congratulations, friends, in these pre-new year days, the saturday political club of khrystyna yatskiv and vitaly portnikov will be on the air, with the results of 2023 and the prospects for 2024. this is exactly how our program today will look like, we will talk about the results of the 23rd and about expectations for 2024 year, let's start of course with the most important for us, the military.

situation, it is probably worth starting, you know , with such a joke somewhere, i don’t know who exactly is the author of this joke, but i saw it for the first time among the residents of kazakhstan, who welcomed the russians at the beginning of the 23rd year from advancing ukrainians, and we must understand that indeed the 23rd year was marked by certain expectations in the military sense, both in our society and in our western partners, in our military-political... . in any case, now we are where we are, and only extremely important points, purely in the military picture of this year, also have and deserve attention. mr. vitaly, what in your opinion was the main thing, the counterattack, which, perhaps, was crowned with not quite what the majority expected, with the understanding that we are harnessing for a long time, with sobering up, and ukrainians too, or i

don’t know, with more open questions, well, it seems to me that 2023, khrystyna, was the year of realism, ugh, and this is the most important thing, by and large, all these trends that we are talking about, and which became obvious in 2023, were already clear in 2022, nothing new from the point of view of our analysis actually happened, just in 2022 no one. no one wanted to talk or think about it. famous an article by generals zaluzhny and zabrodsky, which demonstrated in principle what this war would look like. she just talked about the war at length, about the long-term process. and she absolutely did not mean that any one offensive, even a successful one, could end this war. i want to remind you what western politicians were saying also in 2022. not to

take ours, all these comments in 2023, they said that they were supplying ukraine with weapons, that they were helping ukraine, so that ukraine could release as many of its lands, and in this strong position to negotiate with the russian federation, language. then it was not about the fact that ukraine can free everything. there were also discussions about whether crimea should be liberated at all. the ukrainian political leadership has always said that the issue of the liberation of crimea is our priority. in the west, many politicians said that any threat to crimea could cause an escalation of the conflict, hinting at a nuclear strike, and said that it was enough for crimea to remain. under the attack

of the ukrainian armed forces, or was under such a serious blow that it will already force the president of the russian federation , vladimir putin, to agree to negotiations, so in any case, in western political and military circles, this topic was all the time, and president biden, and general milli, and the european leaders, they saw as the result of 2023... precisely the negotiations between ukraine and russia, so when we use the word victory, i would say that it is generally very imprudent to use the word victory when applied to any reality, and then when you start to ask a person, and what is a victory for you, it turns out that you drive yourself into some kind of dead end, because many of our compatriots, if you

asked him... what a victory would mean for him in the 22nd year, he would answer that this is the return of ukraine to the territorial borders of ukraine. let's say so before the borders of 1991, but again, such a victory was not seen in the west, for the west, the victory was that the ukrainian army would somehow be able to really advance the russian positions and force russia to negotiate the end of the war, which would open some new opportunities for ukraine that no one knew about, peaceful existence, european euro-atlantic integration. stopping the loss of life, etc. , etc., now it seems to me that realism consists in the fact that we begin to understand that no military successes of ukraine, whatever they are, lead to any negotiation process, that the president of the russian federation, vladimir putin, who first , relies on the enormous support of his own

countrymen precisely when he is waging this war. 75% of russians want to see him the president of russia, absolutely confident in the correctness of his course, these are triumphant results for a politician who is in... the position of president for 20 fourth years, but for him there are no negotiations, for him there is a war as a necessity, and even more so, when we talk about this pre-election period, the pre-election period in the russian federation itself, when you have to look strong, confident, when the number of ukrainians killed, it only increases your rating, and the presidential election campaign in 2024 in the united states, which also from ... the intention of the russian leadership to drag out this war, at least until the results of this american election, to see who will still win it, and that's why i didn't understand anything about this back in 2022, but when you see the real picture, it is obvious

that a military decision does not lead to a political one, to put it simply, and everyone around does not want to notice this, because they are comforting themselves with some absolutely unrealistic. expectations and desires, and now we are still, i believe, more or less realistic world, because first of all we realize that no matter what the actions of the ukrainian armed forces are, at the end of the year there was a message that a new offensive in 2024 is also possible , they will not lead to the end of the war, ukrainians should generally stop hoping for the end of the war through negotiations, because russia does not want to negotiate with them, and even more so. it is absolutely unclear why russia should negotiate with ukraine, if the ukrainian armed forces are achieving, uh, some success there, cutting the corridor. russia somehow lived without a corridor, across the land to crimea, russia lived without crimea until

