regarding the freezing of the conflict for some indefinite or definite period, but for peace, i do not think that such a basis will appear in the near future, just now the situation is complicated by the fact that europe is divided, the states are confused, and the last elections in europe and the upcoming elections in the united states, they force all those from the fact that, in one way or another , the influence on the course of events depends on the course of events, because this war does not depend... on the military who are fighting, although it is clear that primarily on them, they try to find some points touch, some basis for agreeing at least on a ceasefire, on one or another terms, it is clear that ukraine will not make territorial concessions under any circumstances, it is clear that putin will not, under any circumstances, agree to at least by some, maybe somehow it was perceived as his defeat, the only problem is, i think putin is actually willing to fight enough to... i

don't know what's on his mind, i think very few people actually know what's on his mind in his head, maybe only he knows, and maybe he doesn't knows, but the fact is that russia is capable of maintaining a military conflict at the level at which it is happening now, and this, i think, is a completely objective assessment, for another couple or three years, at least, on one side, on the other on the other hand, the economy, which really feels a certain uplift due to the transition to military rails. it is overheating, and this may lead to negative consequences in the future, moreover, the russian army is also getting tired, despite the fact that it has much more financial resources, technical resources, they are also getting tired, there they are also bleeding, they are suffering huge losses, and on the one hand , the military tells him that it will be a year and a half at most and we can achieve a complete military victory, and on the other hand, they tell him that in two years you may have problems with the economy, and in you may... be with the mobilization resource

and with the effectiveness of your armed forces, even numerical ones, there may be a problem in a year and a half, and between these, these are mutually exclusive things, right? absolutely, yes, and therefore on the one hand he tries to improve his conditions for theoretical negotiations now, trying to put pressure on different directions of the theater of war, and on the other hand, if he has it, and he will believe in it, that he will be able to... get a complete victory or a great victory there by military means , without resorting to any concessions, he will put pressure on it, and what is a complete victory, a complete capture of ukraine? a complete victory, in my understanding, is for russia, it is a controlled ukraine, it is not necessarily a physical seizure of the entire territory, it is an influence on the government, it is an influence on the authorities, it is an influence on the political processes here, this is a fixed neutral status, this is...

a reduction of the armed forces, that is, this is a situation in which moscow influences kyiv, indirectly or directly, but completely in one or another format, in one or another form. but in any case, even if you imagine that there is peace and there are some peaceful conditions, such are unfavorable to ukraine there, well, conditionally speaking, neutral status, as you say, refusal to join nato, even de facto recognizing the occupied territories as russian, even without a legal decision. looks unbelievable today, what looks unbelievable today, but anyway, even in such a country, elections are taking place, and how can russia control the elections, it has already tried to control the ukrainian elections several times, what came out of this is true, but if we talk about its purpose , about his aspirations, and not about the realities of life, i believe that today the situation in which russia will control ukraine is almost a fantasy, and there can be very unfavorable scenarios, but imagine a situation that... ukraine returns to

russia's orbit and becomes, conditionally speaking, the second belarus there, i can't imagine such a thing, even under the worst scenarios, but then the question arises, even under the condition of, let's say, significant territorial losses there, significant territorial losses, this is still some kind of capture in the east and in the south, relatively speaking, but as far as i understand, putinas is not interested in scraps of territory, of course not, but i say again, it is located. under the influence of the military, who convince him that now the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and under the conditions of such an intensity of the conflict, under under the conditions that exist today, and theoretically also under the condition of a decrease in military and financial aid from the west, one and a half to two years, and russia will be able, in principle , to inflict a military defeat on ukraine and then dictate any conditions, here he is, as far as i understand... he believes, i say again, i don't know what

