on the territory of the country of which they are citizens. if there is no such possibility, of course we have to open corridors to them on the territory of ukraine, then this is another matter. ukraine can ensure through the territory of ukraine that these people can get to the territory of the russian federation, which is not in the war zone. this is already a matter of russian-ukrainian agreements. by the way, i will remind you that such agreements were reached even by us and the russians, when citizens from the territories of ukraine occupied by russia. went there, say, from mariupol, from other populated areas of ukraine, even the russians allowed it with their disrespect for international law, another matter is that they arranged some kind of filtering there, it was all shameful, the way they behaved, we should not behave like that, although of course there is some work to identify possible agents of the russian special services, among that population, let's say , will cross over to ukrainian territory, there should be and it will be, it is also absolutely obvious, but when it comes to women there. about children, about the elderly, for

population in the occupied territory, the occupier is responsible. ukraine is the occupier of the territory of the kurt region. here i ask to stop, can we, that is. i thought for a long time about how and in which status we are now. purely technically, it turns out that if we did, we would occupy this territory, but, security experts say, no, we effectively control these territories now at... at this stage, this is different from occupation, mr. vitaly, we lost sound with you , i can see what you're saying but can't hear you if we hear now yes if you if we we control a certain territory, we create our own commandant's office there, it is an occupied territory, there is nothing special about it, again, why do we have to call things by other people's names, like the russians, so... russians

occupy our territory, donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhia oblast, crimea, sevastopol, these are territories occupied by russia, they can hold meetings of the state duma of the russian federation, the federation council, send letters to the constitutional court, dance some russian folk dances on ivanivka square of the kremlin, do whatever anything, annex these territories, write them in the russian constitution, write them in school textbooks, that's all. occupied territories, you understand, are occupied from the point of view of international law. the kurt region, from the point of view of international law, is the territory of the russian federation, it does not happen, we can exercise effective control over it, but the very word occupation is unchangeable, there are different motives for the occupation, the russians occupied our territory because their task is liquidation of the ukrainian state and accession ukrainian territories to russia, this is one goal of the occupation. ugh, so is annexation, by and

large the russian occupation of ukrainian territories is a stepping stone to annexation. we occupied the territory of the kurdish region in order to reduce the military potential of the army, which carried out aggression against our state, and to allow ourselves to reduce the resources and capabilities of the russians on our front. that is, it is a retaliatory occupation. by the way, i... i would like to ask you, but when the allies occupied the territory of germany in 1900 there in 44-45, it was occupation, it was called occupation zones, no security experts called it anything else, it was called soviet, french, british, american occupation zones, and no one said that it should be called effective control otherwise, so when people start doing some euphemisms, that's why that we are good... and the good are not the occupiers? no,

the good ones are the occupiers. the question arises simply, for what reason do you occupy, if you occupy the entire territory of the aggressor's country at all, if you have such an opportunity, then this is an occupation for the sake of peace, in order to force the country of the aggressor to stop its aggressive actions against your country, the result of this occupation may even be the destruction of state institutions in the country of the aggressor, replacing them with its own occupation commanderies, like this... in germany and creating conditions for free elections in the former country of the aggressor without the participation of those forces that you consider guilty of aggression. again, there may be quite serious debates as to which legal norms this corresponds to. here, the nurber process does not correspond to any legal norms at all. ugh. there the victors judged the vanquished. these absolutely specific norms of law were special for this process. resolutions, however

, the occupying countries of germany believed that the german courts, which were then created, by the way, to convict other war criminals. a lower level cannot have jurisdiction to judge the leadership of their own country, why? because from the point of view of german law, how can people be prosecuted for the leaders of the country, who have immunity from legal prosecution, de facto? which do not violate the laws of this country, and act according to the laws of this country, and the laws themselves are criminal, well , that's why such an idea as the niue tribunal was created in occupied germany, it was in occupied germany. in the occupied city of nurberg, it is, you know, like in a black room, a black cat with a black man, and here, in the occupied territory of the kurdish region , we are creating occupation control bodies, commandant offices, which will be, in fact, their

