we will find out that russia used iranian ballistic missiles, and some fragments of these missiles will be found during the shelling of some ukrainian city whose military object, after that the russians will find fragments of some western missile on their heads, and by the way, this is exactly what russians can do to deter the use of iranian missiles because they will know very well that they may be on the hook. which will change the situation really to a new level of escalation, which they themselves do not want, but imagine that you are putin and what do you think i should do to keep the west from actually allowing these long-range missiles, well obviously not to use the iranian ones, and if i sneeze, if i want another escalation, if i think i'm going to win this escalation, if the more escalation, the better for me, well , then of course i will use iranian missiles to get... western missiles in return and

maybe in turn take a new, even more serious step to further escalate the situation, it's possible that drones are flying into the territory of nato countries at some point, because we must remember all the time that we are, in principle, approaching the third world war with you, this is a train that goes to this very station, and it must be realized that ukraine is only an intermediate and not the main peripheral station of this train, this missile will hit the territory of a nato member country. and this is where the reaction of the west will be important, whether it will decide that this is accidental or whether it will decide that this is a deliberate provocation, there is something to think about, here is something to watch in the coming months, and maybe in the coming weeks even, because this train of the third world war is moving so fast, so fast. by the way, russia announced the first nuclear weapons test in what seems to be 32 years. on its

eastern part of the territory, that is, as far as i understand, it will be about the fact that , relatively speaking, one of the tactical, i emphasize once again, tactical political missiles will be used by russia on its territory, of course , for such alleged training and testing purposes , but again , it's a game-changing moment like you you see, because everyone said that russia could never decide to use nuclear weapons without prior exercises, that conducting nuclear exercises is the first step to the use of nuclear weapons on any territory, including of ukraine. well, so training is such an element, the first step of intimidation of a more global one, right? yes, this is the first, well no, it is no longer intimidation, it is the first step of preparation. whoah, whoah. intimidation is when you talk, and when you test, you prepare. here. it can somehow change whether

to influence the united states of america, the nato bloc, regarding the supply of something to ukraine, well, it is not a fact that it is far, i think they are ready for this, everyone perfectly understands that they did not say that the possibility of using nuclear weapons of the russian federation in a war against ukraine is on the table, it may just never happen, but you saw that recently the director of the central intelligence agency of the united states , bill burn, said that in 2022, the experts of his... organization assessed the possibility of russia using nuclear weapons in a war with ukraine as very high. after that, the risk of this use is gone, why? because the front line froze. then the ukrainian troops advanced rather rapidly. at that time, a large part of our territory was liberated. russian troops were forced to leave northern ukraine. russian troops were knocked out of the kharkiv region and from and against this background, of course, it is simply necessary

to understand this formula. the greater the success of the ukrainian troops on the russian-ukrainian front, the greater is the advantage of the russian federation using nuclear weapons in the war with ukraine. that's clear. again, this does not mean that it will be used. but the probability increases, at least that's how it's analyzed. these are two of those, as you know, like on the old people's scales, well, they are so steep, you put this steep. this hill is rising, here you are building the hill of ukrainian victory, the hill of nuclear weapons is rising, the hill of ukrainian victory is decreasing, the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons is decreasing, this is a simple formula, and the front line has frozen, that is, the ukrainian troops are not going anywhere seriously anymore were advancing, the russian troops were not advancing either, we entered the situation of such a blind corner of pat, which may be partially interrupted there by what is happening in the kurt region, but this is too much.

a controlled territory that is small in size, so that it can significantly change this very feeling that nothing is seriously moving anywhere, and by analogy there is the same movement in the pokrov direction. approximately for a quad per square kilometer, of course, yes, i absolutely agree, well, that means there is no such moment now, but putin in principle wants to be ready to use nuclear weapons in case the situation changes dramatically, or there is still one moment, if russia really decides that without real intimidation of the west, it is impossible to achieve the goal, the goal, as we remember, of destroying ukrainian statehood, and this goal is not going anywhere from russian plans, it will exist, in principle, we just have to understand that... even if we someday in some perspective reach a truce with russia, the goal the destruction of ukrainian statehood is not going anywhere, our goal, how i am already saying, long periods of peace, in which we will prepare for short bloody wars, this is how we will live for the next decade, most likely, if we do not become members of nato,

but, and i hope that we will, then we will not live like this, but in this situation, in this situation, the important thing is that they can decide that they need to bang on the west. it’s not up to us, if they decide that the west is directly participating in the war, they decide to decide, they don’t need anything for this, they can decide it at any time without any new missiles, that is stormshadow was in sevastopol, the west is involved, everything that makes sevastopol different from, say, an attack on some object near bryansk or near moscow at night. well, from their point of view, it means that they do not decide, but they will take it and decide, and putin may get the idea that if he hits some military object, a western one, then the west understands that it is necessary to stop playing , so to speak, and that is why they are not just raising the level of tension, they are threatening