's in his head, but from the fact that from the information that is available, judging by the facts, he came to exactly such a conclusion, and that's why he now absolutely there is no need to conduct any realistic negotiations that he is talking about. absolutely i think i say again there is no basis for peace negotiations at all, there are theoretical prerequisites for an agreement on a ceasefire, and because ukraine and the ukrainian armed forces are tired, because russia and the russian armed forces are tired, although no one will ever admit it out loud, but it is also true, because despite a sufficiently large, i say again, a sufficiently large resource. technical, material, military support, despite a much wider and larger mobilization resource, the russian troops are running out of steam, it is difficult enough for them, i.e. they have fewer and fewer motivated, qualified fighters and commanders, that is , the tactical victories they have won

recently, they are given at a very high price, well, but then the question arises, what is the point of moscow wishing for some kind of truce in this situation, if putin believes in victory in a year and a half. what does the suspension of hostilities give him? i think that the talks about negotiations coming from russia basically serve two purposes. the first is, ah, let's say this, attention, it's a certain pass to trump, on the one hand, and on the other hand, this is a game of anticipation, in case the situation, again, the pendulum... swings in the other direction, it is more profitable for him now, when he has an advantage, when he is dictating from a position of strength, he thinks it is now to hint at negotiations are much better than when the situation can change, theoretically it can change, it is very difficult, but there are also a lot of

smart and experienced people, well there, starting with radakin and kavoli, they say that the war of attrition, even when disproportionate, allegedly rivals fight among themselves. she can carry a lot of surprises, a lot of different twists and turns, for both sides, especially since the statistics show earlier that the one who is physically, territorially, and militarily larger usually won the wars, but if we take the wars of the last two centuries , then more than half of the wars were won by the small ones over the big ones, because the situation is not linear now and wars have changed a little, this does not mean that this is , let's say, a certain trend. but there is, there is such a trend, but why are the countries of the global south primarily china trying intervene in this process, would they really like to secure some kind of truce in the war, or is it just a strengthening of their role? i think that on the one hand they want to support the status of a great power, on the other hand i think that

the same china, it wants to control the process to a certain extent, that is, china comes out, as far as i understand, that if god forbid or not gosh, i don't know what the... view dominates them, it will come to some negotiating rails, he has to control this process, because china is actually interested in this war has been going on, he is not interested in russia losing, i don't think he is completely convinced and wants russia to win, but he wants this war to go on because russia's dependence on china during this war is only increasing , and it is to china's advantage if russia loses, china is weaker if russia wins, but... russia is becoming a more powerful player and it is also not beneficial for katya, but now when russia is spending its forces, including its military forces and financial, it is beneficial to china, and therefore it wants to be tangential to of this process in order to correct it, but if now they say that there, for example, the west , first of all, the states are trying to control

the escalation, then china, for its part, also wants to control this escalation, and it is clear that the status of a great power encourages it, it forces katay to the point that he has to have a peace plan, he has to... be at the center of this process? well, by the way, there is another moment of the truce, and could there not be a motive in which the interests of the west and russia coincide, if you like, unexpectedly, this is the moment restarting the ukrainian government, that is , russia may think that the truce, which will lead to elections in ukraine, will give an opportunity to elect an administration that is more ready for some disappointing compromises, well, not the party of war, because for it, zelensky... is the party of war, and the west may believe that after 5 years there is also a certain exhaustion of power, a partial loss not so much of legitimacy as of trust on the part of the population, and the new government will be able to continue this conflict situation with greater opportunities, and therefore it is necessary

to cease fire in order to give an opportunity to take place in the electoral process, such a motive may exist for the next month, let's say, well, let's say, first of all, i don't really understand honestly what it is... now the point of view of a collective measure, because the court intends the position of the european union does not always coincide with the position of the united states, on the one hand, and on the other hand within the european union. and at least three or four different views on how this war should end, what the support should be, and exactly what, exactly how and exactly when the european union should do, and these disputes continue further, now there is a certain reset within the eu, and the strengthening of both the extreme right and the extreme left, and both, they are fundamental enemies of each other, but they are united in terms of their reluctance to help ukraine, and the actual activity of orban... she it is connected not so much with the fact that he is the way he is, but also with the fact that he feels it very clearly, as an experienced politician,

if someone did not treat orban. on the other hand, it is not entirely clear what the position of the united states will be. i don't know who will win the presidential race, but what will it be trump's position and, by the way, what harris's position will be, no one really knows, because they are completely different, but from the point of view of people who know both of them, they say that they have one thing in common, they are not pre'. too, in particular in matters of foreign policy, which for her is not very close, and in which, and therefore, but to imagine that now in the coming months, if we are talking about months, they have agreed on some kind of joint pressure on ukraine in order to to cease fire, lift martial law, hold elections, reset power, me it's hard to imagine, first of all, and secondly, well, i don't really imagine the elections, well , even if they took place, and what will change? well, i don't think anything will change, i mean, how

