another legal regime for the citizens of the russian federation may be if we liberate this territory, but if they want to leave this territory, we must provide them with the opportunity to move to the territory where hostilities are not taking place. of course, in this situation, the best solution would be to open the corridors on the territory of the country whose citizens have them. if there is no such possibility, of course we have to open corridors for them in... the territory of ukraine, then this is another matter, ukraine can ensure through the territory of ukraine that these people can to get to the territory of the russian federation, which is not in the war zone, is already a matter of russian-ukrainian agreements, by the way, i would like to remind you that such agreements were reached even by us and the russians, when its citizens from the territories of ukraine occupied by russia went there, for example , from mariupol, from other settlements of ukraine, even the russians allowed it with their disrespect for the international community. one thing, another thing, they

arranged some filtering there, it was all shameful, the way they behaved, we are the same we don't have to behave, although of course there is a certain amount of work to identify possible agents of the russian special services among the population who, say , will be crossing into ukrainian territory, there should also be and it will be, this is also absolutely obvious, but when it comes to women and children there , about elderly people , the occupier is responsible for the population in the occupied territory, ukraine is the occupier of the kurdish territory. here i ask to stop, can we, that is, i thought for a long time about how in what status we are now, purely technically, it turns out that if so, we occupied this territory, but uh, security experts say, no, we effectively control these territories now at this stage, that is different from occupation, mr. vitaly, we lost sound with you, i see what are you saying

but i can't hear you, if we can hear now, yes, if you, if we control a certain territory, we create our own command there, it's an occupied territory, there's nothing special about it, again, why do we have to call things by other people's names , like the russians, the russians are occupying our territory, donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhzhia regions, crimea, sevastopol, these are territories occupied by russia, they can. convene meetings of the state duma of the russian federation, the council of the federation, send letters to the constitutional court, dance some russian folk dances in the ivanivka square of the kremlin, do whatever you want, annex these territories, write them in the russian constitution, write them in school textbooks, that's all single occupied territories, you understand, occupied from the point of view of international law, the kursk region from from the point of view of international law, this is

the territory of the russian federation, it does not happen, we can exercise effective control over it, but it is from the very word occupation - i will not change it, there are different motives for the occupation, the russians occupied our territory because their task is the liquidation of the ukrainian state and the annexation of ukrainian territories to russia, this is one goal of the occupation, as well as annexation, by and large, the russian occupation of ukrainian territories is a step towards 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 itself to reduce the resources and capabilities of the russians on our front. that is, it is a retaliatory occupation. by the way, i wanted to ask you, but when the allies occupied the territory of germany in 1900 there in 44-45, it was...

it was an occupation, it was called the occupation zone, no security experts called it anything else, it was called the soviet, french, british, american zones of occupation, and no one said that it should otherwise be called effective control, so when people are starting to engage in some euphemisms, because we are good, good are not occupiers, no, good actions are occupiers, the question arises simply, for what reason do you occupy, if you at all ... occupy the entire territory of the aggressor's country, if you have such an opportunity, then it is 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 their occupying commanderies, as was the case in germany, and creation in the future of conditions for holding free elections in the former aggressor country, without the participation of those forces. whom you consider to be guilty of

aggression, again, there may be quite serious discussions about which legal norms this corresponds to, here the nüber process does not comply with any legal norms. does not correspond at all, ugh, there the victors tried the vanquished, these are absolutely specific legal norms, were special for this process, the adoption, however, the occupying countries of germany believed that the german courts, which were then created, by the way, to convict other military lower-level criminals cannot have jurisdiction to try the leadership of their own country, why, because in terms of german... law, how can people be tried for the leaders of the country, who are immune from prosecution, the actual, who are not violate the laws of this country, but act according to the laws of this country, and the laws themselves are criminal, well , that's why such an idea as the nurberg tribunal was created in occupied germany, it was in

occupied germany, in the occupied city of nurberg, you know, like in the black room, black cat with black man, so here. in the occupied territory of the kurdish region , we are creating occupation control bodies, commandant offices, whose existence will actually be ensured by the occupation troops, whatever you want to call it, well, call it effective control, whatever you like, well , it doesn’t matter if you are or are, and why i prove this 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 speaks of their, i would say, deep legal infantilism, that they just think that we can afford what

