a few minutes and we'll be back to saturday's political club live, stay tuned. vasyl zima's big broadcast. my name is vasyl zima, this is a big broadcast on the espresso tv channel. two hours of airtime, two hours of your time. my colleagues and i will talk about the most important things. two hours to learn about the war, about the military, the frontline component. serhii zgurets. but how does the world live? yuriy feder is already in front of me and it's time to talk about what happened outside of ukraine. yury, good evening. two hours to... be in courses of economic news, time to talk about money during the war oleksandr morshchevka field with me and sports news, i invite yevhen pastukhov to a conversation, two hours in the company of favorite presenters about cultural news, alena chykhchenina, our art viewer is ready to say good evening, presenters that many have become as if they are already next to me, ready to talk about the weather for this weekend, as well as the distinguished guests of the studio, mustafa dzhemiliv, the leader of the crimean tatar people, in touch with us, mr. mustafa, i congratulate you, good day, the events of the day in two hours . great

vasyl zima's broadcast, a project for intelligent and caring people, in the evening on espresso. saturday political club, direct ether, we are back, and now we will discuss issues related to nato itself, the possible, possible membership of ukraine in nato, we will also discuss the issue of these next peace plans, which are very much discussed and... very often discussed in the western press, well , we will start, of course, with the visit to kyiv, actually mark rutte, the new secretary general of nato, he arrived in ukraine and made several statements related to including ukraine's possible membership in the north atlantic alliance. in particular, mr. rüte stated that ukraine is closer to nato than ever before, mr. rüte also

commented on the possibility of strikes on the territory of russia with western weapons, and in particular, again, a large number of publications appeared in the foreign press concerning possible membership of ukraine in nato, here is the financial times, several articles appeared there, one today, some articles appeared. during the previous days, in particular, one of the articles is written about what is in nato are considering the so-called german model of ukraine's membership, that is, conditionally speaking, we understand that this part, yes, of the country can join the north atlantic alliance, including other statements, in particular, the former nato secretary general jen stoltenberg stated that ... that ukraine can

become a member of nato, even with occupied territories, at least that was the statement, but in addition, let's pay attention to one article of the same edition of the financial times, which today is very actively circulated in its ukrainian, at least on the internet - segments, which ukrainians are actively discussing, in particular, i will quote: western ukrainian officials have made a decision. that the basis for negotiations can be essential security guarantees in exchange for russia's control over the occupied territories of ukraine, in particular, these essential security guarantees include membership in nato, at least that part of the country or those territories that are under the control of official kyiv. the publication also notes that this would be a tacit agreement that these lands should be... returned diplomatically

means in the future. ukraine, on the other hand, must define a military defense border, agree not to permanently deploy troops or nuclear weapons on its territory, unless it is under threat of attack. well, this is one, some, relatively speaking, one spectrum of those articles that were actually in the foreign press, we will also talk about others, but let's at least discuss this mass of material, which from... now we have ukraine in nato, about they began to actively talk about this again, and the second question, this is actually this so-called tacit consent, by the way, i also want to add here that according to media sources, some who published a response, allegedly in the president's office, reacted to the article, as noted by one of the tv channels, about supposed security guarantees. er, again, in the office

of the president, they are allegedly talking about the fact that this is a delusion, it is not true, there is no such conversation, no one in the west has officially and clearly offered ukraine such security guarantees that would... definitely not allow expansion or a repetition of the war, well, these are the things, mr. vitaly, the arrival of mr. rutte in kyiv, his opinion about nato, the opinion of jens stoltenberg, and here are these articles in the western press, what they testify to on this so-called political-diplomatic track and whether it is really being considered today. by our western partners, the possibility that ukraine, at least in some perspective, or possibly within the framework of some agreement, formal or informal, joins nato, but without the actual occupied territories.