2014 and nothing happened to it. russia certainly lived without the devastated lands of donbas and southern ukraine. and if we realize with you that on the territory. nothing will happen to the russian federation, the russian federation has the opportunity to experiment with ukrainian lands and with us, as much as it needs in order to finally destabilize the situation, if we hope for negotiations. why am i saying this because we can with you to discuss the issue of the ukrainian offensive in the categories of defeat or victory of our favorite categories. yes, although in fact the front actually froze in november 2022. year, not the 23rd, since november 2022 we have an absolutely static situation at the front from the point of view of strategy, so individual settlements are changing hands, our enemies are achieving something, we are achieving something, even gains like this are important the history

of attempts to gain a foothold on the opposite bank of the dnieper, opposite kherson, this is all a fact, as well as the russian actions in avdiivka and maryanka, this is also a fact, but... all the same, the territory as such is completely preserved in a static form, and the only difference was that the russians built defense structures there on this territory, which they control, and we started to build, but the following question arises: why should we think that if the results of the offensive were what we wanted to see in the west, and we understand what the results are, the exit to melitopol and the transportation of the corridor, this... meant b some end of the war and the desire of the russians to end it, this was never clear to me, and it is not clear now, and by and large i am still in a situation where i believe that there is no political solution to this war, that it is necessary to simply come to terms with it and think about ,

how to end this war without russia. the russians will also look for the possibility of some options, but those that will be completely satisfactory. when they come to the conclusion that they can stop. no negotiations, we 'll figure it out, uh, here's a good example, by the way, it's this year, the grain deal, it operated with the participation of russia, we... transported grain, uh, at some fine point, russia got out of this model, quite an interesting model, because russia and ukraine did not agree with each other, they did not negotiate with each other , there was a model involved, in which un secretary general antonio gutierrez and president of the republic of turkey recep tayyip erdoğan acted as mediators and an agreement was signed with the turkish side of the un, respectively the russian side of the ukrainian side, so it acted until... the moment when russia, which in principle, i have this impression, she wanted to withdraw from this agreement on the very day when she signed it, made a decision that she

was leaving, as a result it turned out that we can transport grain in a limited manner and without russian permission, that the corridor is otherwise it works, albeit not on such a scale, we will see what will happen in the spring and summer, but it turns out that russian consent is not needed for this, it is the same here, is it possible to end... the war without russia, i think it is possible, for that, a whole complex of political and military-technical actions is needed, and no only from the side of ukraine, of course, not only from the side of ukraine, ukraine is not an obvious subject of this process at all, it is the object of this process, because ukraine is on its own without the help of the west, i think here, we understand this perfectly , would not have lasted several months against the russian onslaught, we simply did not have equipment, military equipment, we simply did not have money, because our economy was destroyed. and the west must realize that if it perceives this struggle between ukraine and russia as part of

the global confrontation between democracy and dictatorship, about which nentsi pelosi once spoke, or he agrees with the fact that the territory of the russian federation is somehow increasing at the expense of ukrainian regions, well, there is no such gray way out here, you see that we tried in this gray zone remain. for many decades, and most of our compatriots with you, this gray zone was absolutely fine. in general, i believe that this is such an example of suicidal national idiocy that can be included in all textbooks of political history, because by and large because, as you understand, it has always been clear to everyone that the security situation is the main situation for any. countries, and many countries that were part of the soviet zone