russia can afford, first of all, we can't, because we are a different country, a different civilization, because we have a different attitude to ordinary people, to human life, because we understand very well that some grandmother will judge. so that it does not think about war, it is not responsible for the aggressive actions of its own government and its own army, for its own actions of the army and the government the political leadership and the military leadership of the russian federation are responsible. we can have moral claims against ordinary russians, morally, as people had moral claims against ordinary germans, but no legal, i would say, no citizen of the russian federation bears responsibility, it is borne by people who directly. praise criminal decisions and carry out criminal actions, then a little clarification, do we have the right, god forbid, god forbid to catch this moment after the end of the war, to talk about any reparations from side of the russian federation, where there may no longer

be an effective 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. this is a completely different thing, if you have control over some country to which you can impose a regime of reparations, 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 the decision because the president of russia, vladimir putin, 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, etc., this is the state. if you have the opportunity, i don't think we will ever have such an opportunity, to have 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, reparation is paid by the state at the expense of its taxpayers, usually in and in such a situation, people are responsible for the crimes of their state because their taxes are not going to their people'. needs, not for the construction of sports centers, not even for the creation of new tanks, planes and missiles that will be able to destroy the ukrainian territory, for the payment of reparations. after the first world war , reparations were imposed on germany by the allies who won the war, the expiration of which, it seems to me, should have been only in the 80s and 90s of the 20th century, that is, if there was no second world war the germans would pay reparations for many years to come. 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 it means to impose

multi-year reparations on any -which country turns it into a potential aggressor of the future, and they abandoned this practice, as you know, the united states even contributed to the revival of the german economy. according to the marshall plan, and not tried to take some money from germany, to what extent ukraine will be able to force the russian federation to pay it some reparations, i think that the russian... state will not be controlled by ukraine or any other country in the world, i repeat, it is a nuclear state, impose any such arrangements, which would be contrary to the interests of national security, are not possible in any case. 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 relations, as a state that the new russian government, if it appears at all, will want to help restore economic power and social potential. however, i don't think it should be expected. closer to a decade, the only thing that can realistically happen is that russia will lose control over the money

that is not on its territory, and this will also hurt the interests of ordinary russians, because if the west makes a decision, in the end , so that ukraine can dispose of those russian assets that are located today in the banks of western countries, this means that russia will not count this money, that it will be at the disposal of ukraine, and it is also the money of russian taxpayers by and large. and they could have used this money again for the construction of stadiums, and for the construction of hospitals, and for the creation of tanks, airplanes and missiles, which could be used to further fight against ukraine and other states hostile to russia, but this will not happen, and these the money will go to ukraine to restore stadiums, built hospitals and created new planes, missiles and tanks, with which it will fight with the russian federation in the future, this can be, absolutely, this is a reality. not to moscow, but this question to washington and

brussels, and this question that moscow cannot control now, of course, okay, the news has appeared, and in my opinion, it is quite interesting, especially in the context of our previous of your conversations, when you noted that the russians and putin, personally, are not interested in any way in negotiations on the state of the conflict in ukraine, yes, nevertheless... nevertheless, the washington post shares information, refers to diplomats familiar with the course of events , that ukraine and russia were to send delegations to, interestingly enough, to qatar, to doha, for negotiations on the conclusion of a historic an agreement that would at least stop the strikes on energy infrastructure on both sides, or do you think there was one at all. er, i don't know if there was a plan for such a meeting, er, from our side, well, from the side

of the russian federation? i think that this one in principle, the publication even refers to ukrainian sources who say that such and such consultations were indeed held, the russians deny it, there is no such clear refutation from the ukrainian side, well, maybe we will wait for it, but again, kharystyna, i would like to clarify, i always said that even now it's about... the ceasefire talks, yes, the ceasefire talks, can happen at any moment, and in the 24th year in the 25th and the 26th, i don't believe in the possibility of an end war between russia and ukraine for one simple reason: this existential conflict, two peoples claim the same territory, for russians the territory of ukraine is russia, for ukrainians it is the territory of ukraine. this is ukraine, there is no political solution to this conflict, and there may not be one in history at all, this is how

