months, because given these resources that the russian federation has, in order to knock out ukrainian troops from the controlled territories, it is necessary to redeploy its own armed forces from other directions, which are now in the focus of the russian military command, and this is not only the donetsk direction, we have to remember with you that the troops of the russian federation are in several directions in ukraine, this is the donetsk direction, where the most... intense fighting is going on, and there russia expects to gain control over key positions and continue to develop the offensive for the occupation of the entire territory of donetsk region, this is an important task for them, because vladimir putin set before his army to take control of the administrative borders of donetsk region and luhansk region as early as february 2022, let's not forget that this was the beginning of the so- called special operation , but apart from this direction, where we are now watching pokrovsk's fate as a strategic one with great anxiety. points in

donetsk region, there is the kharkiv direction, where quite heavy fighting also continues, where the russians, one way or another, after entering vovchansk, they do not hide their desire to expand this zone of control in the kharkiv region, there is a zaporizhia direction, and we should not forget about it, and there are kherson directions, that is, in fact, there are four active directions of combat clashes in ukraine between the two enemy armies, and now they are talking about the fact that it is the zaporizhia, kherson... direction, these are the directions from where russia is trying to redeploy part of its forces to the territory of the kurt region, yes, of course, so as not to reduce its ability maintenance of these territories, or the development of initiatives in these territories, if we are talking about the kharkiv region. of course, the ukrainian military leaders could hope that russia would first transfer troops from the donetsk region to the kursk region and thus make it easier for the ukrainian armed forces to resist the russian military offensive. according to most military

experts, this does not happen, but other areas are also no less important. we are primarily dealing with stretching the front. stretching the front is a problem for both parties, and here, of course, it remains beyond our understanding how many ukrainian troops are involved in the kurdish operation and how many russian troops moscow will gather to try to knock our troops out of this zone. well, i don't want to. now to perform the functions of a military expert, but nevertheless, even people who are not very knowledgeable in military matters, understand very well that if a foreign army enters somewhere, if it strengthens itself in certain positions, creates engineering, uh, uh, fortifications that are needed overcome, then this army maybe behind these fortifications there is a smaller number of military personnel than the army that will advance on someone else's position, and the delay of the russian army in the offensive, the fact that they are forced to ... gather troops there and this is already

happening for the 11th day, of course, facilitates our the task is precisely in the kurt region, that is , we may not have such a large number of servicemen there, these servicemen may expand the area of ​​their own responsibility, and at the same time, the russians will not be able to knock them out of their occupied positions, because these positions can be reliably fortified, and another important point is that there are facilities there, let's say, which do not allow russia to carry out... any active bombing of the territories, i mean , first of all, the suzhe gas measuring station. russia, of course, is interested in ensuring that its transit obligations to european countries are fully fulfilled, and by and large, when they say that we could stop the supply of russian gas now, i apologize, this russian gas is supplied through ukrainian territory. in order to stop the supply of russian gas and freeze europe, we absolutely do not need... to judge, we can do it

ourselves, but the paradox of the current situation is that both russia and ukraine, both countries are interested in being conscientious, fulfilling, executors of the already reached agreement, for us this is a question of money for transit, this is huge money, in a few months practically, ukraine will stop receiving it, because the contract between gazprom and naftogaz of ukraine will end, i understand that both sides they... no are going to continue it further, although here there may be some kind of intermediate agreements, but ukraine will also get rid of this money, which was a certain support for our actually already destroyed economy today, and this is also such an important moment. as for how to act there, how we should treat the population, here the answer is very simple: for the enactment of international law, because all these discussions of the ukrainian population seem to me to be enough. because the citizens of ukraine

forget that ukraine is a safe protectorate of the civilized world, and that the ukrainian state generally exists on political map of the world, this is the result of active support for... efforts by the united states and the countries of the european union, if it were not for these efforts, almost the entire territory of ukraine would now be occupied by russia, it would have been part of the russian federation for two years in a row, this it is simply necessary to clearly understand, so that no one has any impression that ukraine is capable of defending itself from russia on its own, and by the way, there is no need to be ashamed of this: ukraine is facing the greatest nuclear power of the modern world, a country with a nuclear arsenal weapons with the help of which can destroy humanity within a few hours, a country with a population of about 140 million, which in recent years, the putin years, has been preparing its army for active military operations on the territory of foreign countries to restore the soviet union within the borders of 1991 was

