presents the leadership of the united states, particularly president joseph biden, with a ukrainian peace plan in order to put pressure on russia as an aggressor state. how do you see the situation? yes, we know that president zelenskyi is going to present his peace plan to president biden, and there are high expectations, at least outside the white house, with keyer starmer recently visiting washington, and therefore secretary za... strong decisions were expected from usa and great britain, it was assumed that the leaders could allow ukraine to use missiles atakams and stormshadow on targets deep in russian territory. however, this has not yet been announced. recently, the us president's national security advisor, jake sullivan, was asked about this clearance, and he simply answered. i cannot make any

announcements at this time. this does not mean that permission has not been granted, or that it will not be granted, it simply means that the united states is not ready to openly discuss the issue. currently , the momentum in the biden administration and the starmer administration in london seems to be moving towards supporting the peace plan president zelensky, helping ukraine defend itself against russian attacks with cruise bombs and ballistic missiles. and i think that's... a positive momentum. dear mr. ambassador, we understand that this is not about political analysis, yes, because there are many components of this process that remain confidential or secret, and perhaps even undeveloped. but if we take a general approach to such things. in your opinion, what parameters could be considered, what kind of plan this could be a potential peace plan, taking into account the fact that the aggressor state is against peace negotiations and... they want fixation on the ground,

that is, they want to control our captured territories, so what about those, what could be the parameters of what is called is this a negotiated peace process? i will say that i do not have access to president zelenskyi's plan, since i live here in turkey, but it is obvious that a large part of it is that the russian armed forces must withdraw from the entire ukrainian territory. which they occupied including crimea and donbas. undoubtedly, russia should recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. unfortunately, i do not know what place in zelenskyi's peace plan will be allocated to ukraine's strategic orientation in the future. as early as march 22, there were rumors about not-so-secret negotiations taking place in istanbul between representatives of ukraine and russia. as reported, they included announcements of ukraine.

political or geostrategic neutrality, which would mean that no one would put pressure on ukraine to join the nato, as well as a ceasefire, when russia withdraws all its troops that entered ukraine during the second invasion in february 22, the question of the legal status of donbass and crimea should go away for about 15 years, maybe this part of the plan, although i i doubt, of course, the core of zelensky's perspective. there is a ceasefire and the complete withdrawal of russian troops, what he is willing to offer in return as an incentive for russia, i do not know. well, there are generally two definite, definite approaches, right? on the one hand, we understand that in the administration of president biden, perhaps in in london, perhaps even in some other progressive western capitals, they understand that it is possible to force russia only by destroying certain of its power, military, logistical , and so on, that is... if russia were to weaken,

it could go to one or another negotiation, yes, because what they put on the diplomatic table is, in simple language, called an ultimatum with further maintenance of the currently occupied territories. the russians would like to take at least 30% of our territories, make us a non-aligned state, which would be under the control of the russian federations, that's one story, on the other hand, in washington they understand, if possible . questioning the russian economy and destroying the russian military machine, accordingly, this may force putin to revise one or another of his demands, but we understand that there are also large powerful players, china, brazil, india and the so -called great global south, and they would also like to achieve certain results at our ukrainian expense, yes, and accordingly, in my opinion, that is why the so-called kursk was started. operation, because the russians constantly

talked about the realities on the ground, and the realities on the ground now are such that we keep part of the territory of the russian federation under military control, respectively. the brazil-china plan has suffered a certain de facto fiasco. i may be wrong, and accordingly, if we talked about zelenskyi’s plan there, we talked about it, let’s talk about joseph biden’s plan now, how can we stop the russian bear if we lack long-range missile systems, aviation and the corresponding permits from the united states to use this is for destruction of russian military facilities. first of all, i think that chinese or brazilian plans are of no importance, what matters is whether the united states, great britain and other nato allies provide ukraine with the capabilities necessary to weaken the russian armed forces to the point where russia

simply could not continue its policy. as i mentioned at the beginning of our interview, in my opinion, ukraine urgently needs permission to use atacoms and storm long-range missiles. shadow in the deep russian territory. the recent attack in the western tver region in the city of toropets was a spectacular drone strike that caused huge explosions throughout the city. the destruction of warehouses of ballistic missiles, glider bombs and other ammunition clearly affected russia's ability to carry out attacks using these weapons on the territory of ukraine. will ukraine be able to achieve similar success with atackens and stormshadow missiles yet. remains to be seen, it seems logical that ukraine has been able to achieve significant results using drones, which are much easier to shoot down, it can do even more with ballistic missile attacks and stormshadow, as well as cruise missiles, to potentially weaken russia's ability to continue the war.

