such a task is not even set , that is, it is not, conditionally speaking, a gathering of people so that they write some retraction and this retraction is somewhere out there, which means it got there and so on, it is rather a test of a common language, whether we from different sectors understand each other, can we feel what one or the other is saying, and can we translate it into our own language, and there are also, i would say mixed feelings, because... business speaks business, there are think tanks in their bird language, civil society in its own language, politicians who were present and government officials who were present, in their language, some participants are bilingual, which allows them to translate, but some are not, and if we compare the russian system, for example , the ukrainian system, then the russian system is vertically hierarchical, it is united around a vertical axis. is so

strong, we're talking about a network society, how strong is the connection between those who are on the horizon, and what we've seen is that these connections are very important to develop, including if we we want to keep democracy in the country, and we can keep democracy put an equal sign between the maintenance of democracy and the maintenance of independence, because if we maintain democracy, democracy is a system that is sensitive to minority voices. this means that every person within the country has a chance that their voice will be important, will be heard. if we get out of that model, then suddenly there are those who say, wait, wait, wait, this is not my system, i don't have to defend it, and there is an avoidance of responsibility, a refusal to take part duties, refusal of to take part of the risks and so on and so on and so on. therefore, this

attempt to build horizontal communication is actually very important from the point of view of the stability of the existence of the ukrainian state in general, although it may not look like that from the outside, well, if you think about it , a scientist cannot get along with a businessman, well, i, i just believe that a scientist and a businessman and it will be understood, but i do not understand the mechanism by which these network connections and this understanding. can affect the aircraft, which the team yes, and the captain of the ship leads in a sharp pike down, for example, so or where simply in the captain's room they do not hear these voices and the work of all these think tanks and so on, that is, i do not understand how in the conditions, as you very correctly said, of a single telethon, monitoring journalists, dismissal. military commanders and

not only, but also ministers and so on, without any explanations, yes, that is, in a situation that looks like the principle of building a dictatorship and totalitarianism, yes, how to unite the father and how to save the state, let's say so, i would do here disclaimer, any democratically elected wartime leader will seek centralization. therefore, what may look like a simple desire to turn the system into an autocratic one may be part of a natural reflex that occurs when a more manageable situation is needed in a crisis . secondly, i am absolutely convinced that if we are faced with any consequences of totalitarian culture, then this is an echo from the past.

we do not have political players who would seriously like to establish a totalitarian regime in ukraine, well, at least not from the ukrainian side, that is, the russians establish totalitarian rules of the game, but there is not a single ukrainian subject, there is neither a servant of the people, nor the eu, nor any other parliamentary forces, they are ready in one way or another to use the imperfections of the system, but it is not about. .. that's why, in order for the discussion not to shake and go to extremes, i try to do the same, and i urge, i try to be restrained myself, i urge others to be restrained in these discussions, because otherwise we actually burn this trust, and later, when we will once again cry wolves, others will not will know if they are wolves or if we just want to draw their attention and so on and so forth, and... if we talk about why it is important

to get along horizontally, then the answer is simple, because in this way we can transfer the mandate to each other , to convey trust, to convey soci. capital, because the concentration of social capital in ukraine is of great importance in order to determine who shapes the agenda, and the agenda can be shaped by those who have the appropriate power, if they have enough a high level of trust, but if they do not have a sufficiently high level of trust, then the initiative in shaping the agenda will be with civil society, it will be with the church, it will be with someone else, and actually the question arises as to who... influences the agenda more, who defines it, there is a lot of anxiety in civil society about what is happening in the state, because it is very easy to ensure the interaction of all parties when the administration

is popular, 70-80% support its actions and so on, but we encountered the first serious defeat with the failure of the counterattack. expectations for the counteroffensive were inflated, they were fueled by the miracle that happened in the kharkiv region in the fall of 22, they were exacerbated by the fact that this global coalition was being built in support of ukraine and so on, and when we did not get the result that we expected, suddenly... changes began in the attitude of citizens to what the state says, the number of people willing to come, for example, to military bases decreased sharply, and the level of trust in state institutions began to decline, that is, we

we see this very serious game change, and what is the administration trying to do in such a situation, what can the administration try to do in such a situation, it can try to continue what it... did before, it can try to become more accountable, and that's actually the question that now stands at this critical moment is whether we can build a relationship where all parties, business, civil society, the church, there and so on and so on and so on, have confidence in the actions of the political leadership that has insane responsibility, or with with a certain suspicion, or with certain reservations , and how you answer this question, i am very interested, i answer it so that it is difficult to build trust, because such stories, such as, for example, the story with mazepa, with business, such stories as the story with the observation of bigusinfo, such stories, they do not help, do not help to establish this trust, and if

