what you don't have, we don't have it, or why should we be convinced to legally give up these territories, no, the west says that this is impossible, from its point of view, we must clearly state that these are our internationally recognized territories, even if we don't control them, well, why do they say that? i think that this is just a diplomatic game, it has nothing to do with reality, that is, everyone has their own reasons, well, what reasons do we understand for volodymyr zelenskyi? these are not even reasons to keep ukrainian society is in a state of waiting for some kind of peace. it seems to me that ukrainian society has already realized that we are only in the first years of this long war, and that there are no people among us who believe that the war there will end in the near future. but all allies of ukraine should see that we want peace and are ready for negotiations. western countries, countries of the global south. what should the ukrainian president do? should, you know, we will not negotiate, we will fight here as long

as possible, well, for a while we will we talked for a while, well, no, well, we still said that we were ready for a just peace, but now we say that this, what are we talking about, we have a formula for peace, there is a plan for the implementation of this formula , the first peace summit, we agreed on some points, now the second peace summit, we will agree on some more points, we will invite russia, do you think russia will come, no, of course not. but president zelensky must demonstrate now that he is inviting russia, and russia is refusing. i want to remind you that during the first summit peace, swiss diplomats offered the minister of foreign affairs of the russian federation, sergey lavrov, to join this meeting, and he rather harshly replied that, firstly, russia is not going to participate in any formats initiated by ukraine, and this is the rule that will be extended to these peace talks and in the following years of this war. and secondly, that switzerland is not friendly. well

, maybe now there will be an attempt to hold a summit in countries that are friendly with russia, and then that country will invite it, well, i don’t know, maybe in beijing, but it was not there in beijing, well, this is an interesting idea, but again, even the presence of russia at some kind of peace summit in beijing hardly gives any hope that the war will end on the terms we would like, that is , practically when lavrov comes to russia for the peace summit in beijing, it means some concessions on our part. you understand, this is a completely different plan, it is not zelensky's peace formula, it is putin's sitzenpine peace formula. scholz and divens announced roughly the same plan, well, plus or minus divens also spoke about nato, scholz spoke about certain territorial compromises, well, divens actually also spoke about territorial compromises, and somehow it all coincided in time, for which, well, it is clear for... what

divens is saying and it is clear that really somewhere plus or minus there may be such a position of trump, we do not know at all what the position of trump is, but we guess whether this is the end of the war in 24 hours or in 48 hours, it can only be this way, but scholz, who spoke about support of ukraine, that germany will be there with ukraine until the end, and so on and the like, why did he suddenly come out with such initiatives, and to some extent it contradicts the interests of ukraine, and what do you see there? he says that russia will be invited to the peace summit, about territorial concessions directly, well , he did not directly say that there will be territorial concessions, well, he says that ukraine may have to, conditionally speaking, give up some things, and by the way , the head of the faction of his political force, the social democratic party, if he proposes to create a committee for... specify, and

then he elaborated a little, here i am now tu-du-du-du, to create a contact group and stated that the contact group should include china, india, turkey and brazil, which are coming to play the role of mediators, but we are also all the time we say that we want the country to be global, i don't see anything special here, no coincidence with the ukrainian position in this case, this is some political position of scholz in order to act as such a chancellor of peace, maybe it is domestic politics.

there is a certain logic, again, i do not discuss the question of the territory, i keep reminding you that if we cannot liberate these territories by military means, there is no... possibility of political return of these territories , well, you just have to tell yourself, that's how many years the republic of turkey has controlled the so-called republic of turkey northern cyprus? how much is the 74th year? 50, 50 years, this year yes, 50 years since the war ended, the demarcation line was drawn and still there is no... progress in the territorial unification of cyprus. moreover, now i read about such an amazing one the situation that netflix had to show the series famagusta about how the events related to the occupation of cyprus by turkish troops took place. well, again, it is also difficult to call it an occupation, because turkey always

says that it opposed greek radicals who could cause serious problems to the turkish population of cyprus, but russia also said the same about crimea. exactly the same. it was a carbon copy of this operation in 2014, the operation of the 74th year of the turkish army, they just completely pissed it off, and netflix took this series off the air, well, it took it off, it took it off in turkey everywhere, except greece, all over the world, all over the world, in greece it will be, in greece it will be like this, well , it's just so that we understand how it is, that turkey can even do more than russia, uh, in this regard, but again if we cannot politically and militarily liberate these territories, then we must prepare for ten years of their stay as part of the russian federation, not up to 5 years, but up to 55. someday