reality looks, so 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 to a long war and not have any illusions that they will live in peace, but at the same time i am absolutely sure that it can be a cease-fire agreement, without any other agreements, not... not about the withdrawal of troops, as you understand, in the configuration that is proposed by the washington post, there is no question, although the troops remain in this territory, which they now control, both in donetsk and kursk regions, there is no mention of any security guarantees for ukraine in such agreements, russia in general continues to insist that the war can end only with known security guarantees. that is, for ukraine to allow itself to recognize its neutral status and start the process of its

demilitarization, which ukraine, of course , will not do, is this also not in question, what could be in question, if i understand the framework of this idea of ​​the washington post, these agreements in qatar that there may be a partial ceasefire when it comes to shelling energy facilities, this is a story in which both states are really interested. therefore , 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 serious a problem for russian. economy, if russian, ukrainian attacks on russian oil refineries continue, only more so, if not only drones, but also western missiles are used for these attacks, then russia may lose 15-30 percent of the capabilities of its oil refining complex, if for

missiles will be used for this, russia may lose up to 60 and up to 70% of its oil refining, which may result. to catastrophic and critical consequences for the economy of the russian federation. does russia have take any measures to prevent it? yes. i am in the shoes of president vladimir putin, but you must remember that president putin is paranoid, i am not. i would do that if i were president vladimir putin. now ukraine, if the destruction of the ukrainian energy infrastructure continues, the question of ukraine's survival during the winter will remain under a very big question mark. that is, there may be a situation when... problems not only with light but also with ignition, with the introduction of war into the water in a number of settlements, what this can lead to, 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 go abroad in the conditions in which ukraine is, more and

more people who went abroad, according to various sociological assessments there. as people answer up to 50-60%, they will no longer return, and even more so, after the end of hostilities, men who now cannot go to their families and reunite, let's say with their families, they will most likely be reunited with them not in the territory of ukraine, which will experience obvious economic frustration after the war, but reunited with their families in the territory of prosperous western countries, and we will get another wave of emigration, so to speak, the final such end. this migration process, when their husbands will return to their families, but not in ukraine, the united states, canada, european countries, great britain , etc. leaves, 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 start

of this war, the demographic prospects of ukraine were, to put it mildly, catastrophic, then one catastrophe will turn into another simply... ukraine to the 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 the state of others, people in accordance with what migration waves are passing through ukraine in next decades. i certainly wish it weren't so. and i think that the people who currently work in the ukrainian leadership are also thinking about how to preserve the population here. so, these are the principles. full interest of the parties, and these negotiations, as far as i understand, 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 were taking place, well, it was about the fact that the ukrainian delegation and the russian delegation meets with representatives of qatar, and not among themselves, yes about the fact that such an agreement will not last for a long time,

there it was primarily about two months, it is again the scheme of a grain agreement, so in principle... i am not surprised that the russians suspended their participation in this after the ukrainian raid on the kurdistan region process, 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 for time , of course, they need these negotiations, but putin never, this is also a fact, makes any political moves that would allow us to believe that he approves under foreign pressure, 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 they are incompetent, putin will do it, he can this is to understand 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. that he is incompetent, i think putin understood in 2022, but when people began to say from all sides that he is handsome, but shuiga and gerasimov should be moved, the main, completely predictable reaction of putin was to keep him in office, by the way, if you ask me, will putin remove valery gerasiv from the post of chief of the general staff after the kurdish failure , i will tell you this, he will eliminate him, and he basically said this at this... meeting, which was dedicated to the events in the kursk region, that we will definitely deal with personnel issues, and now the main thing is not that, so resignation of the chief of the general staff. may take place no earlier than six to 10 months after the event, so that no one believes that putin removed him from office under pressure. now, if

these talks really took place, it would take a month, a month and a half or two for the parties to return to the conversation, depending on how things will develop on the kursk front, or if putin believes that he has made some significant progress. on the donetsk front, he will also be absolutely in a position to start the negotiation process again, and then we will in principle, we understand how events on the russian-ukrainian front can develop, in principle, the parties can first of all, i would say by decision, reach an agreement 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, while hostilities on the territory of ukraine and

russia will continue. what is it for? ukraine will try to enter russian territory in such a way as to show russia that it must realize that its future territorial seizure... they may run into the same actions of ukraine, ugh, 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 understand it, imagine that the day has come, conditionally saying, on september 1, there will be no more aerial alarms, drones, the infrastructure is being restored. normal civilian life is being restored, yes, there are no power outages, well, at least there are massive ones,