circumstances arise where, for example, the first persons under the pressure of traditions try to ... protect themselves, and this , probably, in my opinion, the most logical, most logical reason why not the reform of law enforcement agencies is carried out to the end, why is the reform of the justice system not carried out and so on, because then the elite feels terribly vulnerable, and fears that in response to these reforms, it will actually suffer revenge from its successors, if we see that. .. there are such fears, it is very important that all participants begin to behave in such a way as to eliminate these fears, but with all this we see that law enforcement agencies are limitless, we see that absolutely amazing court decisions arise very often, we see that it is very difficult to see

any coordination in a significant part of the executive power, how many ministries are without ministers, how many embassies are without ambassadors, that is, disputes arise. where they should not arise, or such situations as, for example, there with the appointment of, for example, the ambassador to bulgaria and so on, which simply cannot be explained in any rational categories, and this exacerbates mistrust at a time when on the agenda there are much more important issues, the unity of society in the face of the russian threat - this is an important question, the transition from the sprint mode to the marathon mode, when we understand that the war is not for a year. not by two, by three or five, maybe longer, it means that completely different safety margins are needed, and now it is important to build these safety margins, and in order to finish with this block, to move on to the future, i will also ask this, on the forum sounded the phrase that war is

a counter-revolution of dignity, what do you put into it, how does war sharpen it? what actually, what was won on the maidan, yes, what how does war change the social contract, and what is the danger? we had three social contracts during independence. of ukraine. the first social contract with which ukraine gained independence is the soviet social contract. the essence of which is that citizens give up their rights in exchange for social security guaranteed by the state. the state did not fulfill these social guarantees. they became less and less and less valuable each time. and accordingly, at a certain moment a part of society appeared which said: "we are leaving this social contract, we are on our own." to constantly provide for oneself, and then there was an evolution of the social contract from soviet to

an intermediate one, his nestor group called the social contract of corruption consensus, the essence of which is approximately that we citizens do not ask the state difficult questions, and you, the state, do not ask difficult questions either ask us, we're going around and you 're going around, we don't ask where you got your mercedes from, you don't ask why we don't pay taxes, the corruption consensus agreement is such a non-aggression pact between'. and society, which was very severely violated by yanukovych, and there was no way to turn it back and make it effective, accordingly , a revolution of dignity takes place, the revolution of dignity leads for the first time in history to a social contract , which the nestor group called it the contract of dignity, the essence of which is that citizens and elites recognize that they together have responsibility for something very valuable and very important for all of them, for the independent. and this independent state gives us security, gives us opportunities, gives us some quality of life, and

for this it makes sense for us to cooperate, and accordingly we begin to learn to behave in such a way that it is mutually beneficial for us. citizens learn to treat the state with respect, and not with fear and hatred, as was the case for many decades, the state begins to treat citizens with respect, recognizing its dignity, and accordingly, recognizing their dignity, but, if we look at it a large number of all kinds of reforms that have been carried out, decentralization, digitization, there is an educational reform and so on, these reforms are aimed at increasing dignity. now what happens next? a full-scale invasion begins, society goes into zero-sum game mode, it 's either you survive or your enemy survives, a zero-sum game mode. actually reduces the space in which blame-blame is possible, and at that moment there is a risk

that citizens will also switch to a certain configuration, for example, if distrust of the authorities is high, to a model of game relations from a zero sum, as well against one's own ukrainian state, and this is probably the worst thing that can happen, because the transition from a strategy of joint victory to a personal strategy. survival, it's a transition that weakens us all, well, basically, it 's a defeat strategy, it's a defeat strategy, yes, it's a defeat strategy, which may be delayed, which may not be immediate, but, but there's nothing to cling to, so it's the strategy of disunity is a strategy that does not provide an opportunity to build a solidary, joint action, and as a result of this, at a certain moment we we can, we risk reaching a point, and i especially emphasized that we are not at this point, that is... there is still enough trust in the system, that is, it is not very important for us to be realistic and not to cry

wolves then, when there are no wolves yet, what should happen now, what should happen now , so that this strategy of defeat, it does not work, so that this scenario of defeat does not start, well, such and such actions of each side in relation to the other side must take place, which will can make them possible. power society, society between itself, the business there and the customers and so on, if the business, for example, behaves in relation to its customers in such a way that the customers cannot trust the business, they turn their backs and go and buy their services or goods elsewhere, this business will burn out, yes the situation with its democracy is much more difficult, because especially when there are no elections, there is no possibility to change, for example, one team to another. this means that we all have to admit that we are in the situation in which we are, whether zelensky likes it or not,

