning. and i want to ask the first question: can the current state of european and global security security architecture be

considered a crisis, or can it already be this is how to describe the crisis, of course, in the fact that this war is a bloody war that destroys the architecture of the security architecture of global security, which was created mainly after the second world war . a little later, additional elements appeared there, such as the osce, for example, in the 70s, but the main institutions of the un, nato, and later, as derivatives, other appeared, but all these institutions now turned out to be incapable of stopping this war and solving this conflict with purely international legal and civilized means, this is the main problem. if a crisis was felt before, i would say a content crisis or something like that, you know, as they say in velotekushka, for example, about problems with decision-making in the un security council, e.e., the veto right of permanent members to leave

it's been 50 years that this is wrong. new great powers have appeared that do not have nuclear weapons, but economically they are very influential there. first it was germany, japan, the former defeated states, now, for example, india, and what should be done to change the system, but the system is very conservative. and now there is a crisis obvious to everyone but it seems to me the logic of the same permanent members of the un security council, and they i would say those who have a controlling interest so far in this old system, it is half-ruined, at least an overhaul is needed, but they are afraid because there is a balancing act, the un was built on the balance of power, so there is one camp, there is another, and the rational function that performs everything that the un performs is balancing power, definitely, that is very simple, so that it does not get worse, they are afraid. if now, relatively speaking,

cancel everything that is from the un to the osce, there will be total chaos. at least it is possible at one table in the literal sense of the word to block some decisions that the other side does not like, and er, it took little things to agree to find some exit options, so the system needs changes, but rather all this will happen already after the end of the war, depending on how and in what form it will end. i agree with volodymyr that the system of those institutions that are created today are the platforms on which you can meet , discuss and make at least some decisions, it can change only after war, it is obvious that today it is not the largest war in the last 80 years, it is obvious that it is taking place on the european continent, it is obvious that the entire world structure and structure that was created after

of the second world war and it is obvious that these organizations that today do not cope with the tasks of stopping it and preventing war because we remember that the same organization of binary nations was created precisely in order to warn of a possible future war and this organization did not cope with its task of war goes, and it was initiated and started by an organization, or rather a country, a state that is a member of the security council, a member of the security council that was one of the founders of the united nations, but today it even became the question of whether this particular state created and was one of the founders of the united nations organization and whether this particular state can be a permanent member of the un security council, that is, it arises even legally because of what you said, raises two logical questions at once. first, let's talk about how did russia get there? do you know? i

think that today this is a huge issue not only for russia, but it is a huge challenge for all countries that are permanent members of the un security council. this is a huge issue for the organization's leadership. of the united nations because in 1991, when russia replaced the soviet union, it actually took the place of the soviet union of this organization a and europeans e all types closed their eyes well, okay, but for 30 years no one talked about an organization without legal ones, or rather a country without legal ones reasons and was in this organization and was in the security council of the oun made decisions and saved some decisions and then the question arises why did the organization not pay attention to this for 30 years and only now is it starting to pay attention to it 30 excuse me for interrupting conflicts and wars

, that's why it was so. that's why it's a huge issue for the general organization of everyday nations, and i think. i think, continuing what volodymyrets spoke about, that he disagreed that the organization will obviously change after the victory of ukraine. i'm convinced that ukraine's victory is of interest to the entire world community, starting with our partners the united states of america and the european union, because if russia wins, then the entire world structure collapses, then everything that was built like this and that the possibility of receiving this world in a more or less normal and adequate framework of legal and conceptual semantics and well, in fact, it collapses and then in the world of the world it finds itself in complete chaos, which, by the way, russia will lead. i think that it is in this i am interested in the united states of america, not an organization, neither the countries that created the united nations organization there, nor

