which he annexed the ukrainian territories. he said that who in general invented these rules -based means, er, this system. we are not going to live by them, that is, the person clearly said that the un charter includes the actor boyce, the paris charter and a number of other documents that his predecessors signed, so actually partly and he, they are not binding for him, what can be added with a person who fundamentally does not intend to adhere to international law and agreements. and tell me, in principle, how much do you believe that now russia is thinking about the negotiation process and not victory on the battlefield, let's say so, maybe they are thinking about using negotiations or this kind of negotiations in order to get a certain operational pause, it is clear that now from this so-called partial mobilization, they still do not

they manage to do nothing, they throw unprepared people alone, they need time in order for these mobs to somehow, well, organize in some way and then definitely do something, so it is clear that, well, accept some serious proposal of theirs, let's let's remember what matvienko said, she first accused us of an anti-constitutional rebellion and coup in 14th year, she did not mention that then there were parliamentary and presidential elections, well, this means pro-fascists, nazis and so on, that is, they definitely do not start negotiations with such positions if they do not change, well, in fact let's say that i don't even know what to call the russian , this distorted position, it's unrealistic, the opposition, what to talk about, actually, they can use the negotiations exclusively in order to get a pause in order to prepare with a larger force generated i mean larger than now

to continue the final solution of the ukrainian question so we should not go for it especially against the background of the successes of our defense forces of the armed forces it is certainly that it will be foolish it will be a mistake if we agree get involved in some minsk three times some other things, and even more so russia took this step, it included in our territory in its legal field what, in principle, you can talk about with them and what we can have our western partners who say that some of them say that russia cannot win. and some, thank god , are our closest friends. they say that ukraine must win and we must support ukraine as much as it takes, so i think it would be completely pointless on our part to destroy the formula. please, what do you think about what happened today in minsk, why is the ministry of foreign affairs of belarus summoning the ukrainian ambassador , accusing ukraine of preparing an attack

on belarus, what does this mean, in principle, of course that mr. lukashenko is balancing on the one hand, he is holding on to the money with the bayonets of the russian federation and they are pushing him and not only drowning himself in the blood of ukrainians by giving the territory , but actually in the invasion of the belarusian troops, of course that he must somehow show that it means that he are such real allies, well, of course, all this nonsense that he is an ally because he protects the russians so that the belarusians don’t hit them in the back for such very strange wording . there are criminals is the country that was preparing an attack from four directions and it is ready to show it, that is, it is all nonsense and cartilage, i don't think there is any reason to actually blame them on us, on the contrary, i

blamed my own government for the fact that it still hasn't decided in the belarusian direction and did not say that in fact, since this is a common enemy and we see that peace in europe will return only when there is a democratic government in belarus and ukraine will make maximum efforts to ensure that this happens, and in fact if there is an attack from the territory of belarusian belarus belarus, then it will simply speed up this step, which in principle should be strategic for us, in principle, from the point of view of the future development of events, you admit that in the countries of the post-soviet space, such negative sentiments in relation to the current russian policy may increase. after all, we saw that in samarkand vladimir putin was not a welcome

guest for the leaders of the countries of central asia. of the people's republic, should we say that the post-soviet space is already undergoing certain such drastic changes for this war, or are the leaders of the former soviet republics still waiting? on the trajectory of destruction, it will definitely not happen in a week. but i think that during the year these processes will simply accelerate, everyone can see that russia is not able to fulfill those obligations, which means that club of dictators and we saw it there in the same kazakhstan, and now, thanks to the meeting that took place in prague and between armenians and azerbaijanis, there are more agile, more powerful and more reliable forces on the continent that are actually going through these steps and they are squeezing