and will be the main geopolitical the goal of the russian state and the russian people. ukraine was not involved in any of this. ukraine has destroyed its own armed forces for decades. ukraine did not prepare for... danger from the east, ukraine chose pro-russians politicians who actually destroyed all russian and all ukrainian infrastructure in the east of our country, let's remember these subversive actions that former president viktor yanukovych engaged in, even after 2014, in 2019 ukrainian voters passed a decision that actually meant a certain stabilization of our military positions in the east of the country, where the russian occupiers were already, namely the withdrawal of troops, that is... in fact, in fact, the ukrainian state and the ukrainian people did everything to destroy them, and that is what we are fighting for, i would say such a small political and security miracle of the 21st century, but this is a miracle, guaranteed precisely by western support, and it is

still a small country with a destroyed economy, frustrated, occupied already 20% of the territory, 2.5 years, and i hope that this there will be another 2.5 years, from another 2.5 years it will not allow itself to be destroyed by a large eurasian country that covers the territory from this state, the largest state in terms of territory in the world, also helps the west - it's great, uh, and there's nothing to be ashamed of, but it means that... that if we're allied with states that respect international law, and not with states that don't care about international law, then we have to respect international law in our defensive actions , that's all, since international conventions provide for the attitude towards the local population, that's how we should

behave, this is an absolutely real thing, if the citizens of the russian federation, which is located on the sovereign territory of the russian federation, let me remind you that this is... not ukrainian with from the point of view of international law territory, this is russian territory, this is not donetsk region, not luhansk, not crimea, we are there, there may be a completely different legal regime for the citizens of the russian federation if we liberate this territory, but if they want to leave this territory, we must provide them with the opportunity movement 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 this country whose citizens they are. if there is no such possibility, of course we have to open the corridors on the territory to them 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. traveled there, say, from mariupol, from other settlements of ukraine, even the russians allowed it with their disrespect for international law, another matter, they arranged some filtering there, it was all shameful, the way they behaved, we should not behave like that, although , of course, certain work to identify possible agents of the russian special services among the population who, say, will cross over to ukrainian territory, also has be and it will be, it is also absolutely obvious, but when it comes to women, children,... the elderly, the occupier is responsible for the population in the occupied territory. ukraine is the occupier of the kursk region. here i am please stop, can we, i.e. i thought for a long time about how and in which status we are now. technically, it seems

that if we did, we would occupy that territory, but, uh, security experts say, no, we're effectively in control of those territories, at this stage. different from occupation? mr. vitaly, we have lost the sound with you, i see what you are saying, but i do not hear you, as what we hear now, yes. if you, if we control a certain territory, create our own commander's office there, it is an occupied territory, nothing in there is nothing special about this, again, why do we have to call things by other people's names, like the russians, but the russians occupy our territory, the donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhia regions, 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 the ivanivka square of the kremlin,

do whatever you want, annex these territories, write them in the russian constitution, write them in school textbooks, these are still occupied territories, you know, occupied from the point of view of international law. kursk region, from the point of view of international law, is the territory of the russian federation, there is no such thing as no. we can exercise effective control over it, but this does not change the word occupation itself, there are different motives for the occupation, the russians occupied our territory because their task is to eliminate the ukrainian state and join ukrainian territories to russia, this is one goal of the occupation, and annexation, by and large the russian occupation of the ukrainians territory is a step towards annexation, we occupied the territory of the kurdish region in order to reduce the military potential of the army that carried out aggression against our state and to

allow it to reduce the resources and capabilities of the russians on our front, that is, it is an occupation in response, by the way, i wanted to ask you, but when the eu's allies occupied the territory of germany in 190 there in 44-45, it was an occupation, they were called occupation zones, there were no security experts. they didn't call it anything else, it was called the soviet, french, british, american zones occupation, and no one said that it should be called effective control otherwise, so when people start doing some euphemisms, because we are good, the good are not the occupiers, no, the good are the occupiers, the question is simply why do you occupy, if you in general, you occupy the entire territory of the aggressor's country, if you have such an opportunity, then this is an occupation for the sake of... peace, in order to force the aggressor's country to stop its

