and investment banker courses. we talked with him about the resignation of the head of the national bank of ukraine. by the way, an interesting observation is that the resignation of the head of the nbu was connected with the appearance of an anti -corruption prosecutor who started working for nabu. who was afraid why did they delay for so long yes, what if this anti-corruption prosecutor is appointed, in any case , the entire personnel policy will be changed because such a question arises. the court has to prove it to him, but the question always arises. if such an accusation is not intended , could he have held the position of head of the national bank of ukraine at one time because there was no anti-corruption prosecutor and they believed that he could and would not be in the coming years, it means that they wanted to hide something, they believed that can do without all these thermal and anti-corruption cases or appoint as corrupt persons whoever we want. and you know how they once said in ukrainian

politics that the one who works with me is no longer a corrupt person. there are good oligarchs, bad and good ones . corruptors and not-so-own corruptors and foreign ones and what is called authorizing torrism, friends of the law, and our western allies want it to be completely different, for everything to be according to the law, for the officials who were appointed to responsible positions to have no real suspicions, for the authorities not to dispose of capital trust in order to agree to the possibility of appointing people with a dubious reputation or even people who may be under suspicion, but again, mr. shevchenko may be not a dubious reputation, but a person who dares to work in the civil service at all must be clearly aware that he must respond to all these challenges in an appropriate manner, how not to hold public positions until there are

no divisions regarding his honesty, and this is absolutely normal. it seems to me that the approach to public services, as it seems to me. in a state governed by the rule of law, what about the official in this case, mr. shevchenko, resigns, allegedly because of his health, and the next day, suspicions are announced to him, well, it is clear to everyone connection why did he resign from his position, but 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 in one way or another then he was simply warned. well, then he was warned about it. someone knew about it. some such schemes are being built. it seems to me that i would like more transparency. transparency is when he submitted his resignation. it is interesting that this suspicion was such that no one knew about it, the media was 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 did something, and then it turned out that everything is much more prosaic. with health, as if he has it, because he is often abroad now for treatment, so we will not say here it is possible , we wish in any case health and a fair court decision, so fair, fair the investigation is so very important, yes vyacheslav likhachev, a member of the expert commission of the center for civil liberties, 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 it means in ukrainian the society had such an ambiguous reaction because the center of civil liberties received it with the memorial and with the spring, in fact, with the leader of the spring, who is in prison,

lukashenka . of foreign affairs of ukraine, mr. mogilevska, that this is, in fact, the preservation of the concept of three brothers, mr. hrytska . 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 why the nobel committee was guided, how then, mr. vyacheslav, do you feel about because and you received the prize next to the spring and the memorial, first of all, it is very difficult for me to evaluate the decision of the nobel committee, it is very difficult for me to be such a detached observer in this,

because the nobel prize was awarded to a member of ukraine , an organization in which i am involved belong and it would be strange if i started criticizing the principles of the decision of the nobel committee in this context, 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 in us around the first ukrainian number, which did not arise a lot of disputes, betrayals and everything else, but returning to the essence of the question, well, i believe 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. of course, i do not know the motivation of

the nobel committee but it seems so, it is not an attempt to pass such a pass in order for three countries, two of which attacked the third, to solve the issue of measure among themselves. i think that this is a very important signal that the protection of rights human rights and respect for human life and human dignity are principles that are dangerous to violate when the state violates these principles, it becomes dangerous not only for its own citizens, but also for those around it, for all of humanity, the international community. this

award is given to a person who is behind bars, this means that if human rights and freedoms are suppressed in russia and belarus, then these countries are dangerous for all others, and ukraine is an example of that and the most active area of ​​activity of the center for civil liberties since february 24 was 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 said the head of our organization is talking about the struggle under the old and well-known slogan for our freedom, that is, if the world had previously paid attention to how human rights are violated and suppressed of freedom in 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 be observing today the aggression of the russian federation, which uses the resources of belarus against ukraine, and this award, in my opinion, is like m- m is a valuable reference point and for those regarding the priorities that should be in the world community to prevent conflicts and preserve and establish a fair measure because well, the award is not always skillfully issued to human rights defenders and political figures received it you ee 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 subject of the protection of human rights and civil liberties to ensure peace and stability well, on earth, i just want to sum it up, mr. vyacheslavovych, can we say that the awarding of 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 insufficiency of the level of struggle against the regime, the person who is currently in behind bars i don't think it's very fair to blame