can they look at it, from the outside? i do not think that they are so naive, that they do not fully understand ukraine, russia, the ukrainian-russian war and our national problems, unfortunately, we have seen this many times, but i do not think that they are so naive that they think that something can fundamentally change. indeed, there is a certain one number. politicians, there are certain circles, there are certain countries, even which for some reason have this fetish of restarting the power of democratic elections, of course i wonder how it is possible to hold democratic elections in conditions of war, for them it is fundamental, but in conditions of an armistice, for sure it is possible to hold a democracy in the conditions, well, in the conditions of a truce, on the condition that this truce will be observed by russia, and i have very little faith in this. in your opinion, in general, the united states and the russian federation maintain some kind of contact between themselves. which would allowed to talk about escalation control, this strange story with the call of andrii bilousov

to lloyd austin, that they were talking about some ukrainian special operation, the issue is not even about the special operation, it is that the defense ministers of ukraine, russia, and the united states can confidentially discuss among themselves some such confidential things, well, i can neither confirm nor deny this information, because i don't know if it is rumor, fable, gossip, or if it is a real fact, that the united states and the russian federation are in contact, well... it was recognized officials in both washington and moscow, and it would be surprising if they did not do this, well , at least given the fact that the two most powerful nuclear countries, well, forced, if they did not treat each other, whatever the official rhetoric , they should maintain relations, at least working, at least in some issues. regarding escalation control, i think that both the united states and russia are trying to control escalation, but they are not doing it together, but each... individually, each of them has its own set of mechanisms, tools, how it

to do, well, and accordingly, that they coordinate their actions, well, it is difficult for me to imagine how to fight in general with this fatigue from the war that exists in public opinion, even not only in ukraine, but also in the west, we have seen it, by the way , after a blow to the ahmadiyya women, which did not particularly resonate with the world community, in the media, although, as a rule , such events appear on the front pages. er, er, in the first minutes after it happens, look at this story there in the gas sector, there is the school table, a much lower level of consequences, but much more attention, it depends, well, in my opinion, i don't know if there is any universal answer, any universal recipe, i think that it is correct, flexibly constructed information policy, this information policy... schematically, but it was built and was effective at the beginning a full-scale

invasion, and then it follows a certain inertia in our country, and today the level, quality, format of this information policy, with regard to the internal audience from the perspective, especially the external audience, it cannot withstand criticism, it has not changed, and that's just this one nationwide information policy, which could understandably, with the support of diplomats, for... the holding of politicians, first of all the leading ones, influence the attitude to the ukrainian war, to ukraine, this information policy is not published properly , well, and one more. this moment, well, unfortunately, i will not say anything new, in order to change the attitude towards ukraine, in order for this fatigue to stop, for it to weaken, for it to diminish, victories are needed, it is extremely difficult to get them now, for conditions if these victories appear, as it was, for example, in in the fall of 22,

it will be much easier to convince the world that ukraine... can win, both inside the country and outside, because now this despair that ukraine can win has actually returned to the state of february, march 22 year, when practically no one believed in it, that is, in fact, it is not war fatigue, it is fatigue from the static nature of war, you can say that, you can also say that, but also fatigue from war, because the static nature of war is, well, let's say yes, win or lose, it's well it's a detonator in military parlance in... because in fact, when the war becomes routine, it becomes routine in the cities, it becomes routine in the columns of newspapers, it is very difficult to arouse one 's emotions, empathy is dulled, and this also applies to ukrainian citizens, unfortunately, but this is a fact, and it would happen that way in any other country under similar circumstances, well

