interesting program of the cabinet, because in great britain it is the cabinet that decides such issues. and if the prime minister does not have support in the cabinet , a crisis begins on such issues, the minister resigns and where is the resignation of the prime minister, but here there was nothing similar on these issues that is, it was clear that this is a common position, of course we want politics to be personalized again and the sonak thing does not look as bright as boris johnson . and i would say that the british can be said to be lucky because a bright leader is always a good thing you know the conditions of political sketching and, in principle , the results of boris johnson's rule were shown in the weeks that he spent in the southern ministerial river, when great britain was in a deep economic crisis, well, this is a real result of how boris johnson performed his duties as prime minister of great britain, which was disastrous from the point of view of domestic policy, it is any briton, they say it's just now

a disaster, in other words, there is no, but from the point of view of foreign policy, jones is high because he is a person who proved to be unable to understand internal political risks, i would be a supporter of the completely delusional theory that if great britain leaves the european union, there will also be happiness along with this, i am a democrat by conviction, i am absolutely clearly aware. i would say that these are the main priorities of british foreign policy when it comes to opposing democracy to dictatorships. this is very important . this is a mistake. is now very expensive, of course you are, of course, but one way or another it is clear that this was not a personal point of view, it is the point of view of all politicians who today in great britain generally use people's trust, it's all very important, trust, and here's a decision that i don't think he'll be lucky with as the prime minister of great britain, because i generally think that all people who are in favor of

continuing the idea of ​​separating great britain from the european union, they won't end very well but regarding the fact that ukraine should be helped. well, he continued to say this when he was from the ministry's office before his first visits. it seems to me that the entire first visit, because it will be bilateral in ukraine, they are fulfilling their duties. well, not with such speeches are not so bright because for jones the ukrainian issue was still a matter of retaining power because he, in principle, at the beginning of the war, the chair was already swaying under him, he was quite seriously accused of lying and he needed to show that he should stay now not because he is so good, but our situation is so bad, the fact is, the situation is bad, but he is beautiful to use and a pr guy is a more talented pr guy than a politician, and it’s just natural in him, he always did that when he wanted to of london or was the minister of foreign affairs of great

britain, he succeeds in this and sonek now does not need to use the ukrainian topic specifically. because in order to get it in office, he needs to solve the deep problems of the british economy, i would say, but this does not mean that he will change the policy even though not an iota in this regard. thank you. i suggest moving to the next topic. after all, we have little time and there are a lot of interesting topics to discuss . american and russian burns and naryshkin say to vitaly that well, we don't know publicly , so in the public space, what exactly they talked about, but they say that the purpose of the meeting was not about the nuclear threat, to talk, but maybe somehow probing by the united states of america a

moscow's questions regarding the negotiations with kyiv, perhaps what their mood is. what do you think? i think that the americans, in principle, are now interested in discussing various confidential issues with people from the closest circle of vladimir putin because jx sullivan spoke with mykola patrosh , secretary of the security council of the russian federation, with yuri ushak, advisor to the president of russia on foreign policy, and now william beros spoke with his nareshk, it must be said right away that patrosh, naryshkin are quite different people, because patrushev is a person with of internal intelligence on ryshkin - this is a person from the outside world who always gravitated to the control of domestic politics and never particularly wanted to engage in foreign policy as such, if you read what the insider says about foreign policy this is simply not on his head.

he lives in a world that you know, grandmother, the entrance is only moskovsk, which they sit there and talk to each other like kreptsiloids . finally, he didn't always want to use his role as an illegal spy in order to be in a public plane to talk to the west, well, he just belongs to an aristocratic family, he is perceived that way, that he knows what to do of them, he was the head of the state duma of the russian federation and i see him in a completely different way, not his role in politics. thus, of course, when he talks with the director of the central intelligence agency, it corresponds to a certain extent to his idea that he is a member of the security council of the russian federation and as a leader foreign intelligence has to do, and he has influence in the russian federation himself, finally, and access to

putin's body. how to sound, the person who heads the foreign exchange always has access to this, such a position is always trusted to those people who putin can believe in the principle absolutely, but naryzhka's predecessor as the head of the foreign intelligence service was the former prime minister of russia mykhailo fartko. well, when the head of the government is appointed by the head of the foreign intelligence service, well, this is the first gogol, with whom the head of the government is actually the head of the government . the second thing is that there is absolutely trust, then this service itself - it must also be understood in its current form as a separate organization , it was not founded by yevgeny primak, who was also the minister of foreign affairs and the prime minister of the russian federation, but he is professional external development and people from the kgb, such as putin, they treat this intelligence with a certain priority. well

