how does the historical responsibility of the state differ from the historical responsibility of the nation, well, i'm just illustrative, when we talk about responsibility for the holocaust, we put this responsibility on the reich, on the german state as such, and we know that there were states, it was state institutions, they acted differently, but they were in different relations with the reich, but somehow they were participants as state institutions in the same holocaust. well, let's say, there is the croatian state pavelic, it was one attitude to the holocaust, and there was the bulgarian state of tsar boris, it was a different attitude to the holocaust, but all this can be studied precisely as the work of state institutions and as their dialogue, if at all it was then in a normal form with its own society, but in bulgaria it was, the bulgarian the demonstration against the deportation of bulgarian jews ended in success and saved people, but if the people do not have statehood. if individual representatives of this

people, let them take part in these or other crimes in large numbers, i mean, even not only the holocaust, i mean the volyn tragedy, etc., can we say that a people who do not have state institutions are just as responsible for this or that great crime as a state institution, as the state as such, because it seems to me , that in our mind and in the understanding, by the way, of our neighbors as well, it is somehow equalized, i don't know how correct it is. it is clear that, especially in the context of the second world war, especially in the context of the holocaust, there are countries and states that conquer and control others peoples and other territories, give them a certain model of ideological behavior and so on, and they usually find it. the level of collaborators and

collaboration, but these are the captured territories, well, relatively speaking, what is the responsibility of the people in the concentration camp, in the same nazi one, is that they somehow take, participate in some related things, etc. connected with crimes, perhaps we do not attach great responsibility to this e. a little more freedom in the conditions, in the conditions of the occupation, but again it is quite limited, but there is definitely responsibility, and for me they are very important here, for example, i will leave the second world war and the holocaust situation a little, but they are what i will talk about, they are connected, this is the issue of today's russian language. against ukraine,

is it putin's war, is it russia's war, and it is clear that putin is a very important figure in this whole, this whole story, but it is also a product produced by russian society, as hitler was provoked, produced by german society, and this society creates this model of the state and this model behavior, and this pattern of behavior creates this susp. state, so, i think that, so, the limit of how much it is some regime that occupied the country, de jure or de facto, this, this is an important component, but there is responsibility, there is joint responsibility, there is social responsibility, and especially when it comes to what you do with that experience of yours, which is negative, which is criminal, and so on, how do you deal with it? this, this, if we talk about

the historical component, this seems to me to be the most important component. well, then, if you turned to the topic of russia, we can also ask a question here, which was very relevant in the first months of the war, it is not talked about so much now, but i tried to think about it too, and now i think that it is not the responsibility of the russian peoples of russia, but the russians there is really a state of its own, and indeed this one. one way or another, the state gave birth to vladimir putin, and it is not even a matter of national origin, because in the russian leadership there are people of different national origins, serhii shaigu, a tuvan, let's say ethnically origin, but it is so clear that all these people serve russian chauvinism in one form or another, and here are the peoples of russia, who have quasi-states, which essentially do not protect their interests, where they do not study their national languages, where their national identity is distorted culture, their... heritage, where

everything possible is done to prove their second-rateness and second-rateness, they are just as responsible as the russians for this war, remember how it was at the beginning. during the war , even russian propaganda tried to speak casually about the buryats and tuvans, and many of we perceived this and were given the facts, you see, there were buryats in our village here in the kyiv region, they acted like beasts, and the chechens, kadyrovs acted even more like beasts, and it was as if from the russians, who essentially created this state and this army, and this aggression, who need ukraine as their original land, type. responsibility was transferred to small nations, which in principle are very far from all this, even from europe, but they became much more responsible and cruel than those who started this war and those who who in this war has their own, if you will, state interest, of course, this is

a classic imperial imperial practice, that is , you conquer territories, then you. uh , you use these territories, this is this population, to actually continue your imperialist war, and then you can hide behind them, that is, this is this, this is not the first time - it is not the first time that this is happening, that is, all these wild divisions and so on, uh, that is, you can later say that it's not us, it's that asians came somewhere in europe and did something there and so on, but we... the responsibility of these nations as such, i don't

