to give then we instruct our referent and advisers to do so in the central committee of the cpsu, so it was in the administration of the president of russia to always find a reason to justify our decision, well, let's say hitler sent provocateurs disguised in polish uniforms to the german radio station this there was a reason to attack poland. poland could have done nothing at all, she did nothing. well , people in polish uniforms came and killed the germans, and that's exactly the case here. can we if we don't hit the crimean bridge ? let's say to use nuclear weapons there or not to hit ukrainian structural objects, then i am asking you , then he himself will change russian soldiers into ukrainian uniforms, they will come to sell crimean wax and blow it up under the cameras of the first channel , skabeeva will be standing there with a microphone, who will ask in ukrainian to a russian soldier , you came here to kill us, and he will say so. well, that's the reason, that is, there is

absolutely no need to be afraid of putin, because he only understands the language of power, but if we start living in a world where we can't insult him like that, we're driving ourselves into a wet corner because we ca n't answer him anymore, that is, when we sit under the table in an imaginary way . from our reaction, i can strike an infrastructure object, i will make such a decision, but i need to understand if there is putin, what will the consequences be, so the consequences can allow me to review the decision, if you say about the lviv region, what are the consequences, but they are there they sit under the table, they are afraid, but they are afraid, well, it’s logical . you understand the same logic of the gopnik, and you too, if you have somewhere in the yard, this gopnik walks, i want to

take money from you in time, and so on. and all the time you think you have to bypass the gopnik somehow. don't get caught in the eyes, god forbid you meet this gopnik in the end-resh when you meet him, you immediately give him everything when you decide that you take a knuckle duster with you or sign up for a course on answering various gopniks i'm just objects yes , he goes to at least to another yard. well, he is with you he doesn't cling to your yard anymore, he doesn't appear like that here, and you have to realize that this is not political logic. we are all the time, and this is the same problem, all the time angelika, we try to think about putin from the point of view of political logic, and in politics, it really is, if you don't you will annoy some neighbor of yours in a democratic state , he is not honest, he will not do anything, at least he will try to come to an agreement with you. as you said , democratic is a democratic leader, even democratic leaders are conditional like orban. they are all they will react anyway, and not be the first to provoke you. and you, in most cases, because they think about the

voters, about their reaction, they live in electoral states in any case, and this is not an electoral state, it is an autocrat, well, now we will talk about the internal ukrainian aspects of the situation with a question isn't she a match? don't we have the elements of such an autocracy? this is the resignation of the head of the nbu against the background of the war. serhii fursy, investment banker . congratulations, mr. serhiy. well, the resignation of the head of the nbu is long-awaited. even before the war, since the spring of 21st year, in fact, since the spring of 21st year, absolutely exactly why it was discussed for so long and only now happened, what happened at all, what was the last straw? well, i think there was an appointment of an anti-corruption prosecutor who finally stimulated a lot of cases nabu used to be certain, but they did not pass it on to the prosecutor's office because they knew that it would not go there, now there is an absolutely insane head who used

to be just in nabu and he is ready to promote the case and supports it, and that is why mr. shevchenko was suspected for things that became a reality even before he came to the national bank, that is, it was before him , and since this suspicion was looming, the head of the nbu decided to resign in order to take care of his health, but because of the destruction of his reputation, well, that is what we are talking about not about his personal qualities and not about conflicts with the president's office, about the fact that he was at the head, there should be a person who should inspire trust in society, i understand correctly, well, even by law, it is written that there cannot be a person who does not have a clean reputation and an unclean conscience relatively speaking there has to have an impeccable reputation. in fact , he had conflicts with his office even before the war. there were attempts to somehow put pressure on the national bank. we read the news operation there