, because these are people who know the west better than they do, because they themselves have not pressed anywhere beyond dresden, and there is an understanding here the enemy has more volume and its real capabilities, and i think that burst is trying to take advantage of this situation and possibly make up for what - sullivan definitely can't solve with the guts, because with the guts it's a pretty tough conversation, but we offer it with a lick, you can talk analytically. well, he is capable of analyzing the situation. the situation is absolutely there. i remember it for sure from the time of his speakership, but again, the first thing i'm interested in is what they're doing. it's true. i'm sure that they talked about nuclear weapons, and there may be another issue. demands that they themselves put to the patrol that is just an attempt to explain what the real consequences of the far-reaching analytical plan may be in order to

finally be convinced that such actions are disadvantageous to the russian federation and that they will not give it anything will only worsen the situation, the second thing is that i am also very important for the americans and what can, in principle, be voiced by the directorate of the detailed intelligence management is the release of american citizens from russian prisons, especially this famous basketball player , a fundamental task for president baider. he was even ready to talk to in this regard, president putin has released, as you know, said that if he ever talks with president putin, in particular, during the twenties, then it is about the liberation of the american region, which means that it is also quite an important task and it is also clear that if someone discusses it in riga, the third thing is also very important, this is a war, they could talk about the war superficially, so to speak, but in any case, try to understand each other's positions,

which is basically what i am ready for now to go to russia, what can it do in the event of such an option, because the variability of approaches is very important between people who are engaged in foreign development. well , you win there. and what will you do next, but you lost? what will you do next? what can you do? to suggest to you that this loss does not become a catastrophe for you, which you wanted to deal with due to political consequences, think if you win someone else's ukrainian territory, what do you expect after such a victory, what are you thinking of doing if no one will agree with your role in such in the status of the occupiers of ukraine, well, that is, what is to be discussed here, the task is to summarize all this and write a report note to putin about the mood in the american stylist. i think he did it a long time ago . putin has read it a long time ago and it will be

to take into account, but this and everything, in principle, is also in this context, if they talked about the negotiations between moscow and kyiv, for example, recently there was information from the fallout of the walking and that the national security adviser of the united states, jake sullivan, directed with volodymyr zelensky , and put pressure on it is for kyiv to look for realistic demands in negotiations with the kremlin, and the american side nevertheless denies such pressure at an unofficial level, but do you think it is possible now ? i think that jake sullivan, who was another the american official of the byshiv fathers, kyiv demonstrated the will to solve problems politically , because if this will is not demonstrated, it makes the task easier for those who say that we are helping them. yes, ukraine will fight, russia will fight

, there will be no end in sight. the question is that what volodymyr zelensky says about the negotiations, what he does not say, nothing changes. it seems to me that with this week it became absolutely revealing how russia really sees victory. so when the press secretary of the president of the russian federation, dmytro piskov, said, well, we are destroying this infrastructure of theirs in order to encourage them to win, but it is quite simply deciphered that we are forcing them to surrender , because what are negotiations if we destroying your infrastructure so we have to stop the destruction of our infrastructure and how about suggesting that you withdraw your troops from uh-uh ukrainian territories to suggest that you don't dictate us uh-uh into which alliances what development path to choose well, i'm sorry if there is such a situation. it means that the opposite country is weakened and it is forced to ask for such a peace. and if the country is in a state of strength, you