of influence or the soviet union itself, realized the fact that it was necessary to look for some guarantees for security, this was clear even in the 90s, in 97, when poland, the czech republic, hungary, and later slovakia also joined nato, these countries did not have any major problems with russia. i was there when the first nato enlargement was decided if you think anyone had any there are serious anti-russian tendencies , you are mistaken, all this did not exist, in russia itself, if i am not mistaken, then there were no bright anti-nazi sentiments, at least public of course, well, she was against expansion, well, yes, against expansion, this was a clear position of the president boris yeltsin. i well remember that the vice prime minister of the government of the russian federation, mr. sirov, who came

at the head of the russian delegation to the nato summit at the time, he gathered journalists to talk to them at the phone booth in the press center of the forum, because he did not want even enter the meeting hall, did not want to hold any official events as a sign of protest against the expansion of the alliance, but it was all very calm, then russia. signed these founding acts with nato, ugh, which created the russia-nato council, and i repeat again, in poland itself, in the czech republic, in hungary there was no reason to think about such security, from our point of view . there were more reasons, let's say, in slovenia, which wanted to join nato in the first place, which was not accepted then, because... they were worried about the general situation in former yugoslavia, but the peoples of these countries

simply remembered what russia was, knew, and that's why this expansion took place, those who made it, they got into nato, they got their security system, let's look at another, another situation, but i'm sorry, but we also knew what russia was, why the same experience with them is even more short-lived than with us sometimes, but so different. why didn't we know what russia was? ukrainians in 1994, three years before this fundamental act of russia-nato to the ukraine-nato charter signed by leonid kuchma in madrid, voted for kuchma, it was... the first term: kuchva came to power with the slogans of restoring relations with the russian federation. one of the highlights of his first term as president was the state visit to kyiv by boris yeltsin , who signed this famous big deal that didn't guarantee us anything, and who made it a condition for his move and for signing this big deal, as you know, to create

agreement regarding the presence of the black sea fleet in the crimea, so nobody does anything. did not know, most of our compatriots with you adhered to absolutely obvious pro-russian views, which did not go anywhere until 2014, and many believed even in 2019 that it was possible to negotiate with russia, and the majority of our population was against nato, i will tell you more, who do you think ukrainians supported in the conflict serbia, croatia, serbia, of course, serbia, of course, who did the ukrainians support in the conference? between moldova and transnistria? we even supported transnistria politically. who did our ukrainian radicals vote for, did they not vote, but fought in transnistria and the caucasus? and she well, that is, in the caucasus they already fought, i think, for georgia, but transnistria fought for ukraine. for, for, for transnistria, people from ukraine. and we had

this multi-vector foreign policy. changes began in relation to... when the national security agency appeared in our national security strategy , which, as it appeared, was then removed from there, so what to say that we understood, no, i'm sorry, we inherited a pro-russian country determined citizens, and it should not be hushed up somehow, when in latvia, lithuania, estonia and the western lands of ukraine did not vote or voted against gorbachev's referendum on a sovereign union, the vast majority of ukrainians... year the majority of ukrainians are one way or another , and ukraine was the main union republic on which moscow relied in an effort to create this new union. actually, when i asked this question, i meant that during at least the 20th century, victims of russia and the soviet union, right? it is necessary to perceive oneself as a victim, as a victim of russia

. there was no such feeling, and this is one moment, another moment is very important, that... i wanted to tell you about the opposite side , this is also an interesting moment, there is the opposite side of belarus, relatively speaking, well, yes, take it easy kazakhstan nazarbayev, well, who was the kaza then, who were ready to enter the csto, this is also to a certain extent the sphere of security, you ask, if i do not consider myself a victim of russia, then lukashenko definitely does not, and nazarbayev did not consider himself a victim of russia, they considered russia to be there. a state with which one should have friendly relations, but at the same time they were ready to enter the russian security sphere, i i am not even talking about the peoples, but about the elites. the belarusian elite, the lukashenko and kazakhstani elites, they believed that they should apply for this security guarantee for themselves. to moscow. by the way, this worked, as you know, in 2020 for