existence will be ensured by occupation troops, like this it's safe to call it, well, call it effective control, whatever, well it doesn't matter whether you are the one or not, and why i... prove it so diligently, because in this situation, our actions must comply with the norms of international law, and they will comply with the norms of international law, this has already been announced in the ukrainian states state institutions, what people write on social networks just says about them, i would say deep legal infantilism, that they just think that we can afford what russia, first of all, cannot... because we are a different country, a different civilization, because we have a different attitude towards ordinary people, towards human life, because we understand very well that some grandmother will judge her not to think about war, she is not responsible for the aggressive actions of her own government and her own army, for her own actions of the army and

the political leadership and the military leadership of the russian federation are responsible for power, we can have moral claims against ordinary russians, moral ones, as people had moral claims against ordinary germans, but in no way... legal, i would say, responsibility, no citizen the russian federation is not responsible, the people who directly make criminal decisions and carry out criminal actions are responsible, then a little clarification, do we have the right, god forbid, god forbid to find this moment after the end of the war, to talk about some kind of compensation from the russian federation, where possible there will be no longer the current regime, but those russians will end... but there will remain, excuse me, those russians who brought this regime to power, who, as you say, may not be responsible for its actions, well, that is a completely different thing, if you have control over some country to which you can impose a reparation regime, then in this situation, of course, you can talk about it, because

these are not the actions of ordinary people, you are again, these are the results of the actions of the state, the state made a decision, because the president vladimir putin of russia, the leadership of the russian federation. they made a criminal decision about aggression against ukraine, about the destruction of ukrainian infrastructure, about the destruction of ukrainian residential quarters, what, this is a state, if you have the opportunity, i don't think that we will ever have such an opportunity, mother control over the resources of such a state, then of course you can demand reparations from this state within the framework of international responsibility, reparations are not paid by a grandmother from suja or a grandmother from kursk, reparations are paid by the state. at the expense of their taxpayers, of course, in and in such a situation, people are responsible for the crimes of their state in that their taxes do not go to their social needs, not to the construction of sports centers, not even to the creation of new tanks, airplanes and missiles that can be will destroy ukrainian territory to pay reparations.

after the first world war, apportionments were imposed on germany by the allies who won the war, the expiration of which, as it seems to me, should only be in the 80s and 90s , a century, that is, if there had been no second world war, the germans would pay reparations for many more years without even in peacetime, but as you know, the second world war changed this situation, in fact it was already the case, the allies took such, i would say, one-time reparations donations from germany, but then they realized what is overlay multi-year reparations for any... ukraine turns it into a potential aggressor of the future, and these practices abandoned, as you know, the united states even contributed to the revival of the german economy, according to the marshall plan, instead of trying to take some money from germany . regarding the extent to which ukraine will be able to force the russian federation to pay it

some reparations, i think that the russian state will not be controlled either by ukraine or by any other country in the world. i repeat, this is a nuclear state, impose some such agreements, which will be against the interests of national security. in any case, it is not possible, the russian federation can pay some money to ukraine solely out of goodwill, as a state with which good neighborly, good relations will be restored, how? a state that the new russian government, if it appears at all, will want to help in restoring economic power and social potential. however, i do not think that this should be waited for about a decade. the only thing that can realistically happen is that russia loses control over the money that is not are on its territory. and this will also harm the interests of ordinary russians, because if the west decides, in the end , that ukraine can dispose of those russian assets that are currently in the banks of western countries, then this... means that russia of this money it cannot be estimated that they will be at the disposal of ukraine, and this

money is also the money of russian taxpayers by and large, and they could use this money again for the construction of stadiums, and for the construction of hospitals, and for the creation of tanks, planes and missiles, which could be used to further fight against ukraine and other states hostile to russia, but this will not happen, and this money will go to ukraine to restore stadiums, build hospitals. and created new planes, missiles and tanks, with which it will fight with the russian federation in the future, this can be, absolutely, it is a reality. ugh. but this is not a question for moscow, it is a question for washington and brussels. yes, and this is an issue that moscow cannot control now, of course. okay, she appeared news, and in my opinion, it is quite interesting, especially in the context of our previous conversations with you, when you noted that the russians and putin are personnel. not interested in any way in negotiations about the state of the conflict in ukraine,