come to the negotiations, otherwise we will destroy everything here and you will all simply die, then this position of strength you come i will tell you the russian status of the ukrainian territories that we occupied demilitarization denazification further everything according to the text of the tasks of special operations have not been fulfilled and they must be fulfilled either by military means, that is, obtaining all these results for the transformation of ukraine into a viable organism or negotiations through political means. when ukraine itself agrees to this, there will be nothing more in the negotiations. and this should be understood by all citizens of ukraine. ukraine's war with russia will never end through victory. it can end only with one ryder the result of the exhaustion of the efforts of one or both parties and the party that exhausts itself and accepts all the conditions that offer it and the party that does not exhaust itself whatever these conditions are for the other the parties were not unpleasant, they look similar , and the only thing that can happen is that there can be

no negotiations at all, simply de facto on some lines when it becomes clear that the parties have lost human, technical resources, etc. and that they are simply completely exhausted, they simply stop fighting until the moment until you gather your strength and hold on to your boryspil again. and this is the freezing of the conflict for a certain time without an agreement. after all, such a conclusion that negotiations with russia will not lead to anything, because before a full-scale war, he was still looking for ways to negotiate with the russian federation, but now he specifically says that no agreement will work. until they fulfill a number of our demands, i do not justify volodymyr zelenskyi or the opposition with i never supported this issue in the period 2019-2022, i said that it would not lead to anything, uh, in fact, i have to say that it was such a public request, which, to a certain extent, affected the results of everything presidential elections in 2019 because, for

some reason that i still don't understand, the majority of ukrainians, even after 2014, did not want to understand what was happening to them in general and what was waiting for them and what putin needed, and i remember all these conversations absolutely i would say, i'm an idiot. let's give him crimea and he'll get rid of us . first of all, what do you mean, we'll give it to him? he already took it from you. you're waiting for you to give him something. second moment. let's give donbas to him. and he will detach himself from us a how much more do you want to give him, and most importantly, you can give him anything, but if he needs something else, and what he needs, you want everything all the time, but you have the right with a maniac who wants to kill you and you keep saying and you can cut off your

finger well, maybe one more finger. well, maybe i'm ready to cut off my palm. i don't need it anyway, and she didn't really love me at all. it was bad when i spoke in ukrainian. cut it off. come on, you don't need your palm. you don't need it. i'm begging you. in general, you need to be killed, but the vast majority of ukrainians did not understand that it was not there in 1991, if i could understand that it was not there in the time of yanukovych, when there were already all these foreign policy goals declared by the russians, i could still understand, but when it was not after 2013, the vast majority of people, when many people voted after the attack on crimea, donbas, zaporozhian parties, when the

ukrainian leadership was blamed for the continuation of the war, you will remember that the war does not end because it they are beneficial to the ukrainian leadership, they are simply not used tools. so, what about changing people who will not earn money to honest people? well, what about putin, who will fight with you, of course, no, because it is not necessary, and this is simply madness, and i call it this type of thinking, this is me i would say thinking at the level of national suicide, it's just a people that will destroy itself. but fortunately, insight to a certain extent, i don't think that everyone has it. i think that many people are still in this state . from time to time i hear that it's not fashionable anymore, it's not fashionable, but i want it, many people still want it. i think that after the war they will definitely come out and say some peace parties and you still have to negotiate with the neighbors, there will be millions of them and it will be huge a problem for the future of ukraine,

but it will be later, in order to see these people in all their frenzy, it is necessary to win the grandchildren, the beginning, but if it drags on like this, vitaliy will see those who were there again during the 14-19, well , even the 22nd years, which is boring war though these people didn't even know what war was yet. well, i think that now everyone knows what war is, in every corner of ukraine, and even those regions that are not literally somewhere in the action of these military actions, like, let's say, kharkiv region, it is constantly being shelled, sumshchyna, dnipropetrovsk region, yes but all the other regions too, they launch missile strikes in them, the light goes out, they have a difficult winter and this should be understood by every ukrainian, either we are them or they are us, there will never be another ukrainian people in history, he or will it be possible to fight off russia or its existence as a