alisa bilecki for not fighting enough against lukashenka, if lukashenka, but in the context, he received the award personally, even in contrast to the memorial and the center civil liberties, and i am talking about the fact that, of course, no state is awarded, it is not about the fact that russia, belarus and ukraine received the nobel peace prize, it is about the fact that specific human rights organizations that work in that context, in the circumstances in which they found themselves and 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 ale zbilyatsky or people like e.e.

head a 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. of civil liberties. congratulations once again 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 naturally raise different questions, although some people wrote on social networks why not zelenskyi and supposedly there is an explanation that candidates were submitted even before the start of a full-scale invasion, they say next year maybe volodymyr zelenskyi to the committee by the way, they said that they do not award prizes to those people who are waging war, but then the question arises why, say, not navalny he is no longer waging a war, he is also in prison, and i will also remember him. and it could also be that way, you

know. i think that there was a great desire to give the nobel prize to the memorial center . not a memorial 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 were people who were ready to fight repression and activists were killed and imprisoned. its activities led to the fact that the same memorials appeared in various ex-soviet republics that have already started work for their countries in the appropriate direction. perhaps the nobel committee had the idea of ​​solidarity with the memorial against the background of its destruction , i.e. it was perhaps not about a russian

organization, but about a simple organization of a known human rights organization that fought against stalinism and decided to destroy it in hindsight. incorrect then the question arises why do we reward other organizations from other countries that conduct investigations of such russian crimes already today or the belarusian regime close to putin, perhaps this trio of e-e laureates could have come about like that, that is, it could have been so. well, this is my version, i certainly ca n’t know that, anyway, no, we should perceive it as our victory, separate from the victory of the memorial, and i don’t think that you should look at the victory separately that we should separately look at the victory of the material and the spring, because i believe that receiving the nobel together with the memorial is an honor , one way or another, the memorial will remain in the history of the human rights movement of the world, as academician andriy sakharova remained there. he is definitely not

a ukrainian he supported ukraine as the memorial supported ukraine and his nobel prize created others absolutely the status of the right of the defensive movement in the soviet union as well as now i think it is possible to approach i already told you about it yesterday i can tell you now i said it mr. hryshko that you can look at it when we look at it as , er, the idea of ​​three brotherly nations, are we not imposing our complexes on others, this idea of ​​taking three brotherly nations may be in our heads, but it may not be in the heads of norwegians, who do not believe at all themselves as a brotherly people and the swedes or danes, they live next to them and the swedes and danes also believed that these are three brotherly nations sweden owned norway, but norway never believed that it should proceed from such a state concept she may not treat ukraine as she may again gives awards to three organizations from different neighboring countries that are consistently fighting the same repressions, then these are our psychological traumas that are

parked and they are usually exacerbated at the moment of russian aggression, because now we are also told that you know, we three are a single nation and we speak norwegian. do you not think that with this award you are reinforcing the thoughts of vladimir putin and his idea, but this may be the last right, i do not think that they do not think for themselves, that is, they can proceed from a different concept again. do you think it was necessary for these three organizations to provide e-e at the same time, accept what you are asking me no, i don't think so, i think that it was possible to give the direct government separately i think it was possible to give the award to the e-e center of civil liberties separately matviychuk or someone else the ukrainian organization there, which organization did she meet? i believe that this civil liberties fully deserves this award. i know many female colleagues with him about all the office activities. i felt yes, i am a memorial to the times of the regime, this is

also a reality. this is what i think is an honor, because if i were the head of the nobel committee, i would vote for a separate er honor. i think i could just be a nobel prize laureate er biletsky, who is currently in lukashenko prison, if we think about it, well, again, this is my idea of ​​how it can be. well, the other side of mr. vitaly is to be close to those who are fighting against the regimes in their country. they do not support these regimes they will express support for ukraine with them, but the question arises why are we not ashamed, this is a good question that we have a belarusian battalion kastusia kalinovska and that there are russian battalions why russians and belarusian citizens russia citizens of belarus should fight with us in this war to pick up for this and we will not be slandered, you can say so and it should be, because the exercise will come out correctly , fight together with us against these regimes, and these people are