, it is clear that if you are sitting thousands of kilometers from here, it is very difficult for you to move anything, especially after... so that everything that could move you, as it were, was already , but the supply of the latest western weapons, it can change the situation in the side of some advantages of the ukrainian army? maybe, but the latest western weapons, if we 're talking really the latest, are not currently being talked about, nor are there any extremely new models, nor are there enough of them, in fact, in that sense, some control. escalation is taking place, it is partly caused by objective reasons, well, let's say, the insufficient amount of the means that ukraine needs in the warehouses of even the united states, but often it is also caused by subjective factors, subjective factors, because for some reason it doesn't matter there are these conditional red lines have been drawn in the cities,

beyond which it is impossible to cross, there is always a risk with this ghost of the third world war, he is trying to control, including this blackmail was understood, so about some extremely new ones, well, why go far, if we don’t allow us to hit with long-range weapons where we need, and this actually applies not only to the territory of russia. excuse me, sometimes even on the territory of occupied ukraine, we have to coordinate almost every goal with those who provided us with weapons, well, it is very difficult to really lead in such conditions war, this is not the only reason that slows down this war, with which it is not the only problem that we face, but it is also a problem, but the question arises under what conditions it can be changed, but

it has already been said several times, it is possible beat, you can't beat, you can beat, you can't beat, we don't even have the exact information. it is possible or not, well, let's fantasize, if, well, let's call a spade a spade, if there is a person at the head of the united states, there will be a person more decisive than the current president of the united states, who will determine for himself the farthest red line possible, and it doesn't matter if he's a democrat or a republican, if he admits. means, and will allow himself a certain risk, a certain leadership, as we can say now, then the situation can change significantly, and this applies not only to the permission, let's say, to use long-range weapons there, it also applies to the nature and, let's say, the timeliness of providing military aid, and in general there should

be a politician who has an attitude towards this war. will be like a war he is waging, even if he does not directly participate in it, because no matter what anyone says, for all western leaders, with rare exceptions, this war is infinitely far away, and they do not consider themselves, but participants in this process of the process, and they do not believe, in fact, that there is a serious threat, let's say, a clash , the objective threat of a collision between nato and russia there. and that is why they are so afraid of this unplanned occasion that could lead to this war, they do not think that russia is a threat, this applies even to the majority of them who... publicly say that russia is a threat there, they say so, but they don't really believe it. but why would they then rearm, create new conditions for the military service of their citizens, which is

not all there is. so far, irrational fear has appeared, irrational fear, why did it appear, because, well, what was nato, what was, let's say, the western military world for many years. it was such a bureaucracy, it was a system that was being disarmed, there was a system that, let's say , was covered with moss, and they in this their peace-loving people relied on the analysis given to them by intelligence agencies, analytical centers, and when it suddenly turned out that these intelligence agencies and these analytical centers could be wrong, so far just such an irrational fear appeared, this fear has not yet grown into an awareness of what is and... a real threat, only the fear of this threat appeared, and being guided by this fear, they looked at their arsenals, storage bases, warehouses and found out that there

was nothing there, or there were rust and rats, and they started out of fear arming little by little, but that's it is not yet aware of the real threat, if it were otherwise, the production of projectiles, gunpowder and military equipment would not be happening at such a pace as it is now, now it is at the level of commerce. needs, now it is not a state need to immediately arm. the united states has three times less artillery than russia. is it a problem for the united states, given its really powerful defense-industrial complex, to nullify this difference or even create an advantage? no. why don't they do that? because they are still such a threat they do not see for themselves. well, let's not say anything about the germans or the french. is russia a real threat to nato? or what it has achieved in ukraine in these 2.5 years, well , it is difficult to judge, well, let's try to assess, russia is a threat for one simple

reason: russia is a large country with a large resource, with, shall we say, an insane ruler . can russia conquer all of western europe? i have a huge doubt, can she start a war in europe? i almost have doubts here. no, they are in brussels, in paris, in, well, i don't know, in london, in berlin and, for example, in athens for sure, or in rome, but if putin goes further, if he likes it, despite the threat of a nuclear conflict, despite the losses, in theory he can afford it, he actually all this time, he like a child, he... evaluates what is allowed, he goes there, well, like water, it goes where it can, where it can flow, and that means that, in principle, the defeat in

ukraine is precisely there, it guarantees that the war will not continue further , in my opinion absolutely not, it is actually a little reminiscent of the story with mussolini and hitler, for some reason everyone is used to appeal to munich in the infamous year of 38, but on... still it started much earlier, it started when the league of nations and the so -called victorious countries swallowed abyssinia, then when they swallowed the introduction of troops into the demilitarized the rhineland, how they turned a blind eye to the actual intervention of italy and germany in the military conflict in spain, and the anschluss of austria, the anschluss of austria was already further, yes, well, and then they were judged, and every time they said, well, this.. that is exactly the point after which europe will not be afraid one big world war, i don't remember who was then prime minister in the 30's baldwin seems to be chamberlain and when he