planes may even start flying, well, if you do not have a missile threat, if no one is firing at you, why can't you open, as we dreamed about it a few months ago, an airport there in kyiv or in lviv, we can use our airspace according to these agreements. can be considered safe to some parallel , they say, the war continues, the mobilization continues, the funeral of people continues daily, and people in the peaceful territory generally live outside the war, that is , the chasm between the war and the population is deepening, one moment, another moment, elections, why... it is not possible to hold elections then, this will also be a question, which 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 in the military, well, there will be many such conversations, russia will actively contribute to this, so the next moment, after all this, when ... understanding that both governments, because russia will also have problems if we control its territory, 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, ditto in qatar, the decision to cease fire on the front line, on the front line. it's not just peaceful over there in that 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 an agreement is reached on a ceasefire on the front line, i don't know, where this line of contact will then pass, strangely enough, it can pass through the territory of russia, and not only through the territory of ukraine. we cannot know this now. then there will really be elections in ukraine, presidential and parliamentary, and after that, from the results of these elections and from 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 will the new the ukrainian leadership, we do not know at all what it will be, this... may be the ukrainian version of the georgian dream, this may be a party that will blame the previous leadership for not preparing for war and provoking it, and yes, there is a georgian

dream. now blames not the russians, but saakashvili for the outbreak of the war, that he was a provocateur, well, in my opinion, we have a similar leadership right now, well, the leadership that the previous leadership noted, but it is somehow in favor, but it is somehow not so much about it now it is said, but it can fall into its own trap, and the further development of events depends on how this situation will look, that's all, that is, what... next, will this cease-fire end in some kind of peace, or will it turn into a new war, after a certain time, this i cannot tell you, 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 now looked so far ahead, at least we tried, maybe not that far, maybe not that

far, because this story... with the talks in qatar, if they happen at all, could really be the pilot project of all this, after all, the pilot project in that case was the grain deal, and of course, absolutely, absolutely, the pilot project was the grain deal, mr. vitaliy, everything you just said, uh, it sounds and is considered very logical, which cannot be said for what the republican presidential candidate of the american party says from time to time. trump and i don't know if you followed his interview with elon musk, that's what it was about, several interesting theses were sounded there and about ukraine, in particular, and allegedly trump told putin not to invade ukraine, somehow, but does he give in to your analyze what you did you hear gives up i believe there are two donald trumps. donald trump alone is

the trump of political technologists. he is a man who carefully studies the instructions that are written to him in order to win an election, and this trump we saw, say, in the early days, it seems, when he said that he would be the president of all americans, that he would win with half population is not a victory, and we saw this kind of trump in his phone conversation with volodymyr zelensky, when he expressed support for ukraine, because it is obvious to him they said that this is how he behaves. in relation to ukraine, this is arrogant, and what is better for him, it is better, you talk to the ukrainian president, if the ukrainian president wants to express his support to him after the assassination attempt, and say that all these conversations about the fact that he is ready to surrender ukraine, this is fake news for trumpi to do, and there is a live real donald trump who has nothing

to do with donald trump, politico. this is a living person, and by the way, we know that at the last meeting with big donors donors when they told him donald you just lose the election when you show the real you please follow the company instructions don't show how crazy you are he said i am who i am it's very hard for him and it's very tight in some, you know , bars, he wants to be what he is, he gets drunk, how much he flies. of the populist crowd, from the crowd, from the reaction, from the laughter, from the shouts, it creates a narcotic impression for him, when he, a person who had to declare bankruptcy several times and about the real fortune of whom no one knows, who always tried to pretend that she was a billionaire and it is not known whether she was this billionaire once in her life, is talking to a real billionaire, also, of course, to some extent an effervescent, but a person with the reputation of the poorest

of the richest. .. people in the world of elan musk, it also brings him into a state of exaltation, which, of course, allows him to then say what he really thinks, so that he thinks certain things really, once, then he is very bad for his information, so all they say it's an age, and i don't think it's an age, because i'm not an ageist at all, i think there's just a lack of interest in certain topics, and donald trump has always had it, he's not interested in a lot of things, he ... he is not interested in politics, some kind of real science there, relatively speaking, or some kind of content, he says what he hears there, he is quite a simple person in this regard, he watches tv, hears something there, falls asleep, again - still, this is absolutely normal for such an overloaded problem of a person, a person is sitting, well, really not very young.