lukashenka. ugh. and in 2022, for the kazakh elite, where is tokaev. fought with nazarbayev, but it’s still the same, you know, the same eggs only in profile, it’s the same elite, so it turned out that russia is even ready to send troops there, when it comes to kazakhstan, just to save this elite from conducted some, but it is, if you like, both a nuclear umbrella when we talk about nato and a nuclear umbrella when we talk about the csto or the shanghai cooperation organization, where you can somehow appeal to china, what... are they doing the countries of central asia are very active, well , this is also a strength, and where we turned out, we simply adored our multi-vector foreign policy, this, if you ask, but we are nowhere, therefore nowhere, that’s what i said then, i said in the 90s, that this is common vector, different vector external

politics, this means that we are nowhere, where in sight, eye, but to... and this is the result. and now, when we are told again, and maybe the condition of our survival and agreement with russia will be our neutral status, then this is what russia has always sought from us, to be nowhere, because if we are nowhere, sooner or later we will become nothing. this is a simple, simple relationship, but unfortunately, i always remind you that it was accepted by society, ukrainian society, for a long time, and i don't know if the situation would have changed if it weren't for 2014, if it weren't for the annexation of crimea, if, if it weren't for the tragedy that happened in the donbass, as far as you and i are concerned. cheesemakers are ready to realize the real danger. i want to remind you that when viktor yushchenko was still president, and when such a real conversation

about the holodomor began, many did not perceive it as an accusation against russia. almost the entire faction of the party of regions voted against this decision. now, when we talk about the legacy, the political legacy of yushchenko, we understand that this is possibly one of the most important moments. of ukraine that we were able to look realistically at their own history of the 20th century. at that time, it was not significant for many, for me it was a huge mystery, why is it so, you understand, khrystyna, because i knew about all these stories from childhood, and generally believed that this was one of the most important moments in the history of the ukrainian nation, the one that always needs to be talked about when we think about what happened in these lands in general, but no, but no, it was necessary for a whole... the president to start a whole campaign to return the policy of national memory to some we are still building unconscious beginnings regarding the sea, as

you know, so far, let's talk about what probably hurts ukraine at the end of 2023 almost the most, and this is, after all, the fact that we are hostage to the political realities of our extremely important partners, for example, the united states , a story in general. our relations with the united states during 2023 was full of many events, including joseph biden's visit to ukraine in february 23, despite, as we understand, a rather heated military situation. this is the visit of ukrainsky, to the ukrainian president and more than one to the united states, speaking in congress, and communicating with representatives of both parties in the united states. and of course communication with the american president himself, we understand that the turbulence in the states is unlikely to be related in any way

to us, but at the same time we find ourselves in a situation where we depend on it, and will the democrats come to some conscious compromise with the republicans , unfortunately, our existence for the entire next year depends on this, it is no exaggeration. sir vitaliy, can we say that in the united states there is also a certain change... and now, in fact, the administration of joseph biden, realizing the political realities they are facing, is forced to look for some alternative ways to finance us. at the end of the year, i will just remind you, the united states began to convince the countries of the group of seven that there is an absolutely normal legal mechanism for the transfer of confiscated russian assets, or frozen russian assets, to the benefit of ukraine, that is, there are some such you know, inventive thoughts along those lines. but all this comes out of the crisis, well, you are absolutely right, khrystyna, if we look at the year 2023 from the point of view of the logic of ukrainian-american relations, then here we will see a transition from

triumph to disappointment, this visit of the president of the united states in february, which seemed completely incredible historical event, it was the first time in history that an american president had visited an area of ​​such obvious danger that the president of the united states had to travel by train in such, i would say, situations from of the polish border to kyiv, and you can imagine how difficult this decision was to make in the white house in general, and to volodymyr zelenskyi's visit to washington in december, which was also unexpected, but still everyone thought oh, well, it's a huge event, when the president of ukraine arrives in washington, because we all knew that previously all... proposals from the ukrainian side to organize a meeting between the presidents of the united states and ukraine coincided with explanations from the united states that there is no