according to british military intelligence with reference to the ukrainian general staff, russia loses more than 1,100 soldiers killed or... wounded every day, and as of today it has suffered more than 610,000 casualties. this level of losses is unacceptable in the long term. although putin can continue to throw people into battle. these forces are insufficiently qualified and insufficiently prepared. in eastern ukraine, the attack on pokrovsk is of great importance, and if pokrovsk is captured, it will be a serious blow to ukraine's operations in the region. however, it is unlikely that russia will be able to take advantage. with any breakthroughs in the east due to a lack of necessary equipment and personnel, even if putin shows confidence, it seems unlikely that russia can end the war on its own terms. yes, this is extremely important, but the key story is how to

get putin to stop demanding peace from us at our expense, you see, this is the most dangerous situation: putin regularly fires at us, putin raises the level of aggression, tries to contain it. at the current level, just to get us out of this bloody agreement on something, it will not happen, unless, of course, very clear negotiation parameters are set by the united states, great britain, france and so on. yes, we understand that at one time, when putin met with president joseph biden, he offered him to share the world. that was a few years ago. accordingly, we are in ukraine we understand that an attempt to convert is currently underway. the world continues to struggle for major geopolitical influence, yes, but the key task is to ensure that it is not at the expense of ukraine, that it is not at the expense of our state and our territories, right? well, in your opinion, the leading players will play now, yes, because if putin

even agrees to certain negotiations so that it is not at the expense of ukraine, maybe he is interested in something in africa, maybe something in the pacific basin or in the indian ocean. but not at the expense of ukraine and our internationally recognized borders. i don't think that we are talking about some big geopolitical agreement in which western leaders offer president putin concessions anywhere in the world. washington works to solve every problem, such as this war, as a separate issue. the us is taking a problem-solving approach rather than a broad geopolitical strategy as one might imagine. for the russians , washington absolutely needs the war to end on terms acceptable to ukraine. otherwise, president putin will continue his aggression. moldova may be next, followed by georgia, and possibly both countries at the same time. if putin is not stopped in these countries, he may threaten eastern

nato members such as latvia or estonia. it must be stopped now and that's it. if this is not done, he will simply postpone his... in the regions i mentioned, whatever geopolitical ambitions exist in the global south, whether it is president lula in brazil or xi jinping in china, they have not changed their focus. the focus of attention of the us and its allies. the main priority is to stop putin and russia in ukraine and eventually reach a peace agreement acceptable to ukrainians. recent opinion polls show that while about 50% of ukrainians may support a cease-fire, more than 75% reject any cease- fire that involves handing over ukrainian territory to russia. therefore, western leaders, especially in... the administration of biden and garis, will most likely support the will of the ukrainian people. president trump, if

re-elected, has said he intends to end the war before he takes office. however he may propose a deal that would require ukraine to cede territory in exchange for peace. ultimately, ukraine itself must decide on its own course. this makes it more urgent than ever to allow the ukrainian government to use longer-range weapons. deep into russian territory, because it will make it difficult for russia to carry out attacks on ukrainian infrastructure and civilians. finally, in august , speculation appeared in zmi about negotiations between russia and ukraine to end attacks on each other's energy infrastructure probably through the mediation of qatar. i think those talks are still ongoing, although putin may not want to appear as if he is giving in to ukrainian pressure after the invasion. of ukraine to kurdsk. the fact that these talks are ongoing suggests that putin is looking for ways to de-escalate, given

