position, although now we see from the supply of weapons that china is possible and ready to support the unspoken russian position, or will china iron out the same initiative china and brazil wanted to do in the format of a bilateral summit of ukraine and russia in saudi arabia? while china's position remains unclear for us, it is not yet clear what interests it will pursue from these three parallel formats, i can only wonder what we should really bet on, maybe what... we are promoting the continuation of the peace formula, the second summit as soon as possible, the involvement of russia as soon as possible, this is precisely an attempt to show china that our plan is the only one that is advancing, is the only one that has at least some perspective, and maybe catfas is interested in such a solution as a simple ceasefire, they don't want anything, they don't say anything, let's decide this way and that way, recognize donbas as russian, or let russia agree to you joining nato, you will become neutral, or let russia agree there, or your... integrity will be for

secured by your demilitarization, they simply say: cease fire and then talk. yes, indeed, china's position in this regard is very straightforward, but china's position is not actually mentioned, well, in such formulations, neither in our plan, nor in the russian one. before the ceasefire, the russians want the ukrainians to surrender more than a third of their territories. we want to talk about the fact that a ceasefire is possible then. when we will have security guarantees and an understanding that in the future we will be able to liberate the territory, and in the future, even if the territory is free, we will be able to cement the non-repetition of aggression, and therefore, in this regard, it is possible to emphasize that negotiations with russia should begin as soon as possible, china can use it to say, well, if you want as soon as possible, how to say earlier, let's let's meet somewhere in the middle and just stop shooting, maybe china will play on... on this narrative,

but i repeat, so far we have not had any hints from the heavenly side, in principle, if we talk about the terms, for which it was necessary to conduct right now is the summit at the level of the heads of state, you understand, the expediency, why right now, what were the expectations, something might happen, you know, it's like in the old joke about two political analysts, which i can explain myself, well, you understand that really happens, and... here, it seems to me, the explanation is completely, well, let's say, built into a logical chain, that we need to start a format that will become unalternative, in the future, as we would like to see, in our positivist thinking, and that's why we need to have the first summit at the level of the heads of states, heads of governments, so that they see the importance of this, so that as many countries as possible join, work groups are launched, and there, in the future, somewhere in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth summit, we have already reached a vision. that is, this was

obviously the logic of our leadership, but was it expedient to hold such a summit right here and right now as soon as possible, realizing that china will not be there, realizing that a significant part of the countries of the global south refused to participate, realizing that many regional leaders the global south also said literally at the last moment that they were not ready to participate in such a summit, there was no obvious expediency, that is, the logic is to launch... the format and continue to promote it, if you proceed from the very positivist thinking of our leadership, well, there was such a logic, but was there any practical value, well, the practical value disappeared at the moment when china decided that it and i were not on the same path, in principle, by and large, why then russia and china fought so much with this summit, or really the main one was the struggle around the very presence of china? it seems to me that china fought only

by the very fact of its absence, it understood that huge bets are placed on it, both in ukraine and in the west, and the global south will turn to it, that is, china constantly understood that it is the kingmaker here, just he can decide how successful this or that initiative will be, simply because the participation of dozens of other countries depends on his decision, and it depends in principle on understanding how much pressure it will put on russia. that's why what china has done is absolutely clear. he saw that for him such complex formats and such intricately linked formats with the western view were not suitable, he came up with an alternative opinion, this alternative opinion was not listened to to the extent that china wanted it to be listened to, and china decided to devote his attention to this format of the ukrainian peace formula for the time being. and as for russia, russia mainly, as we have seen, conducted active. into

summit politics and actively promoted the narrative that the summit would fail in that period, when it was being prepared with the involvement of china, and with the active involvement of india, and also with... with the active involvement of many other partners of russia in the global south, that is, for russia this issue was more difficult than for china, if china had opportunity to choose, then russia obviously feared that it could lose its partners, who are still ready to make its diplomacy a handshake and continue to buy russian resources. by the way, about russian resources, many countries came to this summit, i don't know if china wanted russia to they came, they didn't want to, they came, but they don't stop economic cooperation because of this. with moscow, right? it is obvious that they do not stop. it is obvious that some of them, especially those who now so mildly refused to sign the final communiqué, or who dropped out in the last two days, obviously, they can even increase this cooperation, because in fact, as lavrov said there, an anti-russian coalition has been formed , and accordingly, everyone who is