. to the prosecutor's office , serhiy. let's then summarize the pros and cons of his activity, because he had such a direct conflict with the ministry of finance all the time. and they saw differently how they conduct monetary policy there politics, how to save ukraine during the war, and so on, and supposedly, at first after february 24, there was a certain stabilization of their joint activities, but in the end it resulted in his resignation. as a result of the conflict with the ministry of finance, the conflict between the national bank and the ministry of finance is quite natural and is embedded in the functionality of these institutions. that is why it is normal when you have the national bank and the ministry of finance having different positions because they have different natures and this conflict had to exist exists and will always exist in relation to how the work was performed by the national bank after the start of the

war, this is a job for five plus, we all now for the first time saw a very high-quality regulation of the banking system, the situation in the financial sector is much better than we could even dream at the beginning of the war and now we saw a very correct reaction of the national bank to the challenges and the result of those reforms that were carried out in the banking system after the maidan, the cleaning of the banking system, the creation of the same regulator, the result of gontareva's reforms, in fact, now we we can see in the quality of the financial system, therefore, since february 24, the national bank has done an absolutely flawless job, in fact, it is a five -plus, and here it can only be put down before the start of the war, probably the negative was after the release from mali, although the release itself was a resin and it was a ticking time bomb that caused certain personnel conflicts. because of these conflicts, a lot of quality people left the national bank. i can only hope that some of them will now

return. of course, it was negative. an element of his activity was the result of his appointment, but after the war, the work of the national bank deserves only the sheep, you said that the conflict is normal between the ministry of finance and the national bank, and then whose side was the truth because they tried to pursue a somewhat different policy? the truth is that they have different tasks, so each of them work and when each of them does his work. as he has to do, there will be a conflict, he is laid by the very construction of the national bank, his main purpose is to fight inflation. the ministry of finance has to fill the budget, and these desires sometimes completely contradict each other, because the higher the inflation, the easier it is for the ministry of finance to fill the budget. therefore, this is a very natural conflict. he does not demonstrate any personal relationships. this is an institutionally

natural conflict. of the post-maidan prime minister arseniy yatsenyuk, he then headed the savings bank of the country and was considered one of the famous politicians of this generation, as far as we can now say that the appointment of the magnate will change the policy of the national bank . perhaps there is more transparency, if you want political. i hope that the policy of the national bank will not be changed, because the main risk is actually as always. this is the risk of the independence of the national bank. the only thing we can fear now is that as a result of certain appointments this independence may decrease, and the influence of politicians on the work of the national bank will increase. for example, we can see this on the example of turkey, where erdogan took control the turkish central bank, as a result, is not pursuing the policy that should be pursued by an independent instruction, but the exact opposite, and as a result, inflation in turkey is already 83%, in ukraine during the war it is now 22%."

further and with regard to international partners, for example, predecessor shevchenko always tried very hard to show himself as a person who cooperates with the international monetary fund and can withdraw money for ukraine . there is more help, more losses. really one main one of communicators, and shevchenko was still the person they were appointed to be. well, come on, the release of smolia disrupted our cooperation with the million currency fund for a very short time, and that's why he probably tried to communicate more. because it was his policy

that depended on whether the ministry of internal affairs would return to cooperation with ukraine or not we will return in the future ukraine, one way or another, the highest years of cooperation with international currencies, i do not think that now the national bank will be its institution that will create problems in this cooperation. and i also think that mr. pishnyi perfectly understands the importance of this cooperation and will defend it at any level. and please tell me, sir, how do you imagine the hryvnia exchange rate and inflation in the near future, well , look at inflation this year, we expect it to be somewhere around 30% and next year too somewhere at the level of 30%. this is actually the main main economic challenge, it is the rise in prices that can really be stopped. we cannot do anything about the exchange rate as long as the war continues, the pressure on national currencies will continue and then everything depends on many factors, primarily from the level of support of our western partners if they will fully finance our needs, which are in money, relatively

speaking, the central bank did not fall to fully finance the budget deficit and the national bank did not turn on the e-e at full printing press, so there will be some gradual slowing down of the game, however, once again, there are no fundamental reasons for the fall of the hryvnia right now, but the pressure on the national currency will remain until the end of the war. thank you, thank you, mr. serhiy. programs serhiy furs, investment banker we talked with him about the resignation of the head of the national bank of ukraine well, by the way, an interesting observation is that the resignation of the head of the nbu is connected with the appearance of an anti-corruption prosecutor who started working for nabu, by the way, what many were afraid that if an anti-corruption prosecutor is appointed, the entire personnel policy will in any case be changed because such a question arises. i am not even talking about the personality of mr. shevchenko and the likelihood of indictment.