the high price russia is paying. even if putin pretends that he is ready to make any sacrifices. dear ambassador bryza, but ukraine also has the opportunity to raise the level of escalation. extremely important hits on military warehouses of the russian federation in the tver region demonstrated that we with the help of drones. we can deal low-level blows to our enemy, and we understand that the level of escalation can be raised not only by the kremlin, but also by ukraine, and the kremlin least of all did not expect this, and we understand that if the drone army will practice, the ukrainian drone army will practice military targets on territories of the russian federation, russians, ordinary russians, will also feel the burden of war, but putin is betting on something else, putin is betting on the destruction of ours. of the energy sector during the winter, to enormous suffering, possibly mass deaths and the death

of our people, to the exodus of a large part of the citizens of ukraine from our territory, and after that in the spring he could offer one or other things, this is putin's plan. i am worried that in all western capitals this matter is understood and accordingly, but the pace of providing us with military assistance is not fast enough, is not satisfactory and accordingly. the biden administration understands that putin wants to destroy our energy industry in order to winter was tragic, the kremlin is doing it, they understand it in delhi, in berlin and london they also understand it and in paris, but at the moment we see putin's plans, the only thing left on the ukrainian side is to maintain and possibly even exceed the level of escalation in some ways, somehow so we've touched on these issues before, and i completely agree with the -- before the premise of your question: fear of escalation did prevent the biden administration

from authorizing the use of weapons deep into russian territory. the absence of such permission only allows and encourages putin continue to destroy the energy infrastructure of ukraine. it is obvious that london wants to convince washington to grant ukraine permission for more effective protection. while the attacks on ukraine's energy infrastructure continue, it appears that discussions are underway that could lead to... an agreement whereby ukraine and russia would stop attacking each other's energy infrastructure. this could be a constructive step towards changing the momentum and direction of the conflict. in addition, ukraine's success in advancing into russian-held territory to protect its own northern regions, especially around sumy, changed the psychology of the conflict, from an imaginary dead end, to one where ukraine is perceived as a capable and innovative state. a recent drone strike in western tver oblast, which targeted russian

ammunition, missile and cluster bomb depots , demonstrates ukraine's effectiveness in reducing russia's ability to strike ukraine with these destructive weapons, even with far less powerful drones compared to atakams and storm shadow. i certainly expect that washington and london will eventually grant permission, and only ukraine. will start using this more effective weapon, convinced that we will see a change in the momentum of the war in favor of ukraine. here's what might make putin more willing to negotiate in good faith. dear mr. ambassador brydze, look, the president of the united states, joseph biden, does not have much time left in office. fortunately, he is not currently personally experiencing the election campaign, he does not go to pennsylvania and does not assure that he has there is a peace plan. the key task of president joseph biden is to go down in history, as,

i don't know, winston churchill went down at one time, when winston churchill said: "no, we will destroy." hitler, i do not idealize churchill, but joseph biden now has several months to make a decision at the level of an outstanding, great, political and military figure of the world, that is, he can give ukraine certain permissions and possibly increase the range of weapons, long-range weapons and aviation , that is, joseph biden can play to the end, will he go for a similar one, or he will be a hostage of the election. democratic campaign. president biden is deeply convinced that ukraine should not lose this war. i would like him to state more clearly that ukraine must win this war and define what that means. if pressed, i think he would say that ukraine's victory in the war means the cessation of hostilities on the terms determined by ukraine. biden will retain full

power until the inauguration of the new president on january 20, 2025. side, he not only has the right to make decisions that he considers correct, but there are no problems due to the fact that his political career will soon end. so his main consideration is how any actions he takes to help ukraine could affect us domestic politics and the outcome of the 2024 election, although biden is certainly thinking about how his decisions could affect the candidate's chances in president harris vs. president trump, because americans tend to be more focused on other issues when it comes to electing a president, so now biden has a relatively free hand in order to do what he thinks is right. for obvious reasons, he is concerned about the possibility of russia escalating to the use of nuclear weapons. however, last year, when it emerged that president putin