have any specific formula for what it's talking about, but i have a very specific parallel that i think can help us think about it, which is... the responsibility for what the soviet union did in the same eastern europe in the 1939s and 1940s, for what he did in europe after the 1945s, that is , in fact, in ukraine, there was no sovereignty in ukraine, ukrainians were not sovereign, on the other hand, well, the ukrainian party. was one of the most influential in the soviet union, that is, i studied kyiv, i researched the history of the caribbean crisis, well , the key decisions about whether to shoot or not to shoot at an american plane over cuba were made by two generals, one's last name

was buckwheat, the other was pumpkin, that is , buckwheat and pumpkin, that is, i don't know who they are there were self-identities, that is, there is also a question of... whether it is territorial, that is , it is a difficult question, but it is a very real and important question, and i think that today it will be better for us to answer the question about the buryats and the provinces, thinking about us and about our role in the empire and in the soviet in the soviet union, well, this is probably still of great importance, we talked at the beginning of our conversation about all these new russian textbooks, but it is important that... the context, if you like, forging in the imperial or in non-imperial narrative, even of soviet times, you see, i thought, just when i was in borodyanka and looked at this shot monument of shevchenko during the shevchenko award ceremony, that shevchenko was somehow a soldier of the russian empire, who

this empire has always actually ridiculed, branded and created in his poetry such an image of this russian empire, on which we... all of us are brought up, who are an alternative to that image of the russian empire, who know russians, i mean not even from history textbooks, so that it seems to me that culture can act more strongly than history. in the soviet union , the textbooks said that the russian empire was oppressed by other nations, at least until the 17th year, but students in the schools of soviet russia taught lermontov, taught pushkin about georgia, which blossomed under the value of friendly bayonets, about the polish uprising, the sport of the slavs among themselves, and the best russian poets wrote this, in beautiful words, in beautiful works, with landscapes, i would say, of those countries that were conquered by

the russian army , be it in the caucasus, be it in poland, be it in ukraine, some of the best ukrainian landscapes were created by pushkin. in mazepa's poem, which is essentially an imperial myth about mazepa and such a response to the capture of byren, and on the other hand there were schoolchildren of soviet ukraine, we are all in... in schools taught, from moldovan to finnish in all languages ​​everything is silent, churek and saklya, everything is yours, i remember it from childhood, and this, i would say, could create an anti-imperial narrative, and also pavlo grabovskyi, and also ivan franko, and even lesya ukrainka, all these poets were anti-imperial while their russian contemporaries, one might say, the best of their russian contemporaries, glorified the empire. and this is already, you know, a pitfall for centuries of misunderstanding, well

, you mentioned shevchenko's words about from a moldovan to a finn, the finns are also mentioned in alexander pushkin's testament, and fine print, stepey kolmyk should have considered him his national poet, and his national poet, yes, yes, yes, that is, this, this, this is very, this, this, these are very different narratives. and they seemed to be present, in particular in ukraine, and one in the lessons of russian literature, the other in the lessons of ukrainian literature, but the question is also that the children who, who studied it, mean, well, there are creations which, which are being formed, which are formed in reading, and the understanding of what is read is also... formed by the teacher, and because of this, just as i would like

to emphasize the importance, the importance of the role of the teacher and the importance of the role of the interpreter in all this, in this entire history, because non-willing could and did happen in fact in any texts, that is, the same shevchenko was appropriated by the soviet, soviet literary narrative. after the end of the soviet union, tamara gondorova wrote a book about franko, he was not a stonemason, that is, franko was only a stonemason, shevchenko was only a serf in a coat, which he, therefore, specially bypassed for taking photographs, and this, this the question of what we do with our heritage, how we ... try to understand it, and i join this conversation now from

cambridge, united states of america, where great debates are now taking place regarding the decolonization of russian or russian-centric literary history, where, in fact, almost for the first time into the mainstream, that is , the main questions are questions about the imperial, the key imperial narrative of russian literature. which imperialism was recognized as the basis of french and english literature, but somehow russian in fact remained the subject of absolute adoration and idealization, and this is changing now, it is changing because of the events in ukraine, specifically because of the ukrainian, ukrainian resistance, so i would just like to say that... these these these these these processes do not only concern ukraine or the post-soviet space, in general, the image of the post-soviet