he is the legitimately elected and legitimate president of the country, he will be longer than his term, because it is impossible to hold elections during war in such a way that they are recognized by society itself, i am not talking about the international ones, there are international observers and so on, so that precisely society has recognized that these elections are legitimate, because a large number of people are not... where they are registered, it is impossible to ensure that neither the campaign nor the vote is normal, that is, in other words, we, until we win at war, we... we are in in the configuration in which it is, this means that in this situation we must all behave in such a way as not to give the other a reason not to trust ourselves, and this is a very difficult obligation, because it obliges not only the administration, but actually , which was very clearly heard at a certain

point in the forum, was that the participants were talking about what... somebody has to do in order for us to win. it is up to everyone, and this is a question, this is a question, and at a certain point, a correction worked internally, that is, both through the moderators and through other participants who said, "no, no, look, it's very easy to blame someone, the question is what we 're doing, the question is whether we 're looking far enough ahead, whether we understand what we have to do here and now and so on. and i see some trends that, in general, i think, seem to me." for example, and i look inside the business environment, how the attitude towards paying taxes has changed, paying taxes, which until recently was seen as a necessary evil, uh, and in some cases an avoided evil, is now starting to become a factor of responsibility because the same business is the beneficiary of the benefits that

taxes create, so after all you and i all use supermarkets, take... public transport and so on and so forth, we haven't had the collapse that could happen at the start of a full-scale invasion, we we have the predicted rate of the national currency and so on and so forth , that is, we have a huge number of benefits that we take for granted on a daily basis, but in order for us to continue to rely on each other, we have, we have to be even more careful with each other one, we have to follow by what words we speak to each other. whether we keep our commitments and whether we are open to sometimes very uncomfortable changes. and the example i gave is that it is very important for civilians who are not in the armed forces to see that the armed forces adopts the philosophy of people-centeredness, and this is not

just to make a declaration, it is to show that the armed forces really cares. that there should be as few losses as possible, that it is real , that the dignity of a person who, a person who is ready to sacrifice his own life, that his dignity is respected at every stage, he may be in a dirty and cold trench, but her life is valuable, she is not expendable , that is what is important, which cannot be a kpi, for example, about whether a unit fights well or badly by the number of ... killed or wounded, and the greater this number, the better the unit fights, and so on. we hear hundreds and thousands of these stories, they have flooded the information space, because they penetrate not through some propaganda mouthpiece, they penetrate through personal stories told by people, who are in the armed forces. and this is an important question. the second

question is that we still, we have to look ahead and we have to understand what is very important. adapt to the war for everyone, and civilians too, it doesn't seem to you, i'm sorry, but i'll just ask a follow-up question, don't you think that last year we talked so much about our stability, about the fact that we live a normal life , about the fact that business pays taxes, we buy, they trade in blackout conditions, we talked so much against the background of the successful offensive of our troops, that a part of society... simply opted out of the war, believing that somewhere out there it will happen outside, and this is a large part of society, it happens when, when expectations are overheated, when signals are too optimistic, this is natural, it will happen , and that's why an honest conversation is actually very important, i also believe that now , most likely, the real situation can be in many

aspects better than we estimate, because we are now at the lowest point. uh, your feelings, but you said on the forum that ukrainian society is in to the lowest point of one's spirit, well, this actually means that the situation can be better than it seems to us, just as it was once worse than it seemed to us, that is , we must also realize that self-esteem is not always is correct, but, in any case, we are now in conditions of very changed rules of the game, we see. how difficult it is to solve the issue of assistance to ukraine in the united states, we see how slowly our partners in europe wake up, we see how... difficult there is this public debate about what it should look like, according to what roles , that is, what roles are played by various

institutions, who should take on what responsibility, how mobilization should take place, a very simple example, the law on mobilization that got to the parliament, then he was recalled from the parliament, then he got to the parliament again, he didn't have a single, not a single public hearing, there are no experts... it is possible to understand what is inside the draft law, is it some kind of secret? no, it is about the relations of a citizen and the state, he is about and what is the reason in your opinion, why? the reason is because it is an unpopular law, it is a difficult law, but if this law does not exist, then people who will soon be in the trenches for the third year will not be able to return home, have prospects of returning home, and this is also difficult, and it is precisely for that this law... could be accepted normally by all parties, it is very important to understand what principles are laid down in this law, and actually it is very important that the principles of the social

contract of dignity are laid down in this the law, so that the law says: yes, there are risks to everyone's life for you and me, but we all agree that human life and dignity are important, and if we agree on this, if we build our relationships according to these standards, then fewer people will...oppose it and then we won't be in a situation, yeah, then we won't be in a situation where we 're fighting each other, and i can say from the studies that i've seen that i've studied over the years that if the state will look threatening in the eyes of the citizen, the citizen is for them generation has already accumulated experience of corrupt confrontation with the state, and the citizen will win, ukrainians are very skillful, corruption will win, corruption will win the rules, and accordingly this means that the cost, transactional, of involving one