the member countries of the zun, nor the countries in general that are part of this organization, so i think that this is the question of the legal grounds why the united nations organization and the leadership did not consider on what russia is legally a member of the radio and makes decisions. i think that this will be one of the key legal issues that would arise in order to change and transform this organization into a new one, which will be new. i am absolutely convinced that the new organization, the world organization of the united nations, remember the league after the league of nations, the united nations became the united nations after the second world war, which did not cope with its functions. the united nations appeared, and now the working hours of the united nations do not fulfill their functions, so it must be different. and why? and you know i will simply conclude that the key task of this new world organization will be the nuclearization of the world starting with russia, that is, russia must carry out

nuclear disarmament finally and er irreversibly. the legal successions of russia why did everyone agree that let russia be, it was some kind of simple option that they said yes , it is necessary to somehow regulate the situation with nuclear weapons , after all, there were two countries with the largest nuclear potential, the usa and the soviet union were afraid to disperse it, so they found such an option, which was supposedly optimal, that russia would, in this case, control the nuclear weapons of other countries on the territory of which there were nuclear weapons, including ukraine, there, belarusian kazakhstan was forced to give it to russia and now they have concluded that this is not a solution to the problem. yes, for a certain time, everything was supposedly under control. and now the situation is such that the very country that is supposed to guarantee security is

actually the main source of danger for everyone, and here another problem arises. that's why a situation can really arise about what to do with nuclear weapons next, because what russia is doing now, these threats to use nuclear weapons against a neighboring country, it destroys the entire policy that was being built deterrence of the use of nuclear weapons has been built up for decades, the non -proliferation of nuclear weapons is now russia destroying all of this. and here is the question of what to do with nuclear weapons, and it will be directly related to the fate of russia after the war, so this question also consists of two parts, what to do with nuclear weapons in general and with the nuclear weapons of russia, a combined arsenal, well , in general, it will be possible to change the situation, because i, well, there is always inertia, why did your policy succeed, uh, really, about the league of nations, it is actually in the hell of the second

world war, it started in god, and that is why there was an opportunity to create a new organization, and uh , the winning countries, they did it, now they are actually the values ​​of which we are defending are the other side of the conflict, russia, which has no direct allies, but to say that there is some camp there, no, putin is claiming a role . a new fighter for and the american soviet union should not be restored there and so on. well, it is only necessary, but there was a claim that it was russia that should lead the anti-imperialist

front, well, in fact, against whom, but which state it is supposed to dynamically rule the world, well, the united states is meant. but the question is, by the way, where is china? about china, yes, for some reason, even putin has forgotten. but why do i remember, i didn’t forget, he always remembers, he always remembers in china, but this is a claim. i think it is an attempt to answer for these humiliations that were in self-confidence at the highway summit, but when we talk about the future of this world's global security architecture, we must remember china. it seems that such dark people will be the party that will be the main one. carrier of conservatives i felt that it is necessary to preserve what it is. and here you say it very precisely, because literally while preparing for this program, i reread the theses that i announced in all the calls at the baoev e-e summit in april of this year, and they are absolutely conservative.

the only thing i want to preserve is to change china, well , this is very old rhetoric, it is against a unipolar world, and so on. well, conventionally speaking, a reasonable force is a force that has a long history of politics, so there is a tradition, they are very careful about all these upstarts like putin. you know, this is a very chinese position . china is connected with the precedent of a change of representation in the un security council, in particular, when at one time after the second world war, china actually represented those chechens 64 yes yes and then the prc e.e. the people's republic of china already

only from the 70s, but i think that this precedent is, er, it is, er, and it can be, let's say, a certain touchstone for the future, what can be pushed back from, what can be changed, but i will throw in one more topic , but in addition to this, we must remember we mentioned the osce, the osce was created in the mid-70s of the so-called detente, there was still a soviet union and, in principle, the detente ended quickly, but the osce remained. and here i think that the organization that definitely needs to be fundamentally changed and to create a new system of regional security architecture in europe - it exactly instead of the osce, because here there are no manifestations of effectiveness. and here i think it will be easier to change the situation as far as russia is actually alone, well, alone, it represents itself in that organization and there will be a chance to create a new e-e structure. by the way, just e-e proposals that