the americans with war on their territory, you saw how sergey lavrov said that the americans there hope that the war will start on the territory. europe and the world, no, we will fight on the territory of the united states, this is also, i would say, a special accompaniment of the election campaign in the united states, that is also clear. you mentioned this meeting of everyone with everyone, and about big meetings, about big trips to ukraine, to great britain, in the united states of america, and we talked about it as a context. that the possibility of using western, american, and british weapons on the territory of russia is being discussed. american i think not. well, in theory, in theory, because we don't really know what will be resolved. don't you think that there could

be, including other topics of discussion, key actors, international, key actors in relation to... ukraine, what i 'm talking about, this parade of peace initiatives, and that's what zelenskyi, almost at every speech, sholtz was added, who very actively began to develop the topic, and the topic is not exactly in a pro-ukrainian way, we will probably talk about this separately, that is, don’t you think you, that someone will discuss... these are these peace initiatives, which, as you said at the beginning of our program, in your opinion, do not carry, relatively speaking, any meaningful load so far, you know why i think that there is no sense to talk about some peace initiatives is like in the old joke about the russian empress, you know the joke, how

makler suggests to a peasant from some russian province that he married his son to a russian woman... and he tells him: why do i need an empress, she will not work, she will lie there until the 12th day in her bed, and i need to work here, i have cattle here, i have a farm here, i have, well , maklino says, but she is a rich woman, your son will live as an emperor, well, they argue for a long time and in the end the man says: i am ready to give my son away according to the russian empress, what should be done? he says: negotiate with the empress. convince the empress, so i wonder when we hear all these proposals from olaf scholz, from donald trump, jd vance, even from volodymyr zelenskyi, uh, we already convinced the empress of russia, well that is vladimir putin absolutely ignores any

peace initiatives, realistically, even when he says that he is ready to listen to some proposals of the countries of the global cock. then the same conditions begin again: the withdrawal of troops from the donetsk, luhansk, kherson, and zaporizhzhia regions, demilitarization, denazification, the istanbul agreements, ugh, yes, yes, where there is a refusal. of ukraine and so on, and if he is not going to negotiate on any fair terms, why are we discussing the details of these peace plans, they say that ukraine will to force them to give their territories to russia, what does it mean to give them, we control them, how can you give them away? what you don't have, we don't have it, or should we be persuaded

to give up these territories in a legal way, 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 it's just a diplomatic game, it has nothing to do with reality, that is, everyone his reasons, well , we understand what reasons volodymyr zelenskyi has, they are for... not reasons for keeping ukrainian society 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 ukraine's allies should see that we want peace and are ready for negotiations, western countries, countries of the global south, what should the ukrainian president do, has, you know, we don't we will negotiate, we will fight... here as much as possible, well, for a while we said so, 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 peace formula, 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, what do you think, russia will come, no, of course not, but when... zelensky must demonstrate now that he is inviting russia, and she refuses i would like to remind you that even during the first peace summit, swiss diplomats offered the minister of foreign affairs of the russian federation, sergei lavrov , to join this meeting, and he responded quite harshly 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 negotiations and in the following years of this war. and secondly, that switzerland is not a friendly country. well, maybe now there will be an attempt to hold a summit in a friendly country from russia, and then to bring its

they were invited, well, i don’t know, maybe in beijing, but they weren’t there in beijing, well, it’s an interesting idea, but then again, even the presence of russia at some kind of peace summit in beijing hardly gives any hope that the war will end on those terms , at which we would like, ugh, that is, practically, when russia comes to lavrov to the peace summit in beijing, it means to a certain extent concessions on our part, you understand. this is a completely different plan, it is not the peace formula of zelensky, it is the peace formula of putin sydzenpin. scholz and divens announced roughly the same plan. well, plus or minus, divens said more about nato, scholz said about certain territorial compromises, well divens actually also talked about territorial compromises. and somehow it all coincided in time, for which, well, it is clear, for what it says. and it is clear that

trump may have such a position somewhere plus or minus, we do not know at all what trump's position 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 for ukraine, about what germany will be there with ukraine until the end, and so on and the like, why did he suddenly come out with such initiatives that... well, to some extent contradict the interests of ukraine, and what do you see there, he says that russia will be invited to the peace summit , direct concessions, well, as he did not directly say that there will be territorial concessions, well, he says that ukraine may have to give up some, conditionally speaking, and by the way, the head of the faction of his political power, social democratic, if he proposes to create a committee for something preparation china, india, turkey, and

