cyborg number one and one, remove all problems in one fell swoop, i would like a short answer from you and this is what yesterday was raised on the territory of belarus, reconnaissance planes and planes in general , it’s just as i understood yesterday, it’s not against ukraine, it’s that they are preparing putin’s visit and just, well, whatever are exploring the ukrainian territory so that, god forbid, what we just talked about should not happen. i correctly understand the options that cannot be ruled out. let's put it this way because, well, if the training looks like this, what is the cycle of preparation for a new missile attack but usually, well, you know, the russians have to prepare for a missile strike for two weeks, and they can’t shorten this cycle in any way. and start preparing about a week before a new strike. in this way, it’s too possible that they just poured in what we have and whether it will get accordingly, there is also an anti-aircraft missile to the flight route of this number one board to understand which to fly or not

to fly because which usually they really conduct such maneuvers when they are preparing a missile strike but somehow destroy thank you kyrychevsky was with us a defense expert express, we are all parting ways really his words i would have listened to them because gossip rumors started and it is not known what is going on that there will be no visit at all and there will be some kind of meeting but somewhere so hidden and everyone will say that putin - he had a meeting in minsk, but in fact he is somewhere else, maybe on the contrary, lukashenko will fly there somewhere near moscow and so on and so on . moscow yes the so-called liberals and experts say that it is not a fact that putin will fly to minsk, especially now that he is afraid to

fly anywhere at all, he is trying to limit himself, we will know all this for sure tomorrow, which i do not like, that tomorrow is saint nicholas and they bastards decided what exactly in the afternoon, on my day, it is contagious. and in general, on ukrainian day. this is a very ukrainian holiday. someday, some day, i will tell you how ukrainians in the 19th and early 20th centuries perceived st. nicholas, because ukrainians mostly believed that god is so far that the first instance to which you have to turn is saint nicholas because god is too much, so very much, you can't turn to him, he's too base- too big too big for direct communication . okay, we are now in italy, kulyk, director of the center for the study of civil society problems i congratulate you again on the phone, there is no light again, well, such is life. i really

respect vitaliy, it is always interesting to talk to him, and you will respect him if you listen to our conversation with him vitaliy good health thank you for finding time for us good afternoon, kissinger says that it is impossible to allow the disintegration of the russian federation. and i remember then in the hall of the verkhovna rada, when the senior president was also saying that you should not secede because everyone is definitely thinking about these nuclear weapons. it's just in your opinion , it's just because kiss 100 years and he thinks in terms of the 70s, is there really such a danger? i would say the danger from the collapse of er russia exists and there is a possibility that nuclear weapons will get into some er, what do they

call federal lands? yes, what you said is how true it really is that the collapse of russia can lead to an increase in the number of organizations, let's say, states or quasi-states that have nuclear weapons, please, mr. vitaly, well, actually speaking, if you evaluate kissinger, then i really agree that he lives in categories of the 70s, unfortunately, he did not come out with it, it is worth noting that there is no need to exaggerate the influence of the entire reality of the cold war messenger on the political and political front of the united states is quite critical of him, reminding him of his efforts to be a moderator of the negotiation process related to the

negotiations between south and north vietnam in his time . to ensure the withdrawal of american troops from vietnam, but by keeping south vietnam as a friendly country, it also did not work out then, and actually speaking, these mistakes at the end, unfortunately , there are enough of them and they are trying to absolutize negotiations as a tool of international policy at the moment negotiations of guests there is no one with anyone it is not a negotiation about e-e a player who abides by agreements it is not a negotiation when there is e-e let's put it this way some kind of space where you can find a common understanding point of contact and ensure the interests of all contracting parties we have deal with the country, more precisely, with the regime that is trying to commit genocide in ukraine

, therefore, no negotiations in the format proposed by kissinger can be held, and even more so, it is impossible to preserve the russian the federation as a single state entity, but see accordingly. i apologize, mr. vitaliyovych , look here is a very important moment, now the clarification is, in your opinion, do you read a lot, travel a lot in different countries , in your opinion, your words are now mainstream, because for ukraine it is mainstream, yes , all ukrainians almost everyone says that it is impossible to leave the russian federation as it is and everyone dreams that there will be no weapons, that there will be no nuclear weapons, that it will disintegrate and so on about disintegration. i am not saying that it is quite complicated and internal russian situation, but there is an understanding in the world that this is a sick person of the world and this

sick person cannot be cured therapeutically . and it can be cured only operationally, just specifically cut out nuclear weapons and cut out part of conventional weapons. supervision so that some victorious states simply control as it was after the second world war, shorter than the father, the dominant opinion in the world or is it our perception that the world thinks so, in fact it does not think so i i would say that now there are two positions that determine the policy. let's say that of the international governing bodies, one of them believes that it is still possible to negotiate with russia from some favorable negotiating positions, and therefore russia should be preserved. the spring border,