right? nevertheless, the washington post shares information, citing diplomats familiar with the course of events , that ukraine and russia were to send delegations to, interestingly enough, qatar, doha, to negotiate a historic agreement that would end at least hits on objects. energy infrastructure from both parties, or in your opinion, did it take place at all, i don't know if there was a plan for such a meeting, from our side, and from the side of the russian federation? it seems to me that this publication, in principle, even refers to ukrainian sources, which say that such consultations were indeed held, but the russians refute this with the ukrainian. there is no such clear refutation from the side, well, maybe we will wait for it, but, again, khrystyna, i would like to clarify, i have always

said that i will repeat it now, that i do not believe in any russian-ukrainian negotiations that would could lead to the end of the war between russia and ukraine, but i said that from the negotiations on the ceasefire, yes, the ceasefire, could happen at any time, and in the 24th year, in the 25th and 26th , i do not believe in the possibility of ending the war between russia and ukraine for one simple reason. this is an existential conflict, two peoples claim the same territory, for russians the territory of ukraine is russia, for ukrainians the territory of ukraine is ukraine, there is no political solution to this conflict, and there may not be one in history at all, yes reality looks like, therefore, under the conditions of the current russian regime, to imagine the end of the war as such, i do not know how to imagine it, and that is why i always advised ukrainians to prepare for a long war and to create some illusions that they will live in peace, but together with this... "i am absolutely convinced that there can be a cease-fire agreement, without any other agreements, for the withdrawal

of troops, as you understand, in the configuration proposed by the washington post, even out of the question , however, the troops remain on this territory, which they are now controlling, both in donetsk and kursk regions, about any security guarantees for ukraine, such houses." even if there is no question, russia in general continues to insist that the war can end only with known security guarantees, i.e. that ukraine allowed itself to recognize its neutral status and began the process of its demilitarization, which ukraine, of course , will not do. which can be fractional. ceasefire, when it comes to shelling of energy facilities, this is a story in which

both states are really interested, so i imagine that such negotiations will still take place, why? russia has already lost up to 15% of its oil and gas complex, this is a serious problem for the russian economy, if the russian strikes on the russian oil refineries in ukraine continue, but more so if not only drones, but also western missiles are used for these strikes, then russia may lose 15-30 percent of its capabilities there oil refining complex. that missiles will be used for this, russia may lose up to 60 and up to 70% of its oil refining, which may lead to catastrophic and critical consequences for the economy of the russian federation? should russia take any measures to prevent this? yes, i would be in the place of president vladimir putin, but you have to remember that president putin is paranoid, i am not, i would be in the place of

president vladimir putin, putin would do it. now ukraine, if the destruction of the ukrainian energy infrastructure continues. question the survival of ukraine during the winter will remain under a very big question mark, that is, there may be a situation when there will be problems not only with light, but also with inflammation, and with the supply of war, to water, in a number of populated areas, to which this may lead to a new waves of departure of the ukrainian population abroad. we cannot now estimate the number of people who will leave, but they will, and again it will be hundreds of thousands of people. we already understand that if people leave for... in the conditions in which ukraine is in everything most of the people who are abroad, according to various sociological estimates, as people answer, up to 50-60%, they will no longer return, and even more, after the end of hostilities, men who are now unable to leave for their families, to reunite, let 's say, with their families, they will most likely reunite with them not on the territory of ukraine,

which will feel obvious economic frustration after the war, but they will reunite with their families on the territory of the welfare state'. them of western countries and we will get another wave emigration, so to speak, is final, the end of this migration process, when their husbands return to their families, but not in ukraine, the united states, canada, european countries, great britain, etc., so it will most likely be like that, so , if some more people leave, it will mean that at the end of the war, ukraine will turn out to be a country devastated by demographics, if we remember... that even before the beginning of this war , the demographic prospects of ukraine were , to put it mildly, catastrophic, then one catastrophe on the other will simply turn this country into a territory without any real demographic prospects, this does not mean that there will be no population on the territory of ukraine, there will be, just that it will not be ukrainians, it will be a state of other people, in accordance with what migration waves will sweep through ukraine in