brazil are coming to play the role of mediators, but we also say all the time that we want the country to be global, i don't see anything special here that does not coincide with the ukrainian position of the case, this is some kind of position of a political scholz in order to act as such a chancellor of peace, perhaps it is an internal political situation. coincides with the election that you and i have talked about a lot, and the election that will be held next sunday, i think, so that may be part of such a story, about jady vance, well, you see, there is a certain logic there too, i again, i do not discuss the issue of territory, i keep reminding that if we cannot

liberate these territories by military means, there is no possibility. there is no political return of these territories, well, you just have to tell yourself, how many years has the turkish republic controlled the so-called turkish republic of northern cyprus? 74th year is how much? 50, 50 years, this year yes, 50 years is how the war ended, the demarcation line was drawn, and still there is no progress in the territorial union of cyprus, moreover, just now i read about such an amazing situation that netflix had to show the famagusta series about how the events related to the occupation by cypriot-turkish troops took place, well, again, it is also difficult to call it an occupation , because turkey always says that it stood up to greek radicals who could cause serious

problems to the turkish population of cyprus, but russia does the same about crimea she said, exactly the same, it was. and a tracing of this operation in 2014 of the 74th year of the turkish operation the army, they just shamed her, 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, it will be in greece, it will be in greece, yes, it’s simple, that we understood, how is it, that turkey can even do more than russia, well, in this regard, but again, if we... cannot politically and militarily liberate these territories, then we have to to prepare for ten years of their stay as part of the russian federation, not up to 5 years, but up to 55, we, either we win it back by force, or we enter the process hopes that one day russia will change to such an extent that the new russian leadership will be

ready to return the occupied territories, well , by the way, in 1974, i also read some texts when in greece in cyprus they believed that when if turkey changes, then it will be possible to solve the cyprus issue, the turkish language has changed several times over these 50 years beyond recognition, there were democratic, secular regimes, military regimes, then it began erdogan, but the consensus in turkish society has always been very simple, this territory should not be given away, of course similar consensus on always any territories... 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 take back these territories if we don't have a military force, that is, if there is no military force, at this point we are negotiating

an armistice to end the war, and we do not recognize that these territories. territory of the russian federation, but not the russian federation admits that these are the territories of ukraine, then this is the situation, cyprus, or kashmir, between india and pakistan, well, it exists, pakistan believes that it is pakistan, india believes that it is india , half of the territory is controlled by pakistan, half of the territory, india , it's like dnipro, zaporizhzhia or kherson region, well, that's all, well, that's what we're really talking about, is it possible? such an option 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 when a prerequisite for the end of the war could be the withdrawal of 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 a territory that they cannot capture secondly... can there be a situation under which hostilities will end along the demarcation line if they do not have enough strength to continue fighting, but again let's go back to jj's proposal divens, jay divens says, on the front lines of the ceasefire, it's like the chinese, but it's not accession of ukraine, and not accession, but at the same time i say that ukraine must be armed so that russia can no longer attack it. and tell me, please, and if you are putin, you... such a peace agreement is interesting, why are you on your line, a clash where you know that russia and ukraine claim these. and you apply for ukrainian territories? why is ukraine armed with americans? that is, even the proposal is quite liberal in relation to putin,

relatively speaking, from the trump camp, it also did not suit putin. well, of course she isn't liberal this is an open mockery of putin. when jay deaven says: "we will arm ukraine so that it can attack you." no, he says that what is needed is not just the withdrawal of troops and not just the entry into nato, but demilitarization. uh, fixing the number of the armed forces of ukraine, how many there are 60 thousand according to the istanbul agreements, something up to 100 thousand, there is little, well, with russian inspection all the time, no modern equipment, that is, it is like you explain, like belarus, well, from the point of view of military , belarus, well, actually belarus points, yes, and at the same time imagine the political processes in such a country. imagine that such an agreement has been reached, demilitarization, the war is over, then there are parliamentary elections, and now you are going to the parliamentary elections, andriy, we must have a strong state that will resist russian

aggression, prevent us from seizing more territory, who are you for will vote when you know for sure, you citizens of ukraine, that you essentially lost the war, the americans and the russians just graciously allowed you to exist, but you don't have an army, well, you're like in some one there vyshi, it’s not even... not belarus, it’s such a vyshi, just big, maybe for the territory, well, if you want to survive, then you have two ways to survive in such a country, or you, well, not in such a country, two in general ways of survival, or you're leaving here, huh, because you think that russia will definitely come again, or you think that it won't come, if you elect a government that will definitely be friends with putin, no, well, in that case, what we are saying is a creeping occupation, a creeping political one. occupation as, as similar to, as in georgia, or in south vietnam after, there , there, it was not only about limiting the army,