outside the anti-russian coalition can count on better discounts, they can to count on better treatment, they can count on the fact that russia will be ready to pour its own resources into them even more. favorable conditions, so yes, unfortunately for these states, this will not block the channels of cooperation with the russians in any way yet. once again, it must be repeated that until a complete ecosystem is formed around the peace formula, god willing, it will turn out to be mutually interesting for all sides of this communication, and not just for us, because we just want it to work, well until the moment the country who traded with russia will still have an interest in trade with russia, because we must remember that in general... peace, especially in terms of food, in terms of new trade networks, in terms of safe trade and so on, it was done with the aim of , so that other countries are ready to talk about a world without russia, so that other countries, they say, are ready to work with ukraine with the west and

not have the same contacts with russia. of course, this was a very optimistic vision of the situation, but based on these positions, well, for now, the formula for peace is clearly those who wanted to trade with moscow can continue to do so with complete peace of mind. in principle, what is more important now, diplomacy or weapons, or not even that, it is clear that weapons are important, to the extent that diplomacy can strengthen weapons realistically in a situation where russia will rush to diplomacy. well, it seems to me that our key diplomacy should now be directed in two directions. the first is constant support for the actualization, even rather, of ukrainian topics in our western partners, because we see that... that in the united states, in pre-election socio-political escalation is increasing in britain, we see that the ukrainian issue very often falls out of the general context, and of course it is important for us to emphasize that despite the elections, despite the peace formula, and everything

else, russia , unfortunately, still exists, and if russia exists, there are shelling, there are attacks on the civilian population, there is a need to provide weapons to ukraine, and the second big question is that we started, unfortunately, quite late, because ... literally still in the middle of the 23rd year, but what is needed to do exactly is to search for non-western allies who are ready to actively work with us, by non-western we speak geographically, because in principle most of those partners who work with us are, say, in the far east, such as south korea, japan, most of our partners from the global cock, they consider themselves a part of the western coalition in one way or another, but i repeat, part of the shells, a huge part of even new equipment that may be available to us. can now be found in those countries that were not so active before we cooperated, so these are two directions: actualization of our topics with old partners and allies, and finding ways out and opportunities for cooperation with new partners, it seems to me that this is the only diplomacy that

will make sense now, this is the only diplomacy that will allow us to really achieve that level arms, resources and financial support, which will allow us to speak with russia on an equal footing, let's call it that. you don't have any fears, according to the official comments i see, that now the holding of the measure summit, which can be considered a successful diplomatic action there, will be used in order to start convincing people again that the end of the war is just a few months away, wait a few more months and there will be a peaceful situation, russia will completely agree, because so many countries are opposing it, i can already see how does it go and it reminds me of a story about two or three. in 2022, why can't you honestly tell people that this is a long-term war with no prospects for a political settlement, so that they at least understand in which country and in which world they live and will live in the years to come, even if there is a truce and an end to the fire, we will not rule it out, because unfortunately,

as much as we do not observe the communication of the authorities during the war, we see that our authorities do not know how to work with the management of expectations, that is, we are not so much talk about narrative. that are used, we are no longer talking about messages that very often do not correspond to the real situation, it is just a real inability to work with the management of expectations, because for some reason it appears to those who form our policies. our information component, what if we all to convince that everything will be fine and that we will keep it up for long enough, then people will simply have a reduced horizon of planning, people will have a sense of imminent danger, and they say that at some point everything will simply be the same for them, or everything will become so it's bad that you won't have to explain anything. plus, they tried, our government, it means, as we saw, to promote this narrative to our western partners, that they say, everything is so cool with us that you can safely give us weapons now, because we... they say we will endure, we will do everything quickly, and then you will not have to give weapons for so long, that is