grazing . with the regime even when the majority of ukrainians putin is the best politician in the world and dmitriev, what an old man, some kind of unfortunate sandra mosh did not die, our classics have been in prison for several years now, his life was simply destroyed, this is because he told the truth about what purges were carried out, that is, now the ukrainians are you in the russian-belarusian context. as you can see, i did not express a single word of rebuke to those people who think so, i understand their position, that's why yesterday when i argued with mr. e. i was just stating my position, that's how angelika, both of these positions have a full right to exist, we are now in a country that was attacked by russia, a memorial, a russian organization, i'm just, and also these ukrainians who don't

want to be close to russians, belarusians, my first the reaction was the same. but if you think about it, but if you think about it, then we need to stop treating the russians and belarusians as our own, because we still perceive them as our own all the time. three are just two neighboring countries in which there are authoritarian regimes and in which there are human rights organizations and our human rights organization has this award that it is for the fact that it investigates russian war crimes and they investigate russian war crimes then all of you will not be perceived so emotionally. it seems to me that the most emotional reaction today to what is connected with russia and belarus is precisely the people in whom these were not even ears and not a place and nothing. i won't even continue these anatomical studies. that's why i'm

calm about this. as you know, angelica lived in moscow for 18 years. it seems like a job with studies, but i always treated my life and the life of a foreigner in i have other countries too well, how do foreign journalists or foreign students who study somewhere live there? if a person who is mad comes to kyiv to study, why is anna and ukraine becoming her homeland? no, she is studying here. i have seen people with different views. they came from ukraine. they must be hurting me. i treat this and i treat the memorial with respect to a very respectable foreign human rights organization. weeks of history, problems, analysis and personalities, you have questions, you will get answers portnikov, september, every friday at 21:30, the most espresso is the war in ukraine,

the main topic for ukrainians is victory and loss , analysis and forecasts, politics and geopolitics, serhiy rudenko and the guests of his program will talk about all this, people who own information and shape public opinion people who defend ukraine and create the future right now the main and interesting thing in the program is the verdict serhiy rudenko monday through thursday at 5:10 p.m. repeat at 9:30 p.m. volunteers, everything is possible, they find everyone, they feed everyone, they save their tails, they give them gifts for airplanes, they gather for doctors, they help lullabies,

they sing foresters, they equip everyone, they hug everyone. glory to ukraine to the whole world . the next topic for discussion is that president volodymyr zelensky signed a decree on the recognition of the kuril islands as the territory of japan to discuss with mr. vitaliy also the appropriation of the zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant by the russian federation, what consequences will this have and how can we expel the occupiers from there, and many other topics, let's see

what we can do directly, let's start with the kuril islands, vitaliy, we always when we talk about supporting ukraine, we often forget, well , at least e well, let's not say so much, let's say that japan helps us quite a lot. of course, this is not equipment and not weapons, because they do not have an officially alleged army, although they have one, the constitution it is stated that they cannot help in any way and so on, but this is humanitarian, this vest and fairy tales and the support of ukraine in the international arena, in the council of ministers and in jseven. what do you think of what president zelensky did, and the recognition of the kuril islands completely as the territory of japan is, after all, an act gratitude or simply the restoration of justice. i think that ukraine as a state that was part of the soviet union, and the korean islands were appropriated by the soviet union itself, so this was not the result of the second world war that was agreed upon

the states are the winner, everyone says. why? why ? japan insists on this, because germany insists on tuning the national team or on danzig. all the states somehow agreed with the results of the second world war. and why does japan not agree? because all these territorial divisions were agreed upon by the states that were the winners . in the second world war, according to the results of the conference meeting of the leaders of these countries, and in principle they were accepted by the defeated countries, this included all legal acts of surrender, etc., and from japan, yes these international agreements signed by japan did not include the transfer of these territories to the soviet union. japan does not claim, let's say, the island of sakhalin because it is an international formalized transfer. as for the kuril islands, no, this is actually an illegal annexation of such illegal