others believe that there is nothing to negotiate with russia. and therefore it is possible to allow the collapse of russia, how will the scenario of the creation of a new world order stand, those who profess the second point of view are becoming more and more because russia does not illustrate readiness for the negotiation process of a real natural process put forward some kind of optimum, rejecting all mediation missions, generating directly, violating those agreements that are intermediate from time to time that arise because of the swag of people like kiss angel and others who think that it is possible to agree on something with russia, there are fewer and fewer of them, and there are fewer of them among the ruling groups in the world of course, there are third countries that are not directly involved in the war with russia, as our partners there, india, latin america, brazil, for example, which try to stay

away from it and tell us in every possible way about the need for negotiations, what is better, bad negotiations or a good war, but this is such a theoretical model of a spherical horse in a vacuum, which does not have any added value for ukraine over time, even in these countries, such as india, india, which initially engaged in a wide-scale war on ukraine from february such a soft russian, then a neutral , pro-russian, then a neutral position, now more and more, it even votes in favor, usually mandates for sanctions and countering the russian threat. that's it, it's grass it is observed in particular, for example, in brazil, which generally stayed away from all the stories and decoratively supported negotiations as a way to resolve the conflict, so i think there is an optimistic view on the fact that the second in the second

position, where the announcement of russia, where there is fragmentation, is decomposable, he knows the state's decision, this is the one a scenario that can be beneficial for the world from the point of view of global security, i.e. the final result of the collapse will be more than a threat from the fact that a nuclear warhead will remain in some shooter conditional somewhere look, we already talked about this today, but in recent days, everyone has been talking about it through mr. zaluzhnyi, who told the commander-in-chief about it, and what do you say about the possibility of opening a front in the north, it is meant from the side of belarus, i am here holding the front myself against many who believe that it is possible such an attack. and i am in the way. it is impossible. and what do you say, mr. vitaliy? today we are being observed, well, they are all

open. i don’t know. insider claims that there is no strike group on the clinical borders in belarus. of russian troops sufficient for an er attack er a quick rollover partly due to the russian mobilization , that is, i have great doubts about the fact that belarus is now able to directly participate in land military operations against ukraine, but this does not rule out that in the future the territory of belarus will be used russia until the new time, i do not rule it out, one more question about our neighbors from the north, and what is the fate of belarus closer

, well, let's say 5 years ago, when they say that it is necessary to remove lukashenka, then i sit and think and who can replace lukashenka and who will the belarusians vote for and belarusians are still russians only whites or are they already belarusians and not russians how can we now hold a referendum and ask belarusians for an alliance with russia because in terms of stronger ties, how many predict for stronger ties and how many will vote against making these stronger to impose patterns in short, we don't know what belarus is, what the hell is mr. putin's hooey, mrs. belarus we don't know about it either, they want to be europeans, they don't want to be , they like the ussr, as we have seen in the last 30 years, what they like the ussr really, people

don't not lukashenko, that is, what can be the history of belarus in 2023-2028, for example, in belarus it is possible only with the involvement of ukraine in this process, i will tell someone that only on the belarusian opposition bayonets prepared in ukraine, a change of the political regime is possible only after the intervention of belarusians in the war directly and the transfer of belarusian opposition military formations to the territory of belarus is possible any changes in the political regime in belarus or after the defeat of russia i will disintegrate, then the rukashenko regime will most likely collapse, but this is more hypothetical and therefore more elastic, this is exactly the participation of ukraine in the political reformation of belarus this is the first and second. i

believe that the choice of belarusians is directly that of the average belarusian. this is us. don't touch us. leave us alone . not interested in the european union, not russia, not ukraine, we are local, this is approximately the reaction of an average belarusian with whom we communicate, we cross paths from time to time, you discuss this, this is approximately the position of belarus, a partially divided nation, one part advocates the european choice and saw it, let's say yes, the proactive role of belarusians on the way to europe, but the vast majority is frightened by the war and wants them not to be touched, and accept any variant of the scenario of the development of events that are possible as soon as the regime begins to crack, part of the active belarus can go out again and the other part will not defend lukashenka. that's it and everything is

okay and then and then you can finish. thank you vitaliy when the director of the center for researching civil society problems is interesting to hear his thoughts about belarus. i believe that he is really a very qualified expert and about belarus, on the one hand, we really have a lot of domestic affairs because of the war , on the other hand, there are many experts, they are not many, some experts say that ukrainian foreign policy is not working on in the belarusian direction, there is no stone unturned because i am not convinced that there is an opportunity , there is some amazing loophole where you can find time and deal with the belarusian issue, but it may happen that the situation itself will bring a closer or not quite closer medium-term perspective, and the situation and