, the calculation is to convince everyone to the end that everything is very cool, everything can be solved quickly, and therefore we need to be supported, no one wants to honestly say how difficult it is situation, because no one is sure that it will be possible to explain it both to our partners outside and to the population inside, because one way or another, but if we started working for two or three weeks from the 22nd year, then coffee. .. in july in yalta, then continues again for two months will end war, if such a course has already been taken, it is very difficult to get out of it, you will have to tell too much truth, and as you understand, it is always very, very difficult. well, it seems to me that our partners understand very well that they are witnesses of a long-term conflict, they said in the 22nd year that if the conflict does not end in six months for at least 6-8 years, they are acting in this paradigm of supporting ukraine on multi-year perspective? yes, but, but somehow we continue. it is sacred to believe that we have to convince them that we can do it to finish quickly, accordingly, if we can

finish quickly, then we are so cool, good, and it is safe to give us any weapon, that is, if you give it for a short period, we will win quickly, and do not be afraid that you will have to give for a long time, you can tell your voters that we will spend a little money, and then this spending of money will end and they say that very soon everything will be as it was before, and it will be possible to think about restoring a normal economy, fighting inflation and so on and so forth , that is... what our allies understand the state of affairs more realistically is one thing, but the fact that our partners do not understand how partners perceive it, or how partners build their strategy, causes not only problems with the management of expectations, but also, by the way, causes the same resentment that the americans had, causes confusion as to why european partners, or why the ramstein format gives weapons the way it does, and this already directly affects communication, it already causes such situations when the western press literally comes out with editorials about the fact that biden and zelensky each other

are dissatisfied and do not want to understand each other, that is, it becomes not only a problem of external communication, it becomes a problem of planning, and it is so embedded in our planning that we have to convince everyone that everything is great, which i will repeat, as i said before , i don't know how to get out of this situation normally, because there is too much truth to tell now, it is already a real threat for such communication, so what? there is too much truth, but the truth can be dosed, so from monday to friday it is given in dosed forms, so that on saturday everyone understood how looks like a real situation in perspective. well , what i mean by too much is to explain absolutely all the punctures, explain the absolutely complete situation and clearly and openly say that we were wrong from the very beginning, this is too much truth, it is not just to admit that from the year or from the 19 huh? and normally from the 19th, but let's be

realistic, most likely we are already talking about the time of the 22nd, that is, explain why there were such decisions then, why there was no preparation right a month before the invasion, why in some areas front aspects of this preparation i was literally at a loss as to why our partners did not receive quite the correct communication during that period, why we rejected absolutely obvious things at that time, why at the turn of the 22nd, 23rd year of acceptance... thank you, mr. oleksandr, oleksandr kraev, expert of the foreign council politicians ukrainian prism, we were in touch, and now we will talk with boris koshniruk, economist, head of the expert council of the ukrainian analytical center, congratulations mr. boris, congratulations, let's start with russia, maybe you can explain what is really will happen with the russian economy or will not happen in connection with'. against the stock exchange, because you know that the russian leadership, they are trying to pretend that this will not change anything, that the dollar

will be determined by the banks themselves, and the central bank will be known by the banks, and the currency system of the russian federation will be in the same state, as it was, this is true or not, to a large extent yes, it is necessary to understand that the lack of an exchange mechanism for determining the exchange rate is indeed a certain problem, but in our country... for example, the national bank is essentially in manual mode determines the exchange rate every day, although formally we have some mechanism of interbank currency trade, but between. in fact, it is determined by the national bank in manual mode, so it is not critical for the russian economy, it will not be critical, although, let’s say, it widens the spreads, which is not determined, and what happens next, it creates a situation when the buying and selling rate, it will be more significantly different than when it is established during trading

on the stock exchange, well, by and large, we can say that this is the beginning of something new. type of sanctions or continuation of those that were, this continuations that were, this is only, let’s say, a gradual, slow, overlapping opportunity for the russian economy, but this is a long game, it is very necessary to constantly explain to everyone that all these sanctions will continue to exist for decades after this war ends, and these there will be problems in russia for a very, very long time, and again, i... emphasizes that the purpose of these sanctions is not so much to stop this war as to weaken russia as much as possible and make new aggression impossible, but when it comes to limiting the activities of chinese companies, let's say which ones cooperate with russia, to what extent does it affect china itself and the russian opportunities