the russian federation. i am not talking about the european part, that is, moldova has understood the partial occupation of the russian federation . throw russia out of there and solve it in the end, this is not a conflict that has been going on there for 30 years, i think that for the countries of central asia, they also understand that russia is a weak player, it was powerful only in appearance, well, it has already been accepted there, well, actually, if i see the numbers, they someone gives the slack, it can be written off, and china is such a powerhouse, such a force that is gaining momentum, it is counted and of course that it will fill these operated ones that are left by the russian federation, that is, i think this is the wording of the post-soviet countries. well, by the way, we are also already we have to change it in our lexicon. yes, because it would be strange to call, for example, the united

states the post of the british empire. we need to protect ourselves from it. i think that soon others will shun this name, shun the fact that they had such relations with the russian federation, but of course that certain for a while, russia will play such a certain role, just like ours, it is convulsions, convulsions of the russian empire, of course they are capable of causing harm to those countries about which you would say, but already serious harm, serious to get together and grab something from kazakhstan, i think that all the times have already passed. well, we can not call it the post-soviet space, just that all these countries are united by the fact that they have common borders with the russian federation, it can be called eastern europe and central asia here you have the whole of the caucasus, yes. well, i don't know geographically, yes. eastern europe, the south-south caucasus, where is this, which caucasus is georgia, armenia, of course

. uh, we'll say there or there bly - the middle east, and our western partners, the middle east, have a slightly different concept, that is, geographical prices, names, they definitely have, well, in political jargon, they have different meanings and they are reformatted . i.e. simply the baltic states of the grouping, they also mentally show differently that they are different, of course, that the time has come for us to shun it, we correct it as nikief kyiv in english, it should be the same, we know, i think that here alone ukraine contributed to the fact that this post-soviet space remained in different formations in people's minds. i will remind you of the commonwealth of democratic choice during viktor yushchenko's time. before that, he was the goam of georgia, ukraine, armenia, moldova. here are excellent

examples of such an understanding of geography. this is no longer our example, but we took an active part in the eastern partnership program, but i will tell you that i was always a strong opponent of ukraine participating in the program and said, well, why? belarus is a member of the eurasian union. azerbaijan does not want to join anywhere. armenia vacillates between the eurasian union and association with the european union . all of them have completely different orientations. well, there were three associated countries, ukraine, georgia and moldova. this also did not work because only we from moldova received candidate status . georgia so far, there is no point in these interests, except that we are not uh, we are former soviet republics, you understand. this is uh, important, or we know what you call a thing, what qualities it will have.

of course, but we remember our difficult path and to the east side when we turned around there, well, i have the ukrainian government on this, it is definitely not an option now, 83% of ukrainians are in favor of immediate accession to nato, 86 to the eu, that is, thank god, these mental superstitions are - that we have something in common , since we had a common history with the russian empire or the soviet union, then in the future we should be with russia. thank god that these fools are no longer confusing ukrainians. things definitely that we need to change the language, by the way, that's where the big seven is, or the big twenty, it's not. it's not a seven. it's not a big group. that is, we have to go back to the false names then and we will . may be a simpler question, of course we ca

n't be somewhere together with russia, but together with georgia we have to be somewhere, to what extent do we have something in common with georgia, apart from our former participation in the soviet union, it is obvious that we are united with moldova yes, we simply have a common border with cordoba and it is clear that you are united with belarus . were not in the soviet union, georgia would be closer to us than, say, turkey or i don't know kiper well, you know well, the first thing is definitely if we look at the map and understanding the factor of the russian federation which well, i think that it is closer there for some years will not go anywhere, it is certain that without georgia there cannot be a peace of security, i mean without ukraine, moldova, georgia and belarus there cannot be a peace of security and prosperity on the european continent

because it is certain that the russian empire, the soviet union and modern russia need to be expanded somewhere and certainly that it would be better if there was such a common fence and where it could not get into, and from a strategic point of view, of course, it would be very correct for us to maintain the roads of the rusyn yesinat, and actually for europeans, from the point of view of culture. i think that too. well, i don’t know. it’s very, very difficult to imagine what kind of relations we would have if we didn’t have a common neighborhood in the soviet chamber. hmm , that is, i think more from this point of view there is a common black sea, although it is very strange, it is the black sea, it was only there in ancient times, it somehow united all countries, or more than all shores, they look in different directions, as if russia is an empire and something like that. turkey has the features of the ottoman empire, let's say so