russia will change so much that the new russian leadership will be ready to return the occupied territories. well, by the way, in the 74th year. i also read some texts there, when in greece in cyprus they believed that when turkey changed, it would be possible to solve the cyprus issue, the turkish language was changed several times over these 50 years beyond recognition, there were democratic, secular regimes, military regimes, then began erdogan, but the consensus in turkish society has always been very simple, this territory should not be given away, well , it is clear that a similar consensus regarding always any... any territorial possessions was in russia will be and will be, so when we are told that we should give up control over the territories, i say again that we should not have any illusions, president zelenskyi is absolutely right when he says that we can use political tools to return these territories, if we do not have military force, that is, if

there is no military force, at this moment we agree on an armistice, on the cessation of war, and we do not recognize that these... territories of the russian federation, and the russian federation does not recognize, that these are the territories of ukraine, so this is the situation, cyprus, kashmir between india and pakistan, well, it exists, pakistan believes that it is pakistan, india believes that it is india , half of the territories are controlled by pakistan, half of the territory, india, it is like days, zaporizhzhia or kherson region, well, that's all, well, that's what we're really talking about, isn't it? such an option is possible in the context of the current discussions of the so-called peace initiatives, if, if such a desire ever appears not in us, but in russia, so far president putin is saying that under the condition of ending war may be to withdraw ukrainian troops from

all territories that russia has declared as its own, but i also do not think that this is a serious proposal, first of all, it is humiliating, so why should we enter troops from territory that they cannot capture. secondly, could there be a situation where hostilities would end at the demarcation line if they don't have the strength to continue fighting, but again, let's go back to jay divens' proposal, jay divens says, on the contact line the ceasefire is how the chinese, and not the entry of ukraine, and not the entry into, but together with thereby saying that ukraine should be armed in such a way that russia could no longer attack it. and tell me, please, and if you... putin, are you interested in such a peace agreement? why are you on your line of confrontation where you know that ukraine claims these territories, and you claim ukrainian territories? why do you want ukraine armed with americans?

that is, even the proposal is quite liberal in relation to putin, relatively speaking, from the trump camp, it does not suit putin either. she is not liberal, this is an outright mockery of putin, when jay divan says: we will arm ukraine so that it can punish you? no, he says that what is needed is not just the withdrawal of troops and not just the entry into nato, but demilitarization. fixing the number of the armed forces of ukraine, how many are there, 60,000 according to the istanbul agreements, something up to 100,00 there , well, with the russian inspection, there is always no modern equipment, that is, it is as you would explain, this is belarus, well, from a military point of view, belarus, well, in fact, belarus then, and at the same time, imagine what political ones processes. in such a country, imagine that such an agreement has been reached, demilitarization, the war is over, then

there are parliamentary elections, and here you go, andriy , to the parliamentary elections, we must have a strong state that will resist russian aggression, prevent us from capturing more territory, who will vote for you, when you know for sure, you are citizens of ukraine, that you basically lost the war, it's just a pity for you, the americans and the russians allowed you to exist, but you don't have an army, well, you're like in some kind of cesspit. it's not even belarus, it's such a mess just big, maybe for the territory. well, if you want to survive, then you have two ways of survival in such a country, or you, well, not in such a country, two ways of survival in general, or you leave here, uh, because you think that russia must it will surely come again, or you think that it will not come if you choose such a government that will definitely be allied with putin. no, well, in that case , what we are saying is a creeping occupation, of course it is. political occupation, like, like, like in georgia, or in south vietnam after,

in the same place, in the same place, it was not only about limiting the army, it was also about the russian language, denazification, there was also a whole istanbul conjecture, well, in addition, in the appendices, there was also talk, it was actually about including the political degradation of the ukrainian state and its slide into the conditional sphere of influence of this. ruskavamira or russia, how to call it? yes, on a temporary basis, because if you don't have an army, you can't defend even that. well, a pretty simple plan. now the question is, if jay divens is telling putin, you know nothing will work, we give you these territories, in fact. we agree that ukraine will not be a member of nato, although in fact putin does not care at all, he does not care too much, but that ukraine does not exist. but ukraine is a part of ukraine. which you did not succeed in conquering, you will not succeed in conquering, because there will be such weapons that

your army will simply be destroyed in 48 hours, there will be missiles, there will be planes, there will be tanks, there will be, i don't know how sweden, let's say, before joining nato, sweden has a very strong army, and so does putin, why does putin have this to sign now, when he has the power, well, even if he agrees that such a situation is inevitable, well... here we are sitting in the kremlin with you at a meeting of the security council of the russian federation, and i am telling you how patrushev, this situation is not inevitable, volodymyrovych, in the morning, we don’t have enough resources, we are forced to be with this version of trump evens, well, if trump becomes the president, in the end agree, well , let’s fight, uh, as much as we have resource, maybe we'll grab something else if we really have to come to terms with the fact the existence and... of ukraine, then maybe we will capture it at least along the dnieper, well, at least the kharkiv region, well, even if we, well, everything that we can