the next decades, i would certainly like it not to be so, and i think... that the people currently working in the ukrainian leadership are also thinking about how to preserve the population here, so this is the principle of mutual interest of the parties, and these negotiations, as far as i understand, they are taking place according to the same scheme, that they are taking place according to the same scheme, according to which the agreements on the grain agreement are taking place and took place, uh, it was about the fact that both the ukrainian delegation and the russian delegation are meeting with representatives of qatar, and not among themselves yes , about the fact that such an agreement will not be long-term, there we were talking about two months, this is again the scheme of a grain agreement, so, in principle, i am not surprised that the russians suspended their participation in this process after the ukrainian raid on the kurdish region, it fully corresponds to the political style of vladimir putin, that is, it is interesting that they did not

completely slam the door, but asked to give them time, of course, they need these negotiations, but... never, this is also a fact, does not make any political moves that would allow us to consider that he makes decisions under pressure from others, it is related to his foreign policy, it is related to his domestic policy, you can prove to putin as much as you want that this or that person should be removed from office because he is incompetent, putin is will do he can understand this and agree with your reasoning. however, in a year or two, when everyone will forget about these requirements, this is what happened, by the way, with the minister of defense of the russian federation , sergei shoigu, about the fact that he is incompetent, putin, i think, understood in 2022, but when they started from all sides people there say it's nice, we need to move shuiga and gerasimov, the main and completely predictable reaction

of putin was to keep him in office, by the way, if you ask me, will putin remove the nacha from his position. valery general staff gerasimov after the kurdish failure, i will tell you this, he will remove him, and he basically said about it at this meeting, which was dedicated to the events in kursk region, that we will definitely deal with personnel issues, but now the main thing is not that, so , the resignation of the chief of the general staff can take place no earlier than six to 10 months after the event, so that no one thinks that putin has cleaned up. him from his position under pressure, now, if these negotiations really took place, for the parties to return to the conversation, it will take about a month, a half, or two, taking into account how events will develop specifically on the kurdish front, or if putin believes that he has achieved some significant success on the donetsk front, he will also be absolutely

in a position to start the negotiation process again, and then we basically understand how events can develop on the russian-ukrainian front, in principle, the parties, first of all, i would say... by decision, can reach agreements on non-firing of uncontrolled territories, so-called. ugh. russia will stop shelling the territory of ukraine, and ukraine will stop shelling the territory of russia. at the same time, hostilities on the territory of ukraine and russia will continue. what is it for? ukraine will be'. try to enter russian territory in such a way as to show russia that it should realize that its further territorial grabs may run into the same actions of ukraine, and russia will

try to annex as much ukrainian territory as possible and at the same time destabilize the situation in ukraine itself, because as you you see, if you imagine that the day has come, relatively speaking, september 1, there will be no more... air alarms, drones, infrastructure is being restored, civilian life is being restored, normal, yes, there are no blackouts, well, at least there are masses, planes may even start flying, well, if you don't have a missile threat, if no one is firing at you, why can't you open... yes, we dreamed about it a few months ago, an airport there in kyiv or in lviv, can our airspace, according to these agreements, be recognized as safe to some parallel, the war

continues, the mobilization continues, the funeral of people continues every day, and people in a peaceful territory, people generally live outside of war, that is, the chasm deepens. between the war and the population, one moment, another moment, elections, why can't elections be held then, this will also be a question that will be thrown into ukrainian society, we live peacefully, we can hold elections in a peaceful territory, we just need to ensure the conditions for voting the military, well, there will be many such conversations, russia will be active. to contribute to this, so the next moment, after all this, when there will be an understanding that both

governments, because russia will also have problems, if we control its territories, do not remove this threat that both of them are threatened by internal destabilization, and some sort of reset of the situation is needed, the following decision will be made, just like in qatar. the decision to cease fire on the front line, on the front line, not only is it already peaceful there in this area, yes, but between the troops, this will be the next stage, i don't know when, uh, i'm just telling the scheme, after it is achieved the ceasefire agreement on the front line, i don't know where that line is... the collision will then take place, it, strangely enough , can take place on the territory of russia, and not only on the territory of ukraine. we cannot know this now. then