the yarmak group made a discussion about the kyiv security type agreement, this could be what i would say . but i think that this is just an option for how to change this system in europe, and the system will be multi-level in one way or another. well, this is a separate situation here, i think it will be more difficult to change. but in europe, it is necessary to create a new security system plus regional options, etc. well, let's say the sectoral elements of security, and by the way, this is precisely the proposal of rasmus yarmak's group. it is about this that a collective agreement must be adopted, but there can be separate sectoral and regional elements of this security. well, by the way, i agree with volodymyr about

that this idea, this framework that was presented by the yarmaka group, is smeared. it can have a very strong influence on the regional security system, but i am convinced that it will be part of the overall globality of the security system, that is, i am more inclined to think that everything will change globally, you know how once again, quoting president zelensky, two theses come to mind. the first one is that he, by the way, spoke about it in the beginning. he can do what he used to do, the first thesis , the second is that you should not disrespect putin’s words about the nuclear threat, that is, president zelensky believes that he is not blocking, he agrees because putin can fly off the rails and his system that makes decisions, the security system, well it's serious, so putin already has a warning of the west. they weren't serious either. by the way, not

only the west. because you just talked about china, let's go back to china, because, uh, and i'm in shock, i think that you had a separate conversation with putin and the chinese leader and the indian leader both said, well, one more publicly, the other less publicly , there, the indian leader said directly to the public that this is a wrong war, that we honestly started it, we don't need it to be here, that's why it needs to be ended and to what putin said about what yes i also do not want this war and i think that it should be ended soon, in general, there are a lot of discussions today about november 15, this is the date when the meeting of the g20 or twenty is supposed to take place, and it is during this meeting that putin would probably like to conclude something that's why he's in such a hurry, and that's why he's in such a hurry with what's needed and the same for them , because he's proposing

. he must show the russians why so many russian soldiers died, why the russian army was almost lost, why so many russian weapons were lost, and why now mobilize society so that they go there and die in this russian-ukrainian war war, that is, they now have a key thesis that they are dispersing in russia, we see it there behind the nightingale behind the bitter. well, maybe we read them and look, they talk about the fact that the ukrainians took our ukrainian, our russian liman, that is, they believe that the liman is already russian territories , that is, they want to show those mobilized that now you have to fight and die like this one of their propagandists says eh solovyov that eh русский человек всегда готов умереть and they have to say there why they now have to die they have to die for their russian land and this is one of the

explanations why putin occupied these territories and now annexed them because he wants to show that russians have to die for russian territories, but listen, we have a very clear position, it is very clearly represented by the actions of the armed forces of ukraine where the occupied estuary and the de -occupied kharkiv oblast is what is happening in kherson oblast. well, i think that there is no need to comment now. everyone understands. and what will happen next in crimea. we also understand. i watched your stories this morning. you show very clearly what we have on the border with belarus on those borders, because we understand that if there they even think about leaving the territory of belarus , then they will be met by a very unexpected... the secretary of our slave danilov told us recently, so listen, it will be a completely

understandable story, but i will return and i want to break up where i started, in my opinion, the security system, er, the regional security system in ukraine of course, things will change and on my the view of the osce will be to change, the osce did not cope with its task during the war, starting from the 14th year, and what happened in donbas, if you do nothing. the war, and she especially wanted to pay attention to this war from the 14th year, something was happening there, some meetings were held there, but the issue was not resolved, and therefore it led to the 22nd year, february 24, ah, and in my opinion, what is the main problem of these of all organizations that once existed created very correctly by the right people with the right positions with the right documents , why is it not being able to do it now, and because they because they entered the system, well, that is, several generations have changed and people no longer understand what freedom is, what is correctness, what

are values, and so on and they start playing the game let's be like this, we'll hear one side and the other side, and secondly, i want one, i'm sorry, one for example, i want to play it all the same way that we see a policeman and here organizations should be policemen in the world . we see a policeman who sees the thief and the victims of the games. i want to be very careful about the position of the thief and the position of the victims. this is absolutely not possible. a policeman should treat the position of a thief . the united masses should, from the point of view of international law, treat russia in the same way that it does the osce, but they do n't do it, that is, they turn into some uh, well, i'm sorry, but journalists journalists, yes, they do not come from the point of view of the law, they come from the point of view of what is happening because it is happening. so we show two positions, the public must decide, and here are the policemen, and here is the organization. it must come from the point of view of the law