sense in such meetings now, and the president planned, as we know, to come to the forum of defense strategies, but he did not come, representatives of the ukrainian leadership came without zelensky, and this is quite an important moment, about which i want to say that after all, that visit was his last... he also went to to a certain extent, a visit of disappointment, because everyone talked to zelenskyi both in the senate and in the house of representatives, and representatives of the republican political establishment said yes, we will support you, but in general it is not about you, but on the other hand, this is this true, but it's possible because we don't know , it could be that the republican elite is using the story with the border to not give us money, we'll find out next year, but what's important is the fact that. .. no one in the united states, perhaps with the exception of donald trump , wants to say out loud that he does not want to give aid to ukraine, this is more of a positive than a negative signal, because

in ... that 2024 will not be easy from the point of view of aid, we knew back in 2022, and everyone said about it that most of what we are can do, must do in 2020 the third year because 2024 is a campaign year in the united states, and a campaign year is never easy, and there is another very important point that i want to say that... this the year 2024 actually started in 20203. why? because american legislators in the house of representatives for the first time in many years elected the speaker of the house with an absolutely strange regulatory procedure. because the speaker of the house of representatives is a serious figure. this is a person who must be protected in his actions certain immunity. therefore, this speaker is given this immunity for a certain time, so that he can rule the house calmly, so that he... can not

look back to the views of individual legislators, so that he can rely on the majority, and the impeachment of such a person can be determined solely by the common will there , it seems to me that a large number of legislators, i won't say the number now, how it looked before, kevin mccarthy in his desire to become the speaker of the house of representatives, by the way, he actually lost his political career, so that at the end of this year he is leaving the congress altogether, and with this imprudent decision. he wanted so much, you know, a person really wants, there is some desire, i really want to be the speaker of the house of representatives of the us congress, i can understand that, it is a good job and a historical job, but it is important not to fall into history, not to get caught up in it , that 's the thing by the way, this year, when people got stuck in history, remember how kevin makartsev entered history as a short-term speaker, and remember the letter of tras, who was

prime minister for a few weeks... great britain, he, she, too, probably always wanted to lead the british government, but if you go down in the history of great britain as the shortest-serving head of government , that's exactly what you wanted in life, hence the question , you see, so this speaks of turbulence absolutely, and here kevin mccarthy becomes the speaker, he actually cannot really run the house, and later representatives of ... a radical such circle in the republican party, who are even more zealous than their colleagues are oriented towards the former the president donald trump, they put forward with this no confidence. and this speakership begins, and the new speaker of the house of representatives mike johnson, he perfectly understands from the experience of his predecessor that he is much more dependent not on congressmen, not on the general political situation in the country, but

on... one person, because donald trump , as we have seen, could block the election of anyone who seemed to him too independent a candidate, those whom i have called republicans in name only, when in fact trump himself is a republican in name only, and johnson, whatever ideas he has about his political future, he is forced to target trump, because if he stops doing this, he will face the fate of mccarthy, and if you want to remain a significant figure in american aviation. you need, well, at least until the elections until november 2024, to remain the speaker like this, because after that it is not known what the majority will be, whether there will be a majority of democrats, whether there will be a majority of republicans, no one knows what will happen after the by-elections, but that's why the year 2024 has begun for us, unfortunately, 2023, if it were not so, baptized, then the speaker of the house of representatives

is absolutely calm. i would also put to a vote the budget for 2024, which, i remind you , has not yet been adopted, and the military budget, which was adopted only at the end of the year, and the proposal of the president of the united states for aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan, all of this would be b. and yes, we faced that turbulence, just until the moment when there would be... the approved decision to allocate us this 61, it seems, billion dollars, for by and large, how should it be, we should receive this 61 billion, and then the turbulence would begin, well, this is ideally so, and it should be like that, this is what the white house planned, and what would happen in 2025, no one knows at all , because everything there would still depend on the result of the election for the president of the united states, in fact,

no one knows what this result will be today. america is such a country, we are now looking at the ratings, here...