there was talk about the russian language, de-nazification, there is also a whole, well, in the appendices, there is also the language, the language it was actually about, including, the political degradation of the ukrainian state and its slipping into the conditional sphere of influence of the russians. 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 it won't work, we will actually give you these territories. 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, and that ukraine does not exist, but ukraine is the part of ukraine that you like. it was not possible to conquer, 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, here it

will be, i don’t know, like sweden, let’s say , before joining nato, sweden has a very strong army, and so does putin, why is putin doing this now to sign when he has the strength, well, even if he agrees that such a situation is inevitable, here we sit. i am in the kremlin with you at a meeting, a meeting of the security of the russian federation, and i am telling you, like patrushev, that this situation does not last for a minute, volodymyr volodymyvitch, in the morning, we do not have enough resources, we are forced to be with this version of trump and vance, but if trump becomes the president, in the end you will agree, well then, let's fight, uh, as much as we have the resource, we can capture something else if we really have to to come to terms with the fact of the existence of such ukraine. maybe we will capture him at least along the dnieper, well at least the kharkiv region, well at least we, well , everything we can capture, let's capture, everything we can destroy, let's destroy, and then, well, we

'll sign this peace agreement, well , but why now, when we are advancing, why now, when we have a missile to further destroy their energy, why now, when we can further destabilize their situation, why do we now have to behave, but i say that there are necessary conditions, even for the fulfillment of this agreement. vance, this is the exhaustion of russian potential from the point of view that they can't go anywhere further, one, this is their understanding that their infrastructure attacks do not lead to sensitive results, two, and this is that they lose economically and demographically, three, they do not we, and if these three conditions are combined, there is a chance that they will say, well , we can definitely agree to some conditions, even to the conditions of a militarized ukraine, because if we... leaned against the wall, so it's already ours, well, they took it, if we'll fire at them, they still exist there with light and water and they're not leaving anywhere

, oh well. well, so far i don't even see such prerequisites, even remotely. well, we'll actually follow this, and of course, as they say, there are absolutely valid points about, about everything, a couple of minutes of pause and we'll be back with new topics, don't switch, saturday politics club! "verdict with serhii rudenko, from now on in a new, two-hour format, even more analytics, even more important topics, even more top guests, foreign experts, inclusion from abroad, about ukraine, the world, the front, society, and also feedback, you can express your opinion at any time of the day with the help of a telephone survey, turn on and be included, the verdict with serhiy rudenko, from

tuesday to yatnitsy from 20 to 22. vasyl zima's big broadcast. two hours of air time, two hours of your time, two hours to learn about the war and what the world is about. two hours to stay up to date with economic and sports news. as well as distinguished guests of the studio. events of the day in two hours. vasyl zima's big broadcast, about... how for intelligent and caring people in the evening at espresso. saturday politics club, live, we 're back and now we're going to talk about the debates that took place this week, both between trump and harris, and the debate as i see it.

we can see that they turned the situation upside down in relation to the debate that took place two months ago between trump and biden, so if then, de facto, trump won, again, according to the audience vote, then now the result is completely reversed to what we had before, and what happened at these debates in general, of course, that... that both candidates talked mainly about the domestic policy of the united states of america, but also talked about ukraine, talked of course, about, i say once again, the us economy, about migrants, relatively speaking, about other social issues. mr. vitaly, how do you rate this debate compared to what

you and i discussed in... months ago. well, first of all, i have to say that, of course, the tactics that donald trump chose then on 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 that role, was, shall we say, the physical inability of biden. and he insisted on this. trump and even those liberal publications that demanded that biden withdraw from the election said that he could not lead america for the next four years because of his age. and now we see that kamela harris is much more energetic than donald trump. this too an important part of this debate. so she can look at him as a not-so-young person who, for some unknown reason, aspires

to lead the united states. this is one point, another point is important that ukraine became the topic of this debate, in the previous debates, as you remember, it was not like that, it was not some such topic, i think that during this time things happened primarily related to value adjustments, because once again at the trump, biden debate, everyone looked at biden's condition, not even at the content of what said biden, biden spoke quite well from the point of view of content. in these debates, but everyone saw that he was not in the right physical condition, so the question arose 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, suddenly became such a litmus test, exactly attitude to values, because kamela hals, she wasn't specific about ukraine, it's true, but she talked about helping ukraine precisely from the point of view of traditional american values, close and for...