prove in court, but the question always arises. if such an accusation was intended, would he be able to take the position of head of the nbu at one time because there was no anti-corruption prosecutor and they thought that he could and would not be in the coming years, so they wanted to hide something, they thought that they could do without everyone these thermal and anti-corruption cases, or to appoint whoever we want as corruptors. and you know how they once said in ukrainian politics that the one who works with me is no longer a corruptor, good oligarchs are bad, good corruptors and not very corruptors and strangers and what is called authorism , everything is friends and enemies are law, and our western allies want it to be completely different, so that everything is according to the law, so that the officials who were appointed to responsible positions do not have any real thoughts,

so that the government does not dispose of trust capital in order to agree with the possibility of appointing people with a dubious reputation or even people who may be under suspicion, but again, mr. shevchenko may not have a dubious reputation, but a person who dares in general working in the civil service must be clearly aware that she must respond to all these challenges in an appropriate manner and not hold public positions until there are no divisions regarding her honesty and this is absolutely normal. it seems to me that the approach to civil service is as it seems to me. in a state governed by the rule of law that and the official in this case, mr. shevchenko, resigns allegedly because of his health condition, and the next day, suspicions are announced to him, well, the connection is clear to everyone. why did he resign from his post, but he leaves he is asked to leave behind closed doors because there were no legal grounds to fire him yes yes well

, maybe mr. shevchenko himself was aware that this statement would appear by now and it would be necessary to react to it one way or another then he was warned just like that then someone warned about it i knew about this that some such schemes are being built in our country. i think i would like more transparency. transparency is when he resigned after being nominated. it is logical that the loan will be with me. it was so that no one knew about her, the media is true, everyone wondered what the reasons for the resignation of the head of the national bank were, they invented some political reasons. probably he did not cooperate with someone there. he did not do something like that . he has it because he is often abroad now for treatment, so he won't show it here, maybe we wish him health and a fair solution in any case it is important yes vyacheslav likhachev is a member of the expert

commission of the center for soviet freedoms who received the nobel prize yesterday so we congratulate mr. vyacheslav let's talk about the evening let's talk about this nobel prize and you know what happened to it in ukrainian society there was such an ambiguous reaction because that the center for civil liberties received it with a memorial and with a spring, in fact, with the leader of the spring, who is in prison, lukashenka. and many people spoke, and we discussed this yesterday with the former minister of foreign affairs of ukraine mr. mogilevska, what is this actually preserving the concept of the three brothers, mr. hrytska, they defend this idea, i defend the opposite idea that it is necessary to give bonuses to those who fight against reactionary regimes to expose their crimes, and here it is done by the tsgs and the memorial and spring, but i think that despite that mr. vyacheslav believes that both of these points

of view have every right to exist, that there is truth in both of them, because i do not know whether the nobel committee was guided by how then, mr. vyacheslav, you feel about the fact that you received the prize next to in the spring and the memorial, first of all, it is very difficult for me to evaluate the decision of the nobel e-e committee, it is very difficult for me to be such a detached observer in this, because the nobel prize was awarded to a measure from ukraine by an organization to which i have the honor to belong, and it would be strange if i started to criticize the principles er, the decision of the nobel committee in this context, er, besides, it is generally about, if i am not mistaken, the first nobel prize that went to ukraine, and in this context