may be planning to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield, biden sent cia director bill burns to moscow to... warn that in such a scenario, the us would intervene militarily and destroy russian forces on territory of ukraine. obviously, such a threat deterred putin. as far as i'm concerned, president biden remains the same dedicated to helping ukraine, as before. his hands are much looser now than when he was running for president. and while russia's invasion of ukraine probably won't be the deciding factor in the us election, it could affect the outcome by... a big margin, as this election is expected to be very tense. and going back, for example, to the beginning of our conversation, when we talk about certain negotiations, there, i don’t know, behind the scenes, semi-public and even public, well, we understand that in general similar things are concluded in what are called some informal agreements, but we understand that

there can be no informal agreements with putin, yes, because he made a mockery of all international treaties in which russia... participated, that is, either not fulfilling them, or simply leaving them, yes, well, we will no longer mention the so-called budapest memorandum, but if it is still somewhere in a couple of months, maybe up to six months, we will see a certain freezing of the situation , a weakening of the intensity of fighting on line front, so we will understand that something is probably happening, but someone must be the guarantor of those agreements that may not be signed on paper. and if even they signed on paper, how would it look? at the moment, it is too early to talk about a potential guarantor, because putin has not yet decided to end the war, he continues to throw as many people as possible to the front lines to stop ukrainian bullets and bombs. the time will come, however, if the united states, great britain and their

allies give permission for use long-range missiles deep into russian territory, when putin will have to do it. such a step, as you assume, mr. borkovsky, everything that is written on paper like the budapest memorandum, has no meaning for putin, he understands only one language, the language of the overwhelming power, therefore his armed forces must be degraded to such an extent that he was no longer able to continue this war against ukraine. as we know, since the 1930s, in particular, from the secret agreements between nazi germany and the soviet union. that the leaders in moscow have violated agreements before when it was beneficial for them. for example, despite prior agreements, stalin's plans to invade poland led to world war ii. the same thing. the same applies to putin, he does not care what is written on paper. thus, first it is necessary to reduce the military potential of russia, and only after that one should think about the methods

of verification of any agreement. verification may involve a set of states, guarantors or other formal mechanisms. we have successfully developed methods of verification of nuclear arsenals during the cold war, so it is quite possible to develop a similar approach, and yet, before considering a peace agreement and ways to guarantee it, the main focus should be on reducing the military potential of russia. and the last question, i will formulate it briefly. and trump, is he telling the truth, or is there some kind of election chaos going on in his head, that is, he gives a lot of different signals about how he sees the talks with putin. i don't think his default position is to talk the truth trump is always manipulative and says whatever comes to his mind and whatever he thinks will help him. at this point, he thinks he is a great politician and thinks he can somehow convince or force ukraine and russia to end the war, but he hardly has a clear idea of ​​how to achieve this.

during a recent debate with kamela harris, he was asked if he had an economic plan for the country, to which he replied that he had the concept of a plan, that is, despite the attacks on kamalugari, in the absence of his own economic policy, he basically admitted that he doesn't have a concrete... plan, only concepts, the same applies to his approach to russia's invasion of ukraine, he has a concept of a plan and considers himself an experienced negotiator who can find a way to end the war , but it seems that he himself does not quite understand what he really wants, the word chaos you lived here is very appropriate. thank you very much, dear mr. ambassador bry, for this brilliant analysis on the air of the tv channel, i want to remind our tv viewers what is now for them worked by matthew bryza. former adviser to the secretary of state of the united states, former director of european and eurasian affairs at the us national security council.

dmitriy areshkin, political scientist, professor of the free university in riga, will be on the air of the espresso tv channel. i welcome you, dear dmytro borisovych, to the broadcast of the tv channel. good day, hello. well, we understand that our armed forces have demonstrated that escalation can be played in pairs. hands on two scores, we understand that a military aircraft flew to the tver region of the russian federation composition. the story is extremely serious, taking into account the fact that there was an explosion of such power that an earthquake occurred, reaching three points on the richter scale, and accordingly we understand that the war entered the territory of the russian federation not only in forms, in the form of coffins or sacks of two hundredths yes, that is, a new phase of the war is beginning, and accordingly i would like to ask you to characterize, outline its parameters, how do you feel about it? i wouldn't say that everything