aggressive actions against your state, the result of this occupation may even be the destruction of state institutions in the country of the aggressor, replacing them with their occupation commanders, as was the case in germany, and creating conditions for holding free elections in the former aggressor country, without the participation of those forces that you consider guilty of aggression, it is possible again. there should be quite serious discussions as to what legal norms this corresponds to, the neuber process does not correspond to any legal norms at all, there the winners judged the losers, these are absolutely specific legal norms, they were special for this adoption process, but the countries occupying germany believed that the german courts, which were then created, by the way, to convict other war criminals of a lesser degree. 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 tried for the leaders of the country, who have actual immunity from legal prosecution, who do 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 it was created such an idea as the nyusi tribunal in occupied germany, it was in in occupied germany, you know that, as in a black room, a black cat with a black man, so here, we are creating occupation control bodies, commandant offices, which will actually be, their existence will be ensured by the occupation troops, as it is called, in the occupied territory of the kurdish region. well, call it effective control, whatever, well , it's still you or it is, and why do i do it so hard? i prove, because in this situation, our actions must comply with the norms of international law, and they will comply

norms of international law, this has already been announced in ukrainian states and state institutions, what people write on social networks simply speaks of their, i would say, deep legal infantilism, that they simply think that we can afford what allows russia, first of all, we cannot, because we are a different country. not another civilization, because we have a different attitude towards ordinary people, towards human life, because we understand very well that some grandmother has a judge so that she does not think about war, she does not answer the political leadership of the military leadership of the russian federation is responsible for the aggressive actions of its own government and its own army, for its own actions of the army and government. we can have moral claims against ordinary russians, moral ones, as people had moral claims against ordinary germans, but no legal, i would say, no citizen of the russian federation bears any responsibility. there are people

who directly make criminal decisions and carry out criminal actions. then small ducks. talk about some compensation from the 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, well, that is a completely different thing, if you have control over some country that... you can impose a reparations regime, then in this situation, of course, you can talk about it, because these are not the actions of ordinary people, then again you are, these are the results of the actions of the state , the state made a decision because the president of russia, volodymyr 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 areas, the fact that this is a state, if you have the opportunity, i do not think that we will ever have such an opportunity . 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, reparations are paid by the state at the expense of its taxpayers, of course, in such a situation, people are responsible for the crimes of their state because their taxes do not go to their social needs, not to the construction of sports centers, not even to the creation of new tanks. planes and missiles, which can be used to destroy 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 had been no second world war, the germans would still have paid reparations

very many years. without even in peacetime. but as you know, the second world war. changed the situation, in fact it was already under discussion, the allies took such, i would say, one-time reparations donations from germany, but then they realized that such an imposition of multi-year reparations on buina turns it into a potential aggressor of the future, and they abandoned this practice, as you know, the united states even helped revive the german economy, according to the marshall plan, instead of trying to take any 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, it is a nuclear state, to impose any such agreements that will contradict the interests of the national security is 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, as a state with which new ones will be established. the russian government, if it exists at all will appear, will want to help in capturing economic potential and social potential. however, i do not think that it should be waited for at least 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 decides, in the end , ukraine could dispose of those russian assets that are today in the banks of western countries, then this means that... this money is not added up, that they will be at the disposal of ukraine, and this 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, airplanes and missiles, which could be used for further struggle with 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 create. planes, missiles and tanks, with which she will be in the future war with the russian federation, it can be, absolutely, it is a reality, yes, sir, but this is not a question for moscow, but this is a question for washington and brussels, and, and this is a question that moscow cannot control now, of course, ok, well, there is news, and i think it's quite interesting, especially in the context of our previous conversations with you, when you noted that the russians and putin, personally... is not interested in any way in negotiating the state of the conflict in ukraine, yes, nevertheless, it shares with the washington post information from the post. to diplomats familiar with the course of events, that ukraine and russia were to send delegations to where, interestingly, yes, to qatar, in doha, for negotiations

on the conclusion of a historic agreement that would at least stop strikes on energy infrastructure facilities with both sides, do you think there was a place at all, i don't know if there was a plan like that? meetings from our side, and from the side of the russian federation? it seems to me that this publication in principle refers even to ukrainian sources, which they say that such consultations really took place, the russians deny it from the ukrainian side, there is no such clear refutation, well, maybe we will wait for it, but again, kharystyna, i would like to clarify, i always said that they are repeating it now, that i do not believe in any russian-ukrainian negotiations that could lead to the end of the war. between russia and ukraine, but i said that negotiations on a cease-fire, yes, on a cease-fire, could take place at any time, and in