of foreign policy, mmm, they appear again, then the rest, you look at the european union, the senate, that is, in principle, this black sea region is quite complex in this sense, it is difficult to actually call it that. but from the point of view, it is definitely strategic that we need to support georgia, yes, we need so that russia does not have loopholes through which it can get caught in the region and in our direction, the western side, i wanted to ask you if we have already mentioned georgia, let's mention the armenians of azerbaijan , especially this week, there was an important meeting the president of turkey, after all, before the reprimand with the prime minister of armenia, mr. pashinyan, and the president of azerbaijan aliyev, the first such meeting is completely unprecedented, and after it, iran and baku began to say that they could sign a peace agreement between azerbaijan and armenia by the end of the year. border delimitation

will be handled by international observers with the help of the council of europe because there was a relevant meeting with the head of the council of europe charles michel - this means that this only weakened moscow's influence in the region peace settlement offices immediately appeared, definitely definitely when russia or the soviet union was weak, they created different all frozen conflicts and definitely when there is no actual possibility to support their allies. there are psychological things , one can imagine how they cannot refuse uh-uh-uh encroachments in fact on the territory which, from the point of view of international law, belong to other states and definitely did not call for hope that russia by the force of arms, by the force of their image, someone would help them, but she abandoned them, yes, in fact, russia is not holding on, well, there are no allies in russia, uh, they were always proud there that only the army and the navy, but

we sent the army to the bottom, or rather, the navy and the army, we we will manage to the end in the near future, that is, in principle, russia is not reliable, and i hope that in the end the armenians will understand this, and through the mediation not only of the turkish leader, but also of the french and the french. the factor here is also very interesting if france, well, macron wants to find himself for some reason, he tried to be a mediator between us and the russian federation, but of course we understand that it was impossible to have any serious success there, and he put forward another initiative there, we remember that he and nato did not like something else, and actually with this initiative about this political european community. but it seems to me that this is probably the greatest external political success. i hope that this initiative will be continued and that it will work. and by the way, it is very, very symbolic that there

one and a half pariahs were not present. i have the entire russian federation and belarus, that's why russia doesn't exist, so there are chances of success, the only one for me was, let's say, a bit of a disappointment, it's actually an even greater escalation of rhetoric between the greeks and turks, if we have on all other fronts there was more or less harmony, god forbid, armenians are azerbaijanis, they will settle their assessment of this conflict. well, we definitely do not need this tension. well, i am telling you that it is an ethnic sin, definitely. i love my historical homeland . but the most important thing for us as ukrainians is absolutely this will be very, this will be catastrophic, there will be such a conflict now on the territory of the european continent, of course it will not contribute to our support, and how it will definitely take away attention . i am not talking about other, not selfish things like that. which are directly related to these two

nations, which, by the way, are very strongly supported by us, first of all, definitely turkey, if it seems to me that the weakening of the role of russia is a good thing for everyone. it is a good thing and an opportunity to resolve conflicts let's hope that the same thing will happen in transnistria, because this splinter that is there is a small but still a threat to us. well, it certainly cannot be said about any success of moldova in the western direction if it does not solve it the question is that she can't do it a little bit, so we have to help her and we have to be on her side from the point of view of european integration as well. and you basically think that the conflict between turkey and greece is so real because you know there are factors let's say so objective from the point of view of the state of the economy, from the point of view of the growth of nationalist slogans and