to restore the economy with the help of china, in my opinion, binding on one economy is always bad, a priori, and for russia it is an indisputable additional problem, for china, it is even a certain plus, because the market for sales of chinese products is emerging, especially in the conditions of growing problems for the chinese economy, so it is not so bad for china in this respect, it is another matter that this sanctions regime of the so-called secondary sanctions in relation to chinese... campaigns, he only demonstrates that two global coalitions of aftarkic democracies are essentially forming, and a direct clash of these aftarks is very, very likely, a collision of autotarky with democracies or the appearance of a clash of autotarky among themselves, no, unfortunately, at least at the first stage

of autarky with democracies, if they will succeed, well, remember germany and... first they divided their spheres of influence and so on, and then they clashed directly with each other. and in principle, if we talk about such a clash, to what extent china can afford such a direct conflict with the west, given its economic dependence on western markets, almost to the maximum. you see, if you look for logic, then under any circumstances there will be a collision. it is disadvantageous for china, a war, and a long war is always a minus game, it is never a plus game, but the problem is that the logic of the dictators who rule the auto-tarchies, they have a completely different logic, and they very often have their own ideas about the world, they actually project

onto life, which can be completely different, and this again... there were a lot of examples in what will the ukrainian economy look like after these strikes on the energy infrastructure, how far can it be assumed, in principle, that production can exist at the same level, work at the same level, with the same profitability in the conditions of not having a shortage of electricity and increased tariffs, there are certainly additional problems, we will now see that - a greater number of nuclear power units will be forced to be put on technical preventive maintenance and summer ones in order to be able to work efficiently in winter, and i have already spoken about this thesis, i did not i don't want to scare anyone with it, but i do not rule out that the russian madness may reach

the point that they will start striking nuclear power plants, and i emphasize that they cannot cause a nuclear attack. a disaster, that is, the nuclear fuel that is located there, it is located in very protected areas, confiscations, which simply cannot be destroyed there by missiles or an airplane, but it is possible to significantly damage the equipment involved in the production and transmission of electricity, and in this case the situation could be even worse than it is now, that's why we talk all the time about nuclear. security, as i understand it, on the international side, no , we are not talking about nuclear security so much about strikes on nuclear plants as about these constant mantras of russia that it can... use nuclear weapons, because although, again, history, in including the only case when it was used by japan, and the attack on hirsima

nagasa, the nagasaki, well, it is known that they did not lead to the fact that japan surrendered, the surrender of japan was a consequence of the fact that, in fact, the soviet union started a war despite the agreement with japan . and occupied a considerable territory and in majura, and accordingly, the japanese army simply could not begin with this and after that they already announced the surrender. what is the state of the economy in ukraine today, so what to do with the current ukrainian economy? well, you know how it is, start, finish, there is a lot to say here, it is obvious that first of all , mechanisms should be created that would stimulate the work of small and medium-sized businesses, because large businesses are largely located in the worst conditions, because they are often

hit, in this regard, small and medium-sized businesses less dependent on such attacks, but on the other hand, it is necessary to create conditions for it, and certainly some adequate one is needed. and a transparent and honest conversation with society about mobilization and economic reservation, business cannot function in conditions of paralysis and uncertainty, when they do not know who and how they can join the armed forces, and it will be done completely by chance, in this it definitely creates big problems, there is the issue is completely inadequate monetarily. the policy of the national bank is extremely opaque, corruption, and this also creates problems for business, for determining what it should do, what will happen to the exchange rate, because it is actually determined

manually by the national bank, what it does with interest rates, and how it stimulates lending even in wartime, it with its policy, it rather generally kills this sphere and so on, that is, the question of what needs to be done more than enough is another matter, which i do not expect with... their incompetence do not realize that they do not, that they do not understand what is happening , but they have them, they have them absolutely sure that they understand