person in, for example, the armed forces, will be so high that, that it will be impossible to work normally within the framework of, for example, such a law, and that is why it is very important that now the deputies, who by and large, now have the responsibility, only on them, they are the only ones who can now and from... the authorities and from opposition, i.e. from any camp, they are the only ones who will now be able to go inside, look, decide how they want to change the norms that are there, and in accordance with these changes , already offer society a new approach. most likely, any decision will be unpopular, because we are talking about the fact that everyone can sacrifice, each of us and you can find ourselves in a situation where we will have to sacrifice, or ukrainians. want, a large part do not want, but the question is what if, if the fate falls on you, what if the choice is yours, that is, what is the next course of action, and the question here is that we

will be as strong as how protected the most vulnerable group of our society will be, i'm afraid , that we do not fully understand this, the last question is... we have 3 minutes left, i would very much like to talk with you about the previous topic, but there are only 3 minutes left, i still want to ask you about the frontier institute, and a week therefore, in this very forum, which we are talking about now, you announced about the launch of the frontier institute, why the frontier , what do you invest in it and what specifically, how do you see your mission, we as a society are on the verge of... a threat, and this threat will last, unfortunately, much longer than the war, so that we are not at war with putin's russia, we are at war with

a much more complex phenomenon, if tomorrow there is no putin and there is no state in its present form, the imperial sentiment and imperial culture will still remain. it is important for us to learn how to live in such a way that we can have a secure, fulfilling life, living near by. the frontier institute's mission is to understand how, to ask questions of absolutely different players, academics, analysts, politicians, business and so on, what can we do so that we learn to be resilient, to be resilient, and to understand how we can eventually push this frontier away from us over time. the frontier is a very american concept, that is... a concept from the united states of the 19th century, europe has forgotten what a frontier is, europe has not existed on the frontier for a very long time, and the other side of this

mission is to... also help our european partners to open their eyes and understand better that the fact that they do not feel pain, because they are not being hit, does not mean that this pain does not exist, and we we should all join together in this resistance, listen, and over the last 15 years or even over the last 10 years, you feel that the frontier is moving, that is, we are moving, if we take the frontier as a point of reference. the wall that separated the closed world from the open world, then as they said in that anecdote, we have made good progress, the issue is simply that while we advanced and failed to protect our borders, we failed to build a system that would be so stable that there was simply no point on the russian side to attack us, and as a result they now have a feeling that they

can break us. they have a feeling that they can create the conditions that will force us to agree, and then they will come to the european frontier, where it will be much easier for them. and you don't think that we didn't succeed in many things precisely because of who we are the people of the frontier, that the frontier influenced the entire history, in some way, on our identity, here is a similar, well, not in these words, but a similar opinion is expressed by serhiy plokhii, i think. that frontierism is part of our nature, but it does not mean that we have to accept it as a given, at one time the vikings, there the scandinavians were the ones who preferred violent solutions, and modern scandinavia has completely different values, in a different philosophy, i just think about the last 30 years, and this is about this kind of difference, so it seems to me that it is derived to a certain extent from

our frontier nature. i would say one of the things that can cloud the view is that sometimes we don't realize how crazy far we've come in the last 30 years and how much we've changed, and when i look through my professional lens , and i ask the question, could we have moved better , could we have moved faster, could that trajectory have realistically been any ... easier, uh, my professional answer is that no, we most likely did one of the most optimal possible scenarios, and if we honestly take into account the factors, which were the initial factors in which we were, and it was not poland, not bulgaria, not the czech republic, these were much tougher conditions, we went through a simply fantastic path, now during the war we must understand that we cannot

stop our transformation at... we must continue to implement reforms, we must continue to change, we must continue to strive for a different quality, we must remain both realists and maximalists in order to be able to build the kind of life that we want , and we should also understand that we at the same time, we have a rather cool attitude from our western partners, because if we declare that our subjectivity is important to us, this is a threat not only to russia, it also ... means that the western partners will have to deal with us business, and this is the reason why we have a blocked border, and this is the reason why we have problems with many neighboring, neighboring countries' governments, and this is the reason why this awakening of the great european powers there is so slow, our subjectivity is not a signal about what will happen easier, on the contrary, it is a signal for everyone that there will be more competition, it will be necessary

to take into account the opinion of these ukrainians. who are these ukrainians, who allowed them to demand something from us and so on, we need to have answers to these questions, and there is one minute left, but i cannot ask about such a threat, if you said the word victory, i will not ask , what does victory mean to you, you ask, by the way, in your excellent report, you ask a question, but you do not answer it, so if this victory is not as expected by ukrainian society, if this, and it... it is obvious that it will be, yes, because it will be connected with certain compromises, with certain, that is, the people may not feel the triumph of victory from time to time, or not it will happen that it will lead to isolationism, to anti-westernism, to an insult to western partners and to the whole world, and so on, to stagnation.