sentiments, it is certain that in turkey after the success in azerbaijan, after the fact that the role of the turkish people in the region has actually strengthened, let's say so. they think that this is the role it is possible to fix and even more so to solve certain issues, the greeks also tried a little there, we remember, well, the idea is to expand the coastal zone there to 12 miles, this would actually block the possibility of the turks there for shipping. i am already talking about the issue there of security, you should look at the map of how the islands are located. well, how close to the turkish territory, of course, there is an energy issue near bialaka , that is, all these things, uh, they are pushing to solve it somehow, and the rhetoric has escalated over the past year and a half there, probably

more and more and mine. i certainly hope that this will not happen, but they are standing on the edge, so to speak, and certainly in such cases, any incident can trigger this, this, this, which will lead to a regional conflict, the united states can are able to play the role of a mediator between er president mardagan and the prime minister of the city of takos, the united states has potential, but unfortunately they have not yet exhausted the problematic points that were laid during er trump's term of office, and i'm not saying only about the s400 and how the turks were actually thrown out of the program to build the f35 fighter and modernize the purchase of new f-16s, that is, all these things. they are still, unfortunately, um, let’s say

so problematic, and despite the fact that the white house gave some positive signals, i am trying something to do congress is quite strict on this and definitely that this is a problem with such a thing, but again , it is a matter of principle for us. if they would find an understanding. it is important, taking into account the turkish aspiration there and taking into account the kursk factor of the united states , it seems to me that they did the right thing in not betraying their allies, the syrian kurds, but on the other hand, i apologize, but on the other hand, we understand how sensitive this issue is for the turks themselves and they want to solve it while this is a window of opportunity to open, well, it is obvious that russia will now try to generate all the problems, the truth is that they are already doing it, but everywhere they can on the beams, the

resource is actually limited. the only thing they could do before, that is, they can threaten, but what can they do with nuclear weapons? that is, ifri, he is active, uh, let’s say they do it and ba- and we see the backlash, we don’t know what is in putin’s head, and the potential of this music of his has become a bit like that, after which yes, but it is, well, i definitely yes this is such a black joke from the other side. well, nothing remains, that is, in principle, he does not have any levers of economic influence there or any others, especially to do something like terrorist attacks. maybe, but yes, that is, they are losing, they are now tied to me in general so metaphorically e- russia is a monkey that put its hand in and grabbed a nut, and the nut is ukraine, and it will die because it cannot let go. but it can't pull out its hand for these, and that's why we see and i hope

that our generation will actually see the destruction of this empire and actually a completely new situation both on the european continent and in the neighboring ones if we say that then in the east we will see the growth of, say, regional players and by the way, this format is a very interesting idea of ​​macron because all these big institutions like the un, the osce, others they show that is quite public and if there are certain rules, then someone can abuse it, it is not a formal communication. moreover, it is more than europe to europe in such a political context. we will see the same thing in other e-e regions. and by the way, we have also seen the alliance that was organized between great britain, the united states and australia in order to restrain china. this is also the quota that there with the participation of india is again aimed primarily at

restraining china, i.e. regional groupings will be like this, and that is why now our idea is with guam. and this is a political community and maybe some others, of course, we need to integrate as much as possible into that . poland-ukraine and here and there contributed contributed. perhaps even turkey, although definitely so slightly different interests and the united kingdom, that is, such different formats of cooperation that will complement or maybe sometimes also correct certain gaps of problems in other formats, and you do not do you think that this is macron's european community, which is so impressive to you , it is somewhat similar to the pre-war league of nations, and this is exactly what the united nations says, in principle , now, really, because the russian federation is there, china has the right to nuclear states, and it it is practically located, well, conditionally speaking,

the borders of its possibilities are known, and so a league of nations is being created, where there are no veto rights, where you can not invite aggressors, remember, the soviet union, germany, fascist italy were excluded from the league of nations, but at the same time, this league of nations was also unable to stop the war the same idea, the idea of ​​this community cannot replace it, the reason why. for example , ukraine initially took such a critical stance because we thought that some kind of acquisition was being offered to us instead of european integration, because it the idea itself arose before we received candidate status, and now we see that the idea is a little different and thank god, maybe even transformed, yes, that is, from uh, let's say so, pressure from ukraine of other states that we should not have any alternative. and that's exactly why there are old institutions like the un, the osce is definitely a formal nata of the eu on the european continent, which is not