space, the russian space in the world, and it was precisely the opposition to ukraine that became the trigger for these discussions. well, we can say that ukrainians can be not only witnesses, but also participants in this rethinking russian of the imperial cultural narrative and the russian imperial past, because it seems to me that we do not even fully give ourselves an account today of the role in which this russian heritage played in the formation of even the current ukrainian perception of the world. this situation, which has opened thanks to the heroism of the ukrainian army, the ukrainian people, will not last forever, if we somehow want it... we need to be included in these processes, we need to speak, we need to communicate, sometimes it is very difficult,

that is, look at modern discussions on the ukrainian internet about good russians, that is, the idea of ​​communication with anyone is actually excluded, it is interpreted as a possible betrayal, but what does this mean, it means the creation of a ghetto at this key moment, where we remain our... our own truth, and limit our ability to actually influence the change in broader narratives and perceptions about ourselves and the world around us. again, this is a unique opportunity. some kind of waste, which, from my point of view, would be a crime, well, there is still a big question, how much russian community, even migration, even liberal, ready for discussion, as long as it does not put this community, i would say, and its cultural-historical preferences on a pedestal, because that's how people can oppose

putin, but they still have no doubts that russia is the center of this entire civilization. anyone who thinks otherwise is either an enemy or someone who is faking it for the hype, to put it simply, i am i totally understand what you're talking about, i know people like that, but i also know other people who weren't until 2022 year, which appeared now, and we need to talk to these people, well, i mean, it seems to me that russian society itself should at least partially do its own work. over mistakes, to realize at least the weight of one's own culture in the world context, it seems to me that this is also a soviet influence, mr. sergey, because in the soviet union everyone was sincerely sure that they were aware of the role of their own culture, and that uh, can be compared with world cultural values, and this is a complete lie, because soviet culture existed in certain isolation

from the world cultural context and from the historical context and from the scientific context and only now people can, have the opportunity to understand, well, the real weight of their cultural and scientific heritage on the scales of shared history with the world, and the majority does not want to do this, yes, that is, there is a hiding according to the idea, it means a separate civilization, uniqueness and so on, if we are a separate civilization, then of course, of course anything that is here... is unique, it does not need any dialogue with the surrounding, because it, because it is different, it is different , and this, this, this is, this there is a very serious, very serious problem, but changes have begun, and we have the opportunity either to support these changes, or to isolate ourselves and not

support them. this means that it is for the benefit of someone else, to actually open the way for some interpretations, which will actually be, will be completely different, if not contradictory, if we compare it with our experience, with our ideas, that is, not to enter the door that was opened by the ukrainian army and by the ukrainian people - this would be a strategic mistake. well then, this is also very important to understand, we can enter any door that, if we do not consider ourselves some separate civilization that is constantly trying to invent a bicycle, and that is what ukraine should be in europe, in the future, what should be its place in europe, what do you think, ending our conversation, well, ukraine

today appeared in europe in some robes, behind the scenes, a knight, i don't know, a defender of the border, the european border, ukraine rose to war with the russian army, which only the finns liked in the 40th year, the poles from different reasons could not. to fight on two sides in 1968, czechoslovakia did not even try to do it, hungary did not succeed, that is, in such a large industrial, large-scale war, well, we appear as a warrior, and it was not, it was not our choice, it was not

ukraine's choice, eh, and eh... in this way, we have already entered, then the question is to enter socio-economically, civilizationally, culturally, and here, here, the biggest question for us is even democracy, although now there are big question marks, to what extent we will manage to survive the military experience and to remain a democracy, i still remain an optimist here. but the issue of rule of law, that is, in fact, to what extent, to what extent can we be a people, a nation, a country. which will put the law above, above any other e- ethnic, social, economic and so on

interests of certain groups. that is, it is, there is a key issue, but it seems to me that it is purely from a military point of view, that is, we, we chose a place, we, we, we, we, we, we, we, we create and continue the border, the border of europe further east, that is. from my point of view, it is a matter of time, such integration, integration in the sense of security europe and the provision of this security, but culturally and legally integration, by culture i primarily mean, i have a culture of law, this will historically be the biggest explanation for us. thank you, mr. sergey. once again i congratulate you on the holiday, i congratulate you on the holiday, dear viewers, our guest was the famous ukrainian and american historian serhiy plokhii, see you soon! good luck!