the 24th year, and in the 25th, and in the 26th, i did not believe in the possibility of the end of 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 at all be. this is what 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 not to have any illusions that they will live in peace, but at the same time i am absolutely sure that there can be an agreement on a cease-fire, without any other agreements, not on the withdrawal of troops, as you understand, in such a configuration as ... proposed by washington post, there is no question at all, the troops remain in this territory, which they now control, and in the donetsk and kursk regions, about any

security guarantees for ukraine, there is no question of such in the agreements, russia in general continues to insist on because the war can end only with known security guarantees, that is, for ukraine to allow itself to recognize its neutral status. started the process of its demilitarization, which ukraine will not do, of course , is this also out of the question, what could be in question, if i understand the framework of this idea of ​​the washington post publication, of these agreements in qatar, that there may be a partial ceasefire , when it comes to the 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 destroyed up to 15% of its oil and gas complex, this is a serious problem for the russian economy if the russian strikes on

russian oil refineries 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 the capabilities of its oil refining complex there, if missiles are used for... for this, russia may lose up to 60 and up to 70% of its oil refining, which can lead to catastrophic and critical consequences for the economy of the russian federation. should russia take any measures to prevent this? yes, i would in the place of president vladimir putin, but you have to remember that president putin is paranoid, i am not, i would do it in the place of president vladimir putin. now ukraine, if the destruction of the ukrainian energy infrastructure continues, the question of... ukraine's use 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, with the spread of war, in the waters, in a number of

settlements, to which this may lead, to a new wave 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 that. ukraine is located higher than most of the people who were sent abroad, according to various sociological estimates, how people correspond to 50-60%, they will no longer return, moreover, after the end of hostilities, men who cannot now leave for their families, reunite, let's say, with their families, they most likely will not be reunited with them on the territory of ukraine, which will experience obvious economic frustration after the war, but will be reunited with their families on the territory of the prosperous west. and we will get another wave of emigration, so to speak, the final one, the end of this migration process, when their husbands return to their families,

and... not in ukraine, in 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 be a country devastated by demography. if we remember that even before the start of this war , ukraine's demographic prospects were , to put it mildly, catastrophic, then one catastrophe after another will simply turn this country into a territory without any real demographic prospects. this does not mean that on... people in in accordance with what migration waves will sweep through ukraine in the next decades. of course, i would 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, these are the principles of mutual interest of the parties, and these negotiations, as far as i understand,

are taking place according to this... scheme, if they are taking place, according to the same scheme according to which the agreements on the grain agreement are taking place and took place. ugh, it was about what and the ukrainian delegation and the russian delegation are meeting with representatives of qatar, and not among themselves, so 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 by the fact that the russians are after the ukrainians. to the kurt region, suspended their participation in this process, this fully corresponds to the political style of vladimir putin, they asked to give them time, that is, it is interesting that they did not completely bang on the door, but asked to give them 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 makes decisions under pressure from others, this

is related to his foreign policy, this is ... related with his domestic politics, 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 may understand it and agree with your reasoning, but in a year or two, when everyone will forget about these requirements, that's how it was by the way with the minister of defense of the russian federation , sergei shoigu, that he was incompetent, putin, i think, understood 200. the completely predictable reaction of putin was to keep him in office. by the way, if you ask me whether putin will remove valery gerasim from the post of chief of the general staff after the kurdish failure, i will tell you yes. he will remove it. and he basically said about it at this meeting, which was dedicated to the events in

kursk region, that we we will deal with personnel issues, but now the main thing is not that, so the resignation of the chief general staff can take place no earlier than six to 10 months after the event, so that no one believes that putin removed him from his post under pressure. now, if these talks were indeed taking place, for the parties to return to the conversation, it would take about a month, one and a half or two, given how the events will develop on the kurdish front itself, or if putin believes that he has achieved some significant successes on the donetsk front, he will also be absolutely in a position to start the negotiation process again, and then we basically understand how things can develop events on the russian-ukrainian front, in principle, the parties first mo- first, i would

say 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 try to on 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 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 understand, if you imagine.