capture, let's capture, everything that we can destroy, let's destroy, and then, well, let's sign this peace agreement, well, but why now, when we are advancing, why now, when we have a missile to destroy their energy, why now, when we can still destabilize their situation, why do we have to act on it now , but i say that there are necessary conditions, even for the execution of this... agreement vance, this is the depletion of russian potential from the point of view that they cannot go anywhere further, one, this is their understanding that their infrastructure attacks do not lead to sensitive results, two, and this is that they are losing economically and demographically three, they , not us, and if these three conditions are combined, there is a chance that they will say, well , it is certainly possible to agree to some conditions, even to the conditions of a militarized ukraine, because... well, if we lean against the wall, well so it is already ours, well, it was taken away, if we

we will fire at them, they still exist there with light and water and do not leave anywhere from there, well, well, but so far i do not even see such prerequisites, even in the distance, well, we will actually follow it, and here of course, as they say , there are absolutely valid points about... about everything, pause for a couple of minutes and we'll be back with new topics, don't switch, saturday politics club! an unusual look at the news. good health, ladies and gentlemen, my name is mykola veresin, sharp presentation of facts and competent opinions. for example, if mykola veresin did that, he would have gone to prison. a special look at the events in ukraine, so it is not necessary to say that the fish is rotting from the head. no, not off the top of my head. but beyond it. and

then who is china? me, my heart hurts. all this in an informational marathon with mykola veresny. saturday. 17:10 sunday 18:15 on espresso. events events that are happening right now and affect our lives. of course, the news feed reports on them. however, it was not enough to know what was happening. it is necessary to understand. antin borkovskii and invited experts soberly assess and analyze the events them, modeling our future. every saturday at 1:10 p.m., with a repeat on sunday at 10:10 a.m. studio west -

saturday political club live, we 're coming back and now we're going to talk about the debate that took place this week, so between trump and harris, and this debate, as you can see, turned things around from the debate that was two months ago back. between trump and biden, yes, if then, de facto , trump, again, according to the public vote, won, now the result is completely reversed from what we had earlier, and what happened at this debate in general, of course, that both candidates

talked mainly about the domestic politics of the united states of america. but they also talked about ukraine, of course they also talked about, i say it again, the us economy, about migrants, relatively speaking, about other social issues, mr. vitaly, how do you evaluate these debates, compared to what we discussed with you here 2-2 months ago? well, first of all, i have to say of course. and the tactics that donald trump chose then in the debate with donald joseph biden, she turned against him because the main meaning of what donald trump said then and during the debate and after the debate, which played a role, was, let's say, biden's physical inability, and

trump insisted on this, and even those liberal publications that demanded that biden. withdrew from the election, that because of his age, no, he cannot lead america for the next four years, and now we see that kamla harris is much more energetic than donald trump, this is also an important part of this debate, but she can to look at him as such a not-so-young person who for inexplicable reasons aspires to lead the united states is one point, another point is important that ukraine became the topic of this debate in... in previous debates, as you remember, right was, it was not such a topic, i think that during this time things happened primarily related to the valuable before. settings, because again, at the trump-biden debate, everyone was looking at the state of biden, not even the content of what biden said, biden from the point of view of content

held these debates quite well, but everyone could see that he was not in the right physical condition, so there were questions as to how far this could be continued in the future, and ukraine, which is not part of this election campaign at all, it is important, it suddenly became such a litmus test the very attitude to values, because camel. she was not specific about ukraine, it is true, but she talked about helping ukraine precisely from the point of view of traditional american values, close to both democrats and republicans. by the way, she appealed to of the polish population of pennsylvania, said: think about it, if putin wins in ukraine, then he will not give poland a normal life. trump did not talk about all this at all, and he, by the way, continues to stubbornly insist on his position that he will force putin and zelensky to end the war. he said it again yesterday in his statement that he was well acquainted with them, that he would instruct them to meet and end the war, on what terms, he also

never explained, but this point of view: let's just end this war, without taking into account who is the aggressor, who is the victim, who is guilty, who is not guilty, there is none of this, kamela harris has absolutely clearly placed the dots above and, donald trump does not have this, he just has a desire. to end the war , which, which spends money from the american budget, period, that is, this is such a pragmatism of worthlessness, and it is also important that, in principle, if you characterize the position of donald trump at this debate, it is pragmatism of worthlessness, but at the same time he was confused, together with this he allowed himself to be funny, because here's this cat and dog meme that suddenly went viral on the internet so that everyone's not talking about the debate, it's just about... this, and it's bad for trump because he looks like a grandpa who watches tv and then he repeats every stupid thing he sees there, it's not a very good