and in such a way that belarusians will begin to scratch the back of their heads themselves and do something to preserve themselves as a nation, as a state, as a society. you found time for us. so, by the way, we will continue our conversation about this. i just spoke with our ukrainian expert, and since tomorrow is putin's visit to belarus, we are discussing it here and in different ways michal and what would you say, which one could be the history of belarus 2023-2028 for the next five years, it is near us, near you, near lithuania, near latvia , and we are not, we really cannot

understand what it is. sifted no answer i understood your question again, but the problem here is that on the one hand we have lukashenko, uh, there is lukashenko, and on the other hand, there are just belarusians, and uh, it is clear that lukashenko wants to keep his property in power. only to preserve power, but simply to preserve one's life, and this is not very easy now in this situation, and now, first of all, one must look at the red, yes, and hm, they will go to war right here, so that they will go to pressure from the side of the bridge will be so much strong, so that the belarusian army, together with the russian army, will attack you or not, how will they attack, well, that is, you are already opening up, first of all, yes, this will be connected with tragic

events, because here you will have to defend yourself , so many people are dead at this stage of the war, however, processes that are very negative for lukashenka may begin in belarus, and then there is a chance that you will be able to defend yourself and go ahead and cause huge problems there in russian- belarusian relations, as if in general the internal situation of belarus and that second here, let's say one option is that this belarus, which is now with lukashenka, which is under the control of russia, so that it crumbles, so that there will be very serious internal processes , and we will eventually have a normal , democratic belarus. be as it is and this situation will be, let's say, preserved, that is, lukashenko will continue to try to balance between, let's say,

peace, and putin will stand as he is now in this position, and then the internal processes will be curbed he will retain its power there in the next few years, well, one option or there will be a war from the side together with the belarusian army. so we hope that you will succeed and win, and then it will go. this process will begin to be very uncomfortable for minsk and internally or this situation that will continue for the next five , maybe 10 years, my goal. and tell me, please, i don't really believe that putin will pressure lukashenka so much because lukashenka has quite strong cards in his hands and he can always say that what you said now he always said volodymyr volodymyrovych and if we

lose, and if there is an attack by the ukrainian army on minsk, what will we do next, it is very unprofitable for you, not only for me lukashenko, it is not profitable for you, volodymyr volodymyrovych, there are problems and i always think that, well, no , they are not that stupid. it's simple. let's open a front. it's a problem, but you think , uh, from a logical point of view. that is, you're making this mistake that we made until february 24. we also thought that it was not profitable for the russians to start a full-scale war against ukraine . them from this pluses useful well, there aren't any and what and they attacked like that because they just think differently and it must be remembered that they are clearly so let's look at the logs from a logical point of view so why are the belarusians attacking how many armies are there well a small number and they i don't i say that the ukrainians will enter minsk, no, but it will be enough

to simply hold back from this first blow, and later just hold on to the border . they have a problem, but they don't think logically, and the fact that it's just that if there is no benefit for putin does not mean that they will not go for it. yes, i agree . that it is not illogical. but it is emotional. i always look at putin, their not very soviet person with such soviet myths, and i am convinced that the washington post wrote to him now, or i don't remember who. what went to him and sin and not beullina, bankers, financiers and persuaded but

he had an emotion in his head i stand on troops pass through khreschatyk and for the sake of this picture of the great putin, who is returning the great russia, he spat on everything, everything was right, it was pure emotion, they don't think rationally, they are really emotional . america raised their hands and everything is fine, and that's why i think they have this emotional moment. but nevertheless, we still have . tells that the polish state claims

some ukrainian lands and lviv to me where we are now polish soldiers are walking here and now they will take ukraine ukraine galicia and volhynia and everything in the world and everything and the end what to do with it just keep quiet well let them talk or vice versa answer something, what to do here, first of all, we need to inform. yes, we need to tell people, we can make fun of it like, for example, in debates, and in our field conversation with ukrainians, we can laugh about it and we can talk about it loudly so that both the poles and the ukrainians understand that the russians are trying a very primitive way to somehow make us quarrel. because if we just remain silent, then there will be people among the ukrainians among the poles who will say, hm, there must be some truth in this, because if there was no truth in this, then let's not be silent about it like this, that is, it must be explained, it must be in our information agenda, it can be in the top agenda, in general, a discussion of the topic of russian propaganda