there will really be presidential and parliamentary elections in ukraine, and after that, depending on the results of these elections, and how our western allies will treat the situation, whether they will be ready to provide us with any security guarantees after this ceasefire. or not, and, by the way, what the new ukrainian leadership will want, we do not know what it is will be, it may be the ukrainian version of the georgian dream, it may be a party that will blame the previous leadership , that it did not prepare for the war and provoked it, and since the georgian dream now blames the outbreak of the war, not the russians, but saakashvili, that he was a provocateur. we have a similar leadership, well, the leadership, which was the previous leadership, so yes, but it is somehow in favor, but somehow it is not

talked about much now, but maybe. can fall into his trap. and from what this one will look like the situation, the further development of events depends on you, that's all. that is, what's next? will this cease-fire end in some kind of peace, or will it turn into a new war, after a certain time. i cannot tell you this, because it will be, you know, i am not the ukrainian people, the ukrainian people very often draw such paradoxical conclusions from the political situation that i am not even ready to comment on them. you and i have looked so far ahead now, at least we tried, maybe not so far, maybe not so far, because this story with the talks in qatar, if they are at all will take place, it can really be a pilot project of all this, after all, the pilot project in this case was the grain deal, yes, of course, absolutely, absolutely, the pilot project was the grain deal, mr. vitaly, everything you said now is

heard and considered. .. very logical, what can not be said about what the republican presidential candidate donald trump says from time to time, and i don't know if you followed his interview with elon musk, that's what it was about, some interesting points there and with regard to ukraine, in particular, trump allegedly told putin not to invade ukraine, somehow, but does what you heard lend itself to your analysis? gives in, i believe there are two donald trumps, one donald trump is the trump of the political technologists, he is a man who carefully studies the instructions that are written to him in order to win the election, and this trump we have seen, let's say in the sweet, it seems that when he said that he would be the president of all americans, that winning with the help of half the population is not a victory, and

such... we saw trump in his phone room conversation with volodymyr zelenskyi, when he expressed support for ukraine, because he was obviously told that this is how he behaves in relation to ukraine, it is arrogant, and that it is better for him, it is better, you talk to the ukrainian president, if the ukrainian president wants him to express his support after the assassination attempt and to say that all this talk that he is ready to surrender ukraine is fake news, that... trumpy did, but there is a living, real donald trump, who has nothing to do with donald trump political technologists, this is a live person, and by the way, we know that in the last meeting with donors, big donors, when they told him donald, you're just going to lose the election when you show the real you, please follow the instructions of the company, don't show how crazy you are, he said, i am what i am.

it is very difficult and very tight for him in some kind of rut, he wants to be what he is, he gets drunk, like many populist politicians , from the crowd, from the reaction, from the roar, from the shouts, it makes him narcotic impression when he, a person who had to declare bankruptcy several times and about his real fortune, whose real fortune no one knows, who always tried to pretend that he was a billionaire and it is not known whether he was this billionaire... once in his life, talks to a real a billionaire, also, of course, to some extent an effervescent, but a person with the reputation of one of the richest people in the world, ilan musk, this also brings him into a state of exaltation, which of course allows him then to say what he really thinks, so that he is certain thinks things really, sometimes later he is very bad for his information, but everyone says that it is age, but i do not think that it is

any age, because i am not age at all. i believe that there is simply a lack of interest in certain topics, and it has always been obvious in donald trump, he is not interested in many things, he is not interested in politics, in some real science, relatively speaking, or in some content, he is not interested, he says that what he hears there, he is quite a simple person in this regard, he watches tv, hears something there, falls asleep, again, this is absolutely normal for such an overloaded problem of a person, a person is sitting, well, really. not very young, near the tv, hears something, doesn't hear something, falls asleep, wakes up, hears something again, then ilona musk tells it. that's all for you. of course, donald trump is a man who sincerely admires the power of power. this is his religion. and of course, in this situation, in this pantheon.