was asked to increase defense spending he then said to take an aspirin and calm down, it's even in the minutes remained of the british government in the transcripts, so they were always told that like the military, they are always preparing for... wars, so are politicians and diplomats, they rely on past peace agreements, when everyone seems to always find some historical analogue, actually there is historical analogues that directly deny this, i think that it is just the opposite, if due to, or rather due to, pressure from the west, ukraine will be forced to sign some kind of agreement, some kind of agreement, then putin will take it as his victory. i don't know yet to kazakhstan or estonia, but somewhere, he will definitely go.

thank you, mr. sergey. serhiy rakhmanin, people. ukraine was on the air, we will continue after a short break. there are discounts representing the only discounts on magnesium, 10% in travel pharmacies, bam and savings. there are discounts representing the only discounts on psilobalsam 15% in pharmacies plantain to you and savings. there are discounts representing the only discounts on trokvasing 15% in pharmacies for travelers and savers. vasyl zima's big broadcast, my name is vasyl zima, this is a big broadcast on espressu tv channel. two hours of airtime, two hours of your time. my colleagues and i will talk about the most important things. two hours to learn about the war, about the military, the front-line component, serhiy zurets, and what the world is about. yuriy fizer is already with me, and it's time to talk about what is happening outside

of ukraine. two hours to keep up with economic news, time to talk about money during the war. oleksandr morchivka is next to me and sports news. i invite yevhen pastukhov to the conversation. two hours in the company of your favorite presenters. about cultural news. alena chekchenina, our art viewer, is ready to tell, good evening. hosts who have become like relatives to many. natalka didenko is already next to me, ready to talk about the weather for this weekend, as well as the distinguished guests of the studio. mustafa dzhemilov, the leader of the crimean tatar people, is in touch with us. mr. mustafa, i congratulate you. good day. events of the day in two hours, big broadcast vasyl zyma, a project for smart and caring people, in the evening for espresso. greetings, this is svoboda live on radio svoboda. we have already approached the snake itself. the following shots may shock you. news from the scene. live drone attacks, kamikaze. political

analytics, objectively. and meaningfully, there is no political season, exclusive interviews, reports from the hottest points of the front, svoborala frankly and impartially, you draw your own conclusions. verdict with serhiy rudenko, from now on in a new two-hour format, even more analytics, even more important topics, even more top guests, foreign experts, inclusion. about the border, about ukraine, the world, the front, society, and also feedback, you can express your opinion at any time of the day with the help of a telephone survey, turn on and turn on. verdict with serhiy rudenko, from tuesday to friday, from 20 to 22. the verkhovna rada regularly passes new laws, but how do these changes affect our lives. we have analyzed the new resolutions to inform you about the latest changes in

ukraine. legislation, as legislative norms are changing our lives, what to prepare for, these and other questions that concern ukrainians will be answered by the leading lawyers of the aktum bar association. watch every tuesday at 7:55 in the legal expertise program on the espresso tv channel. we continue the politclub program on the espresso tv channel. vitaly portnikov is with you , and we will talk to the historian. political scientist, professor of rudger university in the united states, oleksandr metal, about these turbulent events that we are currently observing in the united states. congratulations, mr. alexander congratulations and thank you for the invitation. thank you for being with us on this broadcast, and how do you assess the progress of this election campaign now? well, you see, two weeks ago, it seemed that everything had already been decided: trump would win, vance would be vice president,

and biden would definitely lose. and the democrats had no chance, and in general the democratic camp was in such despair, because somehow it seemed that they were going straight to death, since the time that biden announced that he was actually resigning and that he was in place, and in his place now kamela harris, then the situation, at least psychologically, i remember , has changed quite a lot, since everyone once thought, the democrats believed, that they would definitely... lose, now at least there is a hope, a possibility, well, how big, which is another question, but at least there is a possibility , that something will be positive, so that the situation has changed, at the same time there is a kind of, how to say it, this oppression on the part of the republicans, on the one hand, they have become much more aggressive,