, it would be strange if we had the first of ukrainian numbers in the country, there would be a lot of disputes about betrayals and everything else, but returning to the essence of the question, well, i think that this is of course an attempt to distribute the prize between three brotherly nations. this is of course not an attempt by the nobel committee. i certainly do not know the motivation of the nobel committee but it seems so, this is not an attempt to hmm ah to file such a pass so that three countries, two of which attacked the third, would solve the issue of measure between themselves. i think that this is a very important signal that the protection of human rights and respect to human life and human dignity are

principles that are dangerous to violate when the state violates its principles, it becomes dangerous not only for its own citizens, but also for those around it, for all of humanity, the international community. when in russia an organization that receives this award is banned which is behind bars, this means that if human rights and freedom are suppressed in russia and belarus, then these countries are dangerous for all others, and ukraine is an example of that since february 24, the most active area of ​​activity of the center for civil liberties has been the documentation of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law in connection with the full-scale aggression of the russian federation, so

it seems to me that there is a logical connection here, but it lies in something else, as oleksandra matviychuk, the head of our organization is about the struggle under the old and well-known slogan, that is, our freedom, if the world had previously paid attention to how human rights are violated and freedoms are suppressed in to the russian federation and belarus, if the fighters for human rights and civil liberties in these countries had not found themselves alone with their own regimes, perhaps we would not have observed today the aggression of the russian federation, which uses the resources of belarus against ukraine, and this award, in my opinion, is a valuable reference point and a reference point regarding the priorities that should be in the world community to

prevent conflicts and preserve and establish a fair measure because well, it is not always that the prize is skillfully given to human rights defenders. it was received by political figures of your country, er, barabama. well, there are many more influential people from the world of politics, and when this prize goes to human rights defenders, it is a clear signal from the nobel committee to the international community about the importance of the topic of protecting human rights and civil liberties to ensure peace and stability . on earth, i just want to conclude, mr. vyacheslavovych, is it possible to say that awarding the peace prize to human rights organizations means that it has nothing to do with the state that the human rights organization does not represent

his state and represents his specific values , because as far as you are concerned, i understand what this is about in relation to the abundant and in relation to the memorial. well, they did not prevent any repressions, they did not get anyone out of the prison of their state, it is difficult to criticize the inadequacy of the level of struggle against the regime, a person who is now is behind bars i don't think it's very fair to blame alisa bilecki for not fighting enough against lukashenka, if lukashenka, but uh, well, in the context, he received the award personally, even in contrast to the memorial and the center of civil liberties, and i am talking about the fact that of course neither the state is awarded, it is not about the fact that russia, belarus and ukraine received the nobel prize

. do not always work in harmony with state bodies and not only in the case of our belarusian and russian colleagues, but we can recall the work carried out by the center for civil liberties in 2013-2013 and earlier during the revolution of dignity during yanukovych's regime, when we also played the role of these cornered human rights defenders who are forced to oppose the illegal actions and policies of their own state, and it is not about what is awarded by the state, the russians are awarded, belarus is awarded, those people are awarded who choose

the values ​​of the values ​​of freedom, the values ​​of the right to protection from from the point of view of the nobel committee, these values ​​should protect peace in international and international relations if they were at the helm of belarus or at the helm of the russian federation people like bliatskyi or people like e-e lead the memorial banned in the russian federation. of course , there was no such terrible war and the whole situation with e-e stability in the region would look completely different . once again, congratulations on this high award. this is really the first nobel prize in ukraine, and by the way, i am very glad that this award was given to human rights defenders and not to politicians, because it would of course raise different questions.

although some people wrote on social networks why not zelenskyi, and there is supposedly an explanation that candidates were submitted even before the start of a full-scale invasion, they say next year perhaps volodymyr zelenskyi to the committee by the way, they said that they do not award prizes to people who are waging war, but then the question arises why not say navalny is no longer waging a war, he is also in prison, as i also mentioned about him. and it could also be that way, you know. i think there was a great desire to give the nobel prize to the memorial center it is also possible, that is why not zelensky, why not the memorial was actually destroyed by the russian regime during these 30 years. it was the flagship organization not only of the russian human rights movement, and its appearance in the soviet union meant that there are people who are ready to fight repression, and activists were killed and imprisoned in "prison, her activity