nation, we are not talking about the ukrainian state, not even the law, the question is not that the ukrainian state can be lost, the question is that the ukrainian people have every chance to end their existence on their ethnic lands, in case of losing this war, who will be russian? because the occupier will clearly say, do you want to live here? well, say that you are russians, tell tsar putin, who said that the ukrainian people do not exist, that you are russians, and ukrainians are an austrian invention, and who does not think so, please isolation, filtration, de-urbanization, denazification, they all have terms that justify their clear decision to expel and destroy all those who consider themselves ukrainians, and let there be no illusions that a compromise can be reached on this matter. russia sincerely considers the entire territory from uzhhorod to yalta to be the territory of historical russia. wants

to return this territory to itself, not as someone else's, but as its own, but the ukrainian people, who believe that this is ukraine, not russia, simply consider the occupiers of this russian territory to be all the worse for the ukrainian people to settle in russians should live here on the russian land. you are russians. live, vote for a united russia, support all this madness, the fight against the west, by the way, it is not only our problem, it is the same problem, angelica. what of these people who have tried for centuries , probably starting with peter the great, does the language say europeanize russia, you talk a lot, let's cancel russian culture, but they themselves canceled or it canceled all these people who are interesting from the point of view of the russian culture of the people, not the russian people, conventionally speaking

of the civilized people of the civilized world they europeanized russia practically everyone and who we like and who we don't like and tolstoy and dostoyevsky and rachmaninov and tchaikovsky shostakovich this is all european russia where oh why does the west love dostoyevsky so much because a child's tear is the main thing this is the main meaning you remember why do he read dostoyevsky, because the tears of a child are a value, and here come people who do not mean that these tears are with a child, they are simply alluding to these children they are shot this is definitely not what comrade dostaevsky wrote about, nothing in this world is worth the tears of a child, you have to squeeze yourself out of a slave drop by drop, but i don’t have to squeeze out, then you have to pout in front of tsar

volodymyr volodymyrovich. that is, you can say that it’s just that this class of people is very, very much. i would say narrow, and then it suffered a complete civilizational defeat, and we must clearly say that this is not a war of some two, you know how many people like to think there, some kind of civilizational twins. no, this is a war of a european country, let alone an eastern european one orthodox, but european and with a deeply medieval asian country, which even in orthodoxy turned hatred into a religion of war of such orthodoxy. by the way, i have not seen it , there is no such thing there in greece in the byzantine tradition, no, everything is a completely different civilizational approach, and this ventilating approach, he crushed this very european version of russian culture , puts something completely different in the spotlight. so, in

this regard, we have no choice but to try to protect ourselves and keep them as they are we are a european democratic nation and for which this tear of a child is really important, not because it is written in a book, because this is what ukrainian civilization looks like, primitive and humane, at least empathically, in contrast to those attitudes that russians have to kill children, and they are promoted and even on the streets they shout at washington , they go to washington with bombs, and that too and what about russian culture, with yevhen yevtushenko's poem, do they want russian wars? they shout what they want. they don't even hide it because we come to them, they say, do you want it? he says, "no, i don't want

it . " says that we must fight, all russian television channels that call for war, russian citizens who believe that war is normal because we are defending the motherland on ukrainian territory, these are people who are sick of war and the destruction of other deeply sick degenerative thinking and this is also a lot to say, mr. vitaliy. we started this topic. since i mentioned that volodymyr zelenskyi has changed his position, i now understand that just negotiations with the russian federation, and nothing to achieve this, negotiations must be done by military means, and we must win back and liberate our territories completely and what were our borders at the time of 1991, all of them should be ours, in fact, for this we need to expel the russian enigmas, and we heard that at the g20 summit held this week, volodymyr zelenskyi clearly voiced all these there is nothing new about the positions, but the principledness of the

president and the supreme commander was felt, but sergey lavrov, of course, the minister of law and rights of russia, who was there, called it all, i don't remember how he said it exactly . by the way, what do you think, did lavrov shamefully participate in this summit or did he somehow manage to save face? who, except for the minister of foreign affairs of the people 's republic of china and general ecolon, with whom we discussed the grain agreement. it was a technical meeting. virtually none of the heads of foreign policy videos from the twenty countries met with lavrov, that is, there would be no subject of negotiation. well, can you compare the meetings with lavrov during the same meeting, the lady