annexations in the history of the soviet union of the russian federation i can cite a lot of things, even a few without specifying it, are definitely such real sanctions for the future, this is what happened, let's say, from the territory of estonia, and from estonia in latvia, the soviet union, contrary to the will of these countries, separated the areas of latvia and estonia , the pitala district, and latvia is a part of estonia, and it is not with the current city of ivangorod in russia. by the way, i recently saw in the latvian newspaper nytka riga an article about what latvia

will do in the future if russia weakens and how to integrate the local population into latvia in general because as we can see many people in the republic of latvia still consider this annexation absolutely illegal and it is absolutely logical angelika because the republic of latvia which was restored in 1991, they never gave consent to the transfer of this territory to russia for russia, it has no meaning, it is also very close. well, it’s just that japan has not disappeared from the political map of the world for 50 years, as a pure latvia, and she persistently always said, let’s solve this problem. i believe that ukraine absolutely does not need to stand in solidarity with the russian position, this territory has become the territory of the russian federation, as you know, the first secretary of the central committee of the cpsu, the head of the council of ministers of the soviet union, nikita khrushchev, recognized the need to solve this problem would have been signed accordingly, a declaration that never moved from its place according to the content of this declaration, and the president of russia tried to work on the president of russia, vladimir putin, all the same, it all ended with the deception of the japanese, the japanese

always sincerely hoped for this for them, these territories for us, crimea. when was i in tokyo? when was the prime minister, the recently deceased prime minister of the country of 7aba ? in order to be able to solve the problem in a dialogue with putin. it was the naivety of hope, i was killed. why did you decide that way? putin just annexed crimea. how do you even think that after the annexation of crimea, he will give up smoking, and they told me that we might want to be a decent political figure, maybe if he will say that the crimea is ours , it was not difficult to discover it. it is true that they have nothing historical in common with russia, let him give them to us , it is also besides. in fact, there is nothing historical in common with russia, just your islands he annexed the soviet union there in 1946 and the crimea in 1784 earlier, but this is also not part of the russian history of poly-nationalism. well, we argued, but

i saw that this problem remains one of the important political problems of japan, because it feels like a country with an unsettled territorial issue, and i believe that ukraine, which now understands what it is like to be a country with an unresolved territorial issue, can make such a decision absolutely normally. well, this issue became more acute during the russian-ukrainian war. i i understand, they started to raise it again on the foreign front, russia's reputation is deteriorating, besides , they were convinced that this friendly dialogue that prime minister sindia was trying to conduct is not leading to anything. in fact, he is the architect of this foreign policy that led then to contacts with this diabe with vladimir putin and to the idea that the good external personal relations of the prime minister of japan are actually very a strong politician behind the president of russia will help

to find an understanding, this did not happen as a person who directly observed this, observed putin from a close distance, drew important conclusions from this, i think they even go further than it seems to us before his death, this diabe is already retired raised the question that japan should place elements of nuclear weapons on its territory, he did not say that it is japanese that has this element. he said that it could be american weapons, it caused a stir in japan the incredible noise of the call and zumi was born in hiroshima, how do you understand the person who was born in hiroshima, you are not, i think that you and i do not understand, but this is to some extent a moral injury even if nothing happened to you, that is where you were born, you see this person all the time the house that was damaged by adam's new explosion, it will remain there, the house is there, you see this museum, you live in a

normal place, but you understand that this city has endured something that no one has ever endured in their life, that's why putin scares us with a nuclear attack weapons. i think he also doesn't even realize how serious this injury is. it's not at all what we think it's not just like that. believe me, i remember even the psychological state of being in hiroshima when you shouldn't just be sitting in a coffee shop . you have a cappuccino, eat some wonderful food in a japanese restaurant and suddenly you don't feel happy because this understanding is pressing on you anyway well, we also have many such places in ukraine now. the question is not even you it's just that you meet with such moments of mass death, any missile is common there , the bombing of dresden or kovel or mariupol, these are similar things, but they are not instantaneous. in hiroshima, you

meet with