today's political club is live on the espresso tv channel, and today we are returning to our traditional format, andriy smoliy in the studio, vitaly portnikov now connects to... using skype technology. mr. vitaly, good evening. congratulations, mr. andriy. greetings, dear viewers. so, for two hours today, vitaly portnikov and i will analyze, talk, discuss, discuss what happened during the current week, what concerns the whole country, what is important for the whole country, and what, of course, will happen.' in the coming days, and we will, of course, traditionally start with the security block from the security direction, because it is perhaps

the most important thing for our country, well for example, from the latest news that is discussed by the whole society, it is actually the destruction of the first board of the f-16 and actually the resignation of the release. by supreme commander-in-chief volodymyr zelenskyi, the head of the air force, mr. oleshchuk, and all these things, of course, many people connect them, including the statements of maryana bezogloi. mr. vitaly, how would you assess these changes, how do you assess society's reaction to it, and why is this reaction often there? quite stormy, quite controversial, and why, to some extent, it causes a split in the unity of ukrainian society,

i think it's most important to do with the fact that we don't have trust. to non-transparent actions, as you understand it, this is a real problem that is worth talking about, and in principle i believe that we should go the way of those states that such critical moments will create transparency for the decisions of the highest political and military leadership. well, what i mean is that i have before my eyes the experience of israel, which won many wars, there were many wars before this victory. serious problems, and always the parliament, i will remind you that israel is parliamentary state, created special commissions, from people who were respected by society,

from people who... were trusted, to investigate the actions of the political and military leadership at this, i would say, critical moment for the country, and following the consequences of these decisions of these commissions personnel decisions and decisions about the political responsibility of many important people for israeli politics and the israeli state were also adopted. i certainly won't say that it should be done. precisely during wars, but perhaps there is some form of interaction at such a time, i am all i remind you that we live in a parliamentary-presidential republic, the functions of the president, even if he is the supreme commander of the armed forces, let him be responsible for defense and foreign policy, they are limited enough, according to our constitution, the deputies should have the right, at least

to be aware logic the president, deputies could create commissions either in the parliament or from people outside the parliament, but those who usually have access to secret information, which would investigate certain critical incidents. we don't know how much the resignation of the commander of the air force of ukraine is connected with the f-16 plane crash. we do not know what happened in general, but it is a need. there will be an investigation, based on the results of this investigation, a decision could be made regarding the responsibility of the commander and his subordinate, if such responsibility exists. we have never heard clear explanations from the president of ukraine as to why he makes certain personnel decisions, although this is logical in a state, especially in a state that is fighting for its very existence. well, when

the commander-in-chief was retiring. of the armed forces of ukraine valery zaluzhnyi, there was no clear explanation why this happened, because all the talk about rotation, they do not look convincing in this situation in which you and i find ourselves. we need efficiency, efficiency must be backed up by some clear reasoning about what is going on. well, basically, after the resignation, and before this resignation, there was a lot of talk about why this... happened at all, right? there were talks about the fact that it is related to politics the conjuncture, that in the president's office they are afraid of popularity, the chairman, that he enjoys popularity with much more authority than the president of ukraine himself, and it is of course terrible, if society at all discusses this, because it believes that for the president of ukraine and for his closest environment, the question of preserving power is much more important than the question of preserving the country, who needs it to have such thoughts.

generally prevailed in society, now regarding the resignation of the air force commander, well , if the president simply signs a decree, and people do not know his reasons, one way or another they begin to create their own versions, for the plane, for the fact that things went wrong with maryana bezugla, for the fact that he had some involvement in the military leadership that was formed during the time of zaluzhnyi, well ... and all this certainly does not help the mutual understanding between the government and society, i repeat once again, in the midst of the war, it is not just some situation that the war ends or begins there, i would say that, in the midst of the war, no one in ukraine knows even the year we get out of the war that means we will have to live for a very long time in such a state, when public trust in the government is needed, and in order for this trust to be preserved, because of course the lack of such trust helps,

helps. as we understand, to those who are trying to destroy our state today, of course, in such a situation, this is a very, very disturbing symptom. mr. vitaliy, how would you evaluate the statements of people's deputy maryana bezugla, it's just that the situation is such that in our country, in fact, very often at first maryana bezugla comes out with certain with'. opinions, or the disclosure of insider information, and then we see, whether it is the release of these people, or the wave of such hate in some mass media, in some, including telegram channels, well, in essence , a very similar situation turned out with mr. olyschuk , a blunt statement, then a stormy discussion...