held a number of meetings, that is, meetings on the 20th, that is, even the same people who were in phnom penh, they did not want to meet with the russian minister in the format of twenty, this is a lot about which shows that later lavrov was there one day, he left, leaving in his place anton silanov, the minister of finance of the russian federation, who in principle agreed with the joint commissars, that is, lavrov did not even want to agree with the document in which the war was condemned, and at the same time, the russians did not want to quarrel with the host of the meeting, the president of indonesia, who wanted there to be some kind of final document, but they did not even have enough of lavrov to agree to this document. then he completely he avoided any communication with the media. he had a

briefing to which only employees of russian propaganda structures, who can not even be called journalists, were invited. these are people in uniform , who simply work under the brand name of journalists, but in fact they receive a salary in a completely different place, and when journalists are different they tried to simply ask lavrov a question, where is the meeting, he said, talk to the peasants. also, if a person feels good about himself , he will not be rude to a journalist, right? well, lavrov is did so it seems to me that everything with lavrov is clear and that the main thing is not even about the laurel but that putin, who until the last moment considered the possibility of his meeting with the leaders of the twenty when he knew that no one was going to meet with him alone, not that he did not go to he also refused to give a virtual

speech to the participants, it would be logical if zelensky addresses the leaders of the twenty countries in a virtual format, then putin as the president of a country that is part of the twenty that no one from there should have excluded according to the idea of ​​addressing the leaders of the twenty countries with the corresponding centurion of the elders. why did he not do this because they remembered the situations when during the appearance of the same lavrov on the screen during important international events, representatives of the countries of the civilized world stood up and left, but here it is it could be biden, it could be macron, it could be scholz, it could be meleni, it could be richel sonek, it could be er, the nine, isome, it could be er, trudeau, but you have essentially the whole group of seven, but it could be others the heads of states, let's say from the global cock

or from latin america, who would like to be seen as a leader in this way and in the united states, the situation is when the president of all the states is alive there, and putin is no longer there, and they decided not to risk it because this scene itself would look offensive and all they did not look at how putin speaks, but simply all the tv cameras would watch how byte gets up and where he goes and they mean that putin does not want to suffer from this humiliation, and this is also the first thing that says a lot of countries that talked to lavrov, it was such meetings are out of formal calm and regarding the most important meeting of the g20, which we already mentioned today, a. sidzenpin and e. joseph biden and p. vitaly in the context of the ukrainian issue, as far as i understand, biden tried to squeeze a-a out of these dolphins, perhaps in some way a

specific position and not a neutral one either for or against e, and he apparently did not succeed because sidin pin nevertheless kept to as much neutrality as possible. however, in his final speech and in the resolution directly, he said that the nuclear a threat, after all, it is absolutely wrong and it should be avoided, it is the most important thing, it is the most important thing that concerns ukraine, and he voiced all the calls . was the vice president of the united states cd-in was the vice president of the people's republic of china, so they have been cooperating in these positions for too many years and know very well what can be gained from each other, he could talk to him about absolutely specific topics that things were listed in the fireplace and in the white

house, the agents of sing were distributed according to the results of the meeting. this is ukraine precisely in the context of the fact that china should clearly speak about the impossibility of winning a nuclear war. and although in the context of this meeting china did not talk about it, but in principle they talked about it say this is really important. the second is the very fact that the war in ukraine hinders economic development and this is what 77 understands because it is a conversation of his language that it is tv because it is absolutely obvious that the main topic in the dialogue between the united states and china's people's peace is not ukraine, but taiwan , because peter was absolutely correct in saying that if a crisis starts in the taiwan strait, it will be a serious blow not only to the interests of the united states, but also to the world in general, because the world is currently lacking everything or something. a military crisis in the taiwan strait, because considering that taiwan is a leader in the

production of chips, it may just turn out to be a sign