meetings of russian fenians, it can be the top of the agenda and people, ordinary people can stand to understand that what is being shown is being shown there in social networks, uh, are these all kinds of russian meetings, as they happen to the polish and to the polish imposphere, to the ukrainian infosphere, that it should be called russian dezin disinformation so that people simply understand so that we don't forget that there might be a moment when they organize an operation like he did where these narratives will be, shall we say , more real, but because now, how can you, for example, uh, love to talk about the fact that the poles are attacking ukraine, and that's two or three days that's why they were very active in this regard, but where is the basis for this negativity? they published on the polish language website which belongs to russian words that are connected with the russians, they wrote on the polish language source that the poles are attacking what this is a speck of chinsky and later russian-language sources rely on russian, only polish-language source as and

in general, poles do not read this, they throw these narratives through this site on social networks, but the poles themselves just use the site itself they don't read it every time, it's absurd here. imagine this absurdity. they themselves write only polish-speaking media in their media. and later they say that the poles are polish, well, let's say polish media , and such fake information is spread. yes , that's understandable. but it is necessary to explain it to people, because the moment will come when they will think of something, let's say more real, and then people can believe in it, well, you have to comment and you have to discuss, you can't be silent like that. i agree, well, in general, poles in the russian interpretation is to blame for everything , even in the second world war, it started because of the poles, it’s not, it’s not hitler and the stalinists, stalin, it’s the poles, now the friends made the war, that’s why there’s a lot of funny things here, we’re a terrible force of evil, we’re almost satan and the empire are just like that in us it’s like that such a powerful

army that, you know, they say that one day we can attack ukraine for attacking belarus and kaliningrad and it and the region. yes, all at once. well, not power, yes, in essence, yes. and you and we are your ally, then we are together they are simply invincible. well, the last group of questions, see mr. michal, since you founded the study of the modern security environment, we talked about it today with ukrainian experts throughout the program, i would ask you a european expert. and whether the ukrainian version of the end of the war and the post- war security space can win because there are many discussions and when you ask a european, he still hesitates, he does not know the baltic countries, poland is much closer to the

ukrainian options, and the ukrainians say very simply where is the militarization and denuclearization of russia and the external supervisors, like after the second world war, some countries have to take care there so that they forget about that stalin, forget about that socialism, forget about all this and remember about the extermination camps about the murder about the empire about the uprising of the poles about the uprising of the ukrainians eh and so on further, so that they all know what is here . no one was silent here, and this is what we believe. and in the west, except for those neighbors of the former ussr, the dutch, the french, the belgians, the germans say there. the disintegration of russia cannot be allowed, as kissinger

literally just repeated once again, what do you think , which version will win, eh? i think that neither one, nor the other, that is, first of all, we must focus on this, so that the russians simply leave the territory of ukraine, so that they simply enter from eh entered from crimea and entered from your opinion that it entered from ukraine so that they left ukraine, this is the most important thing. if it is possible to develop it, then later it will be possible to talk about something else altogether, and this is what we need to focus on, because how are we going to talk now and go straight uh, the mission is some kind of monitoring for the same thing, is there even denuclearization of russia, well, this has already been asked, we are going too far, unfortunately, but these are already thoughts that reach a little too far, first of all, we must win with them so that they and average russians understand that they they lost the battle that it wasn't some kind of

collusion, that there was someone, that there was some kind of internal betrayal or something so that they wouldn't believe, that there was no possibility for this reactionism or for anything in general, there was just some kind of myth, conspiracy theory, and so on, they ordinary russians can do, they must understand that the russian army lost, that there was no betrayal, and that is what we need to focus on and lobby for ukraine to receive more and more weapons from the order, so that there is no discussion at all. can we transfer weapons to ukraine ? is this sometimes it is not dangerous. is it unproductive? we need to focus here. and what about nuclearization? well, it is a little obvious that it is not the right time. that is, do you think that such a tradition? i would say it is slow enough for europeans in americans well, maybe a little faster, this is advocacy, britain, the americans sometimes

do something faster, but the europeans take a very long time, and it is necessary, and maybe it will continue, and they will simply gradually solve the issue now, the issue of the victory of ukraine, we simply do not talk about anything else, we stand on this, we help we are waiting, ukraine has won, we are starting the second stage there. in order to do what to do after, but everything is necessary, the facts, that is, how will it be, the fact is already suppressed, that is, the russians have already left, so they lost, then we can impose a new discussion, we can talk about facts, that is, what will already happen at the front. and after that, we can have other opinions, if we were to restore other narratives, but we need to start simply from the fact that the ukrainians were actually pushed out of the territory. ok, so that the europeans understand that this is a problem. must be decided