is unequivocally with the transition of the war to some new quality, it seems to me that all this predictably, it is simply unexpected for the russian way of thinking, they are used to the fact that if a country is bigger, it is more powerful. in the 21st century, the picture is somewhat... it is said that a large territory must be protected if you are at war, and it turns out that russia has too many facilities for which there is a basic lack of air defense, including a very large and seemingly modern base in production, this is the tver province, which should still be guarded, because there are rockets, shells, and whatever, it didn’t work out, it flew in and exploded, which means that in russia lacks a... modern air defense to cover key points on its own territory, because putin didn't have it in his head when he started his aggression against ukraine that he would be able to get a response,

he... got it, i didn't i see great news in this, because everything happened, for example, in april and may 22, when he did not expect an answer on the way to kyiv or gostomel, and he met and received this answer in kharkiv and so on, that specifically applies to kursk. so, the war has its own logic, the problem is that the russian one it is very difficult for the mentality to understand this modern logic, it is very simple, if it is european logic and consisted in the fact that when you live in a glass house, you should not throw stones at your neighbors , and putin and his entourage may fly in response they thought that nothing would come in response, and secondly, the most headless of them believed that this is our house, glass or not, it is ours, the west will be afraid and will not participate, ukraine will be afraid, zelensky will run away in three days there will be a victory parade in kyiv, right? it worked out, and now the process has started, which

is difficult... it is terrible, it is bloody, it is destroying ukraine, it is a victim of aggression, there are no questions here, but it is also destroying russia. the only question is that russian public opinion has not yet substantiated, realized and is not ready to realize this, and in this sense, ukraine is engaged in presenting time and time again very clear, simple lessons for russian public opinion. the question is how soon this public opinion will be able to gather courage. but this is another conversation. in general, it seems to me that the war started with stupidity mind in the 21st century, in the modern world, wars do not solve problems. but putin remained in the 18th or 19th century or in the first

half of the 20th. century, he became possessed, i don’t know whether the spirit of nicholas i, or someone else, or some, i don’t know, stalin’s projections incarnated, he thinks so, and here the key story is how much this cotton wool with ammonia can hollow him out, well, here the question is about the amount of blood, the amount of destruction and accordingly, in principle, the unshakable position of the west, we understand that there is no place in ukraine run away under threat... putin and the kremlin offer only an ultimatum: give us your territory, give us your sovereignty, give us your identity, otherwise the war will continue, that is, this is not a negotiating position, it is only an ultimatum under the threat of destroying the people, the state and so on further, that is, de facto, putin does not offer anything, but maybe just one or the other liquids with ammonia

blood, i am not afraid to say so. will they be able to change the option in his head a little bit, i don't know? if i understood you correctly, then my answer will be as follows: the thing is that russia is two-layered, on the one hand, it is european, and on the other, let's say, golden ordinsk, at least ivan vasilievich the terrible consciously used the practices of zolotordinsky territorial management, which he borrowed from safa gerei, each time he managed the kazan khanate quite strictly. all the time, there is opposition to the european intention, where russia was the same empire as, for example, austria-hungary, under the leadership of the rather europeanized monarchical family of the romanovs, but since 1917, especially after coming to the authorities of comrade stalin began to be openly dominated by conventional asian ideas about the organization of power, a kind of sultanate, the eastern method of production, as karl

marx wrote, saying that... there is no private property, property belongs to the state, etc., and it is no longer an empire european type, and zolotordinsky, when there is a khan, who is not limited by any political institutions that would restrain him, there is none. there is a military-political or military-nomadic pseudo-democracy, which is called delegative, that is, once delegated the authority of the khan, and after that he is not limited by anything... comrade stalin built such a thing, from whom does he protect the russians, from the people of bandera, who are the people of bandera? earlier, there were those who seized power in ukraine, but now it is all of ukraine. it turned out that the very russian people, which he proclaimed to be a part of the great russian people, consists of traitors themselves, and this is purely stalin's approach, the people are traitors, and this is purely horde's approach.