led to the fact that the same memorials appeared in various former soviet republics that have already started work for their countries in the appropriate direction. the ukrainian revival, that is, it is a serious contribution, and perhaps the nobel committee had the idea of ​​solidarity with the memorial against the background of its destruction, that is, it may not have been about a russian organization, but about a simple organization known as a human rights organization that fought against stalinism and decided to destroy it in the backwaters of the city but, of course, awarding simply a russian organization in these conditions could also be considered incorrect, then the question arises: why are we awarding another organization from other countries that are already investigating such russian crimes today's or the belarusian regime close to putin, it is possible that this trio of e-e

laureates could have arisen in this way, that is, it could have been so. and spring, i don't think that you should look separately at the victory, that we should look separately at the victory of the material and the spring, because i think that receiving the nobel together with the memorial is an honor, one way or another, the memorial will remain in stories about the water protection movement in the world, as academician andriy sakharova remained there. he is definitely not ukrainian. he supported ukraine, as the memorial supported ukraine and his nobel prize created a completely different status of the rights of the water protection movement in the soviet union at the time, as well as now. i think that it is possible to approach i told you this yesterday , and i can tell you now that i said it mr. grishko, what can we look at when we look at it as the idea of ​​three brotherly nations, are we not imposing our complexes on others, this idea of ​​brothers three brotherly peoples may be in our head, but

it may not be in the head of the norwegians, who do not at all consider themselves a brotherly nation and swedes or danes , they live next to them, and the swedes and danes also believed that these were three brotherly peoples. sweden owned norway, but norway never they did not believe that it should be based on such a state concept. it may not treat ukraine, but it may once again give awards to organizations from three different neighboring countries that are consistently fighting the same repressions. that is, these are our psychological traumas that parkova and they usually escalate at the moment of russian aggression because now we are also told that you know and you took us three united people and we speak norwegian women, don't you think that with this award you reinforce the thoughts of vladimir putin and his idea but this may be the last about they think that they do not think for themselves, that is, they can proceed from a different concept, again, do they think that it was necessary for these three organizations to provide

premises at the same time? what are you asking me? material i believe that it was possible to give a prize to the center of civil liberties matviychuk or some other ukrainian organization that deserved it, i think that it is civil liberties that fully deserves this award, there are many collaborators with him, i know about all the summer activities of all of them, this is true honored human rights organization of ukraine, the truth is that in the 13th and 14th years i was pressing yanukovych, she felt it. yes, i am a memorial to the times of putin's regime, this is also a reality. that's why i think that honoring is because if i were the head i would vote for a separate er honor of the nobel committee. i think that i could just be a nobel prize laureate. the other side of mr. vitaly is to be close to those who fight against the regimes in their country. they do not support these regimes, they

are familiar with you. you express support for ukraine, but the question arises: why are we not ashamed, this is a good question that we have a belarusian battalion, which concerns kalinovsky and that russian battalions are why russians and belarusian citizens russia , citizens of belarus should fight with us in this war, fight for this one and we will not be neglected, you can say no, it is not like that and it should be because the exercises are done right, fight together with us against these regimes and these people are essentially doing the same thing, but they use different methods and die like nataliya estemirova, let's say she died in the war with the regime back when the majority of ukrainians considered the remote control to be the best politician in the world and dmitriev what an old man who is responsible for this unfortunate sandrach, where did our classics die, he has been in prison for a year now, his life was simply destroyed, the fact that he told the truth about what the chekists did, that is, now ukrainians are destroying their friends with their own hands,

well, in essence, you can say allies because they don't want to be in the russian-belarusian context. as you can see, i didn't say a single word of rebuke to those people who think so, i understand their position, that's why yesterday when i argued with mr. ogryzko, i also didn't say that he and you are wrong. i'm just i explained my position in angelika, both of these positions have every right to exist, we are now in a country that was attacked by russia, a memorial, a russian organization, i just understand these ukrainians too, who do not want to be close to russians, belarusians. my wife, but if we measure it , we need it to stop treating russians and belarusians as our own, because again, all the time, we perceive them as our own above and beyond, that's what the problem is. regimes and in which there are human rights organizations and our human rights protection