. five kopecks, i bet ukrainian kopecks from the hryvnia on the 20th, and, in my opinion, you missed the reason why he is not. this is elementary bureaucracy, the procedure defeated the goal, you know. yes, yes, she spent the essence of the organization itself. that's exactly what i want to talk about, just an analogy with a policeman , look here, it's a little more complicated when they were created , and then in europe, it's not policemen. actually, it's not policemen . there was the soviet union racing china well, the whole world community is actually an arbitration, an arbitration platform where it was possible to decide and within the framework of which the arbitration was and was in

its own legislation, the international law of the un charter and so on, and there was a balance of interests, where were i say yes, the five main judges are permanent members of the un security council, and the others had influence, but it is so broad, yes, they changed in this arbitrary arbitration. and as for the police officers, in fact, while there was a cold war, there was such an unspoken division of this zone of the influence of the western world, they are policemen here. yes, here is the zone of influence of the soviet union, this is the warsaw pact, and there, in fact, the soviet union, well, at least twice acted as a policeman there, here are the curtains. and i fly from this side, there were sites where interests collided there were proxy wars in vietnam. well, even earlier, the korean war, and then afghanistan, the standard. and then the fairy tales. yes, yes. well, there they were fought

. satisfies putin and to some extent china. when in fact the only policeman left was the united states and they used this function several times. another thing is that they relied on an international coalition. this was right when they solved problems behind cancer, but now putin, you know, he constantly refers to the united states as an example, saying that someone can, yes, yes, he wants the 15th year, all this rhetoric is absolute, he wants to claim the role of a world or at least a regional policeman, but he acts contrary to international law, contrary to legislation, in fact, he breaks the system that, well, let's just say, is not very effective, it is already outdated in many of its elements, but it more or less worked, now this system is breaking form, he has already broken it, he would be more

he said, what remained is instinct, there are some ruins, they are there, someone is sitting there. they are talking about something, but it has no effect. and in this world sense, there is indeed a crisis of this system, but ultimately its final outcome depends on putin and on russia, what will happen to it if russia disappears. as the entity that became the legal successor, then it will be necessary to create a new system or look for replacement options, and here i drew attention to the perspective of two elements of the new system, one element that also needs some reconstruction, by the way, is nato we are not mentioned, but nato is the same element of world security before, as one of the camps that opposed the soviet union with its satellites , then, well, in fact, it performed the function of such a world policeman, even in limited functions, but it also became not very effective that we

now we can see it, and here it is, if we mention the world policeman. i think that the world does not yet know who will be and in what form this world policeman will be. but if we go out, i really hope for it. the winner in this war, our country can act as at least a regional policeman, together, maybe even as part of an international coalition. yes, but here is the reconstruction of nato, the renewal of nato, so that this organization really came out of its ineffective forms, let's say, and again demonstrated its power and ability and new the role of ukraine both in the regional and in the global security system is possible where we will perform eh not only we are possible but we will definitely perform the role of such a policeman to ensure security, albeit regionally levels and here is the main question, it simply remains

open, what will happen to russia, this is a question that i just want. for the last 10 10 minutes, what will happen to russia, gentlemen? well, let's refer to our general budanov, the head of the main intelligence department, who said that there are two scenarios or russia well, after all, they know more there and give us information, ah, but this is very logical, that's what he says, and he said, let's just repeat his thesis here. he said that the first option is that russia is recovering, that is, the forces are healthy the forces in russia understand that something needs to be decided, they decide at their level and offer to the whole world, including ukraine, that they apologize, that they admit all their mistakes, that they leave all the countries they occupied or parts of the countries they occupied and it's not only ukraine, it's not only crimea, donbas, it's a large part of those parts