going anywhere, no one is going to reject them in any way, and another platform appeared, such as the group of 20, which unites the informal, most powerful countries of the world in in the economic sense, which are not represented in other formats, it seems to me that there is no threat in this, nor do i think that it will be a repetition of the league of nations, especially since it does not have an application such that what it is based on is based on common interests on the european continent, that is, it is not human rights it is not considered as the main thing whether there is some kind of union against the russian federation, although in fact it is like that, since all the countries that were there, well, in general, for sure, unlike armenia, which wants it, it doesn’t want it, at least it remains still an ally of the russian federation, all the others support ukraine and are on our side. and that's exactly why. well, let's say there is an anti-russian element here too. well, i think it also

shows the health of this entity that ukraine was an important aspect there. therefore, no, i don't think that it will become the left-wing nation of the league of nations is an absolutely good idea to implement idealistic things in politics, when not cynical interests, but actually there, humanistic ideas could rule the world there, it failed at a great cost, we created it is difficult to reform the un. it is almost impossible, but we cannot give up, in order to solve the issues that are facing us and in the world that are changing, primarily on our continent, on the continent and in our neurokh, yes , that is, in this, we definitely need new initiatives new formats. it seems to me in this context. i hope that it will not go otherwise. we will see what the summit in moldova will be. it is such a very interesting decision. this country is partially occupied by the russian federation .

we know what will happen next, but on the other hand, it is very good that in the end europeans, old europeans, pay attention and understand that without bringing order and peace to our part of europe, they cannot live peacefully. thank you , mr. oleksandr oleksandr haran an expert of the defense strategy center on foreign and defense policy issues, a diplomat and a former adviser to the minister of defense of ukraine, we were in touch, we talked about the foreign policy challenges that ukraine faces today, and indeed, we see that now against the background of this great war, which was started by putin against our country, the entire international architecture is changing because the international architecture was one way or another before this war, even after 2008, when russia attacked georgia, even

after 2014, when russia annexed crimea and started an undeclared war on in donbass, all this international infrastructure, one way or another, was essentially based on the situation related to the e-e dialogue. this dialogue was considered an obvious part of the international mutual. until february 24, european leaders tried to stick to this idea. the president of the united states spoke several times with the president of the russian federation, vladimir putin . these proposals, which were completely falsely proposed by the russian side to the united states and the countries of the north atlantic union , were discussed several times. the seizure of the ukrainian state as such, do we remember that we are not talking about four ukrainian regions, the goal of russia is the seizure of the ukrainian state

as such, on february 24, it was she who put it into practice , and as a result, as we can see after the attack took place, the very idea of ​​dialogue with the aggressor has faded into the background. said nervously and episodically with each new crime of the russian federation. these contacts are becoming more and more episodic contacts with putin. it is true that the children support the leaders of the countries of the global cock, but these contacts, as we saw on meetings in samarkand quite often run into a wall of misunderstanding by the president of the russian federation , vladimir putin, of the disinterest of the leaders of china and the leaders of india and turkey in the continuation of the long military conflict in europe, which is reflected in their economies and in principle calls into question the future survival of the authoritarian regimes themselves naturally creates an incredibly complex

conflict situation in the world for the coming decades, which will be years of conflict turbulence. well, in such a situation, these international formats without a doubt become formats of dialogue of those who can still speak and isolation of those who are unable to speak, and this is a very important moment of the reconstruction of the international architecture of relations , which will take place all these next decades , problems, trials that await humanity, which will become, i would say, in the sense of the existence of people in the first half of the 21st century as a century of trials and conflicts between democracies and authoritarianism, i hand over the floor to my colleague eva melnyk, who will present you with the issue news of this hour, please start with the situation in the liberated liman in donetsk region