what is going on, but when they start talking, that's when you realize that the situation is really dire, because these people are talking outright delusion, and this applies to the government, and the national bank, and the office of the president , if? what can we say about the situation with the extent to which reforms can and can take place now in the current conditions of war, they are asking for reforms anew, how realistic are these demands, let's decide that this is actually this mantra about reforms, you know, there in goebbels attributed to the phrase, when i hear the word culture, i grab my gun, you know, when i hear the word reform, i also have the urge to... already grab my gun, why? because reforms are a tool. first you need to understand what you want to do, you will understand clearly what you want to do, and then

based on that, you start to use certain tools, and reforms in this case are the very tool that you need to do for to achieve the goals that you want to, well, you want to have goals if you don't understand what to do. in fact, there is no such thing, well, i am already tired of giving this example, but it is very eloquent the statement of the prime minister that ukraine should become the raw material center of europe, well, what do you want from a person with this level of understanding, for him to know what he needs to do in the country, well definitely, and very unfortunately, this is not one person's problem, this is the problem of those who were brought to ... power in 2019, even though i was never special there a fan of the prime minister arseniy yasenyuk and groysman, but they

look just giant against the background of them. intelligence from your point of view, what should be the measures to stabilize the wartime economy in this understanding? again, this is what i said, we need a completely transparent monetary policy, so that there is access to crypto, absolutely transparent and understandable for business the situation with the exchange rate, what will the national bank do, because the exchange rate depends completely 100% now on national bank. well, he determines the course, with which, excuse me, from which leg they will get up and what will they do with the rates, because they are in such conditions, when it is not transparent, it creates huge problems for business, we need, i repeat, we need a clear, clear position regarding the mechanism of mobilization and economic reservation, because again business must understand what you are doing, you need an adequate budget policy, you,

excuse me, when in the conditions of war in our country... it is absolutely normal that they continue to move tiles or build roads at a time when the armed forces are in dire need of military equipment and everything, which is related for war, then of course this indicates that you are doing something wrong, you are not using the funds that you mobilize or that are given to you from the outside in such a way, so i emphasize, this is a set of actions that need to be done, well, here is an example, you know , was very showy. example, the other day we constantly spread it with khmelnytskyi, the city leadership over the past 80 years has been building a model of gas turbine power generating stations that provided the city with heat and electricity, it is not the only one, there are six or seven of them, i don’t remember how many, like this they've kept the city running smoothly, but it's been going on for years, there's no

question about what you're supposed to do here... now, if you haven't done it for years for certain cities, you definitely have the answers, the kind that will enable you to breathe out and say: we've done everything and we'll be fine, there's definitely no such answer, we're going to face problems that we're going to have to deal with out there in fire mode, based on what we have now. thank you, mr. boris, boris kushnirok, as an economist. head of the expert group on behalf of the ukrainian analytical center , we were in touch and we talked with him about what is happening with the ukrainian economy, and now from ukraine, from the economic side, we will move to the near east, we will talk with vadym polishchuk, a historian, a political observer in israel, congratulations mr. vadim, good evening, i congratulate you, well, what do you think is going on at the moment... things with the probable

end of the conflict, to what extent can it be assumed that they will reach some sort of agreement? is there such a prospect at all? well, about the deal with hamas, it somehow does not work out, and most analysts have the impression that hamas does not need this agreement at this stage, and they want, their main demand is to stop the war and then we will talk, and i want... to be guarantors political players, first of all the united states, they called for the last time that china, russia would join, and some arab countries, and further, that they would have hostages left, uh, because, because not all of the hostages in question they have it and in their hands, and then they somehow have someone there will be given, someone is kept for further conversations, trades, demands, etc.

, and so they drag them, the biden administration makes even greater concessions, israel inclines them to them, and then they refuse and wait for them to be offered something even more interesting , or when a team from iran doesn't arrive to either continue this conflict, or it can somehow turn around little by little, but the main goal is really for them to maintain power in the gas sector, and it doesn't matter what... what victims among the civilian population this struggle will cause. but on the other hand on the other hand, how realistic is the idea that it is possible to destroy hamas in gaza, given the level of its influence on the population, and, in principle , the attitude of the population to the force option of solving problems. well, you can destroy as a structure or essence.