characteristic, well, imagine what it's like if you're a young person, and you're looking at trump, you just want to look at some alien, some grandfather, something like that damn, how did you find out about this from tv, not from tiktok, from... tv, i was watching tv, well, i think trump was in the best shape, that's why at this debate, he's charismatic, you could see, he's energetic, you could see, but in this, this is the energy of a person who is 78 years old, well, that's that a positive characteristic of him, because at that age a person who is so eccentric, so energetic, that's good, but... but for what function, but we just see, really, you're right that those debates are previous, which were even before

the official election campaign, they showed a tired biden and energetic, and energetic trump, and now trump just returned to the same situation, and what's more interesting, when i watched the debate, in fact, trump all the time had the impression that he was talking to... that's the impression that he was standing in front of him not kamala harris, but the impression that biden is standing in front of him, that he went in, that he closed his eyes, he does not see that it is harris, and that biden is in front of him, and this was probably one of the mistakes him, although he really tried to keep himself in his hands, to him he must be his the technologists there tied up, prepared, hands and feet, so that he wouldn't rush there, as it was then, and... that's how he does it during his election tours, but less so, that is, he got into the same , the same trick, the same

trouble that he was cooking up, basically for biden, right? i agree, i absolutely agree with that, of course it is, and he understands perfectly well, the fact that he no longer wants to see harry is a serious sign of... that he realizes that he doesn't drag out such debates, and why did he go after them then he had, and by the way, before this debate took place, there were actually quite a lot of reports that his headquarters, his party, his party members, his technologists, that they were very worried about this debate, and that as they say, they are trying to restrain him as much as possible so that he does not aggress, does not throw insults and so on, that is, in fact , his entourage knew in advance, and you and i

knew. in advance, that it will be like this, that it will not be otherwise, did he have the option to refuse in general, to say no? from the second debate he can refuse, and if he refused the debate with kamela garis at all, it would mean that he already believes that he has lost it. ugh, he went to the debate with biden because he knew he would win it, to the debate with kamela harris, he doesn't go because he knows he's going to lose, he couldn't afford that because it was an obvious indicator of weakness. now you can say: listen, she said everything she wanted. i said that i wanted to talk to her there, that's a position that can be accepted, but just refusing to debate, that's not possible was, and by the way, you have to understand that this is a self-confident person, such people, especially those who have been presidents, they are sure that they will come out and everything will work out for them, you can't tell trump, listen, you will lose the debate behind kamela hairis , who am i, in no way, i will go out and everyone will see each other, well, i have to tell you,

andrei, that... by and large, some great tragedy did not happen, we did not see a person at the debate, about whom we can say, oh that's all , this person cannot win the presidential election, maybe he can win the presidential election the election after this debate, that's actually my next question, because remember the debate between clinton and trump, and trump, in 2016, i'm actually thinking about it, it's exactly the same debate, i remember it, and there's actually also the audience after of these debates and experts, viewers, believed that trump lost them. i don't remember the percentage points there, but they were almost identical to those we have there something 60 to 40 was in favor of clinton. that is, can we now really consider that these debates did not particularly affect anything, that even

despite the ... gap that is supposedly, and by the way, and by the way, after the debate, this nationwide poll in '16, it clearly said that clinton has six percentage points more than trump's also showed the results of the overall national vote, which he lost, but he still arguably won the election because he dealt with those states, yes, and that's an important lesson. by the way, as you remember, at that time everyone believed that trump was just a spoiler for hillary clinton, that he participates in the elections, simply so that hilary clinton becomes a comfortable president of the united states, without any serious effort. and only one clinton, as an experienced politician, said trump can win the election, understand, don't relax, he will win the election, if you relax, everyone.

weakened, including what appeared to be campaigning in these crucial states, and now i hope that kamela harris' team, she will take that lesson, not the election, not the debate, i'm sorry, decide this election cycle, and only elections in those states, if you lose those states, you lose the presidency of the united states, even if you have a majority of the electoral votes. well, i'll say it again later, the majority of americans are for camelo harris, so what, but that's the system, so you have to win in the system, not in the number of votes. trump has never in his life won an election by the number of popular votes in the united states of america, which didn't stop him from winning the 2016 election and being

very close to... my 2020, so what here to talk, to talk, that is, as of now , the chances of the candidates remain as 50 to 50, of course, 50 to 50, i would even say, well , maybe from our point of view, 51 to 49, but if you and i were supporters of donald trump, we would said that 51 to 49 in favor of trump, which is the way to look at this process, if we return to the very content of this debate, trump twice avoided answering the presenters' questions about whether he wants ukraine to win, well he says he wants the war to end the end of the war, why he does not talk about ukraine from the point of view of victory, but speaks exclusively from the point of view of the end of the war, because he believes that he has good relations with putin, he does not want to spoil them, he does not need the victory of ukraine, he needs , for

putin and zelensky to agree on... and for both to be satisfied and