well look, this story has been discussed since 2022, not 2024, if you remember, i publicly said that in 2022. how about a possible variant of the development of events, and by the way, i said at that time that the question of what the zone should look like that will not be embraced by the guarantees of the fifth article, that is, ukraine is admitted to nato there in all its territorial integrity, is being discussed, but here is the question of the fifth article, it's about the same as with germany, it's true that germany believed that it had the right to all its territories, including the territory of the nd. but the fifth article covered the territory of the federal republic of germany only, but the german democratic republic was a completely different state body, part of another defense union, as, say, happens with the occupied territories of ukraine, to a certain extent, but again,

even then there were options that were discussed, one of the options is the provision of security guarantees along the contact line. another option was to provide a security guarantee without territories that are considered disputed between russia and ukraine, and many people took offense at me at the time for calling these territories disputed, but from the point of view of the constitutional law of the two countries, whether we like it or not, they are disputed territory, it's just that russia destroyed international law, but this does not make the fact of the dispute invalid, non-existent. the constitutions of russia are donetsk, luhansk, and kherson. zaporizhzhia region and the republic of crimea and sevastopol, and even if we liberate these territories by military means, they will not go anywhere from the constitution of the russian federation, it will consider these territories occupied by ukraine, it will consider that it must return these territories either politically or by military means,

she will prepare for revenge, well roughly the same as azerbaijan with nagorno -karabakh and its regions, which were the so- called security zone, of course. international law was on azerbaijan's side, i don't think we will even argue with that, but azerbaijan believed for a long time that it would be able to return these territories through political dialogue, but all this time it was preparing for a new war with armenia. to solve this issue by force, for example, if we were to win back our territories from russia, and russia would leave these territories in constitution, one should understand that... it is preparing for the moment when it can take these territories by means of a new war with ukraine. by the way, there is also a reverse point, even if we do not liberate these territories, but continue to consider them constitutionally ours, then russia in any case considers

ukraine a potentially hostile state and a threat, that is, a country that claims these territories, which written in its constitution, and which it has the right to politically or militarily . it is legitimate to take away, and therefore, of course, russia, first of all, will always be there to demand from ukraine such constitutional changes that would remove from the constitution of ukraine, donetsk, luhansk, kherson, zaporizhzhya regions, crimea and sevastopol today, and secondly, if this removal does not happen, it will prepare for the destruction of the ukrainian state , which prevents the creation of such a ukrainian state that will agree to constitutional changes, which in principle was done in 2022, so that it is believed that there can be peace between... at all, and that we will live to some kind of real peace when we we will feel safe in our country, maybe only a person who is not aware of the depth of the pit into which we have fallen thanks to putin's aggressive actions, this time, the second time, now nato, nato has always

hoped and continues to hope that putin will come to his senses and at least agree to freeze the war, along the contact line. they hoped for it in 2022, they hoped for it in 2023, 2024 is ending , there is no sign of an end to the war, even on the horizon, billions of money. are spent, the european economy is not looks happy, china's influence is increasing, the united states is in a difficult political situation before the election, everyone is asking, what's next, and then the option arises, maybe they can be stopped in this way, say we don't want to interfere, but we will intervene , if you destroy the status quo, this is what you have achieved... this is what we condemn, this is bad, you

occupied ukrainian territory, you declared it yours, all this is terrible, but, but we understand that we are nothing by force we can't decide here, but you should understand that you won't achieve anything new by force either, so that you understand this for sure, we are announcing the euro-atlantic integration of ukraine, understand that ukraine is cut off. although even if you fight for 10 years, you will not get it. well, maybe you don't need to fight for 10 years, maybe you will calm down, but in order for the russians to start thinking in this direction, some kind of formula for ukraine's presence in nato is needed. that is, some explanation that if russia attacks ukraine, there will be a joint response of the bloc, and not what is happening now, when against the 120-million-strong state, which practically transferred its entire economy to war rails and the president. which enjoys war as the best time of its life, there is a state of 30 million people,

whose citizens seek peace, unlike their neighbors on the other side of the border, who consider war the best state for russian statehood, as we understand it, and in this situation, in this situation, you and i see that nato does not really realize how much risk it can take, that is, let's imagine this model, how it should in principle... look, is going to nato summit. in order for this to happen, there must be a nato summit. well, let's imagine fantastically that an extraordinary nato summit will take place before the end of the term of the presidency of biden. and this nato summit invites ukraine to nato. all allies agree with this. i don't really see how that can be done when we don't know the results of the us presidential election. the new us administration's idea of ​​it, but let's imagine that on november 5th , kamela harris wins, who agrees with

this concept, okay, invited, now the question is the following, in order for ukraine to become a full member of nato, the fifth article must be extended to it, in order for the fifth article to be extended to it, the agreement on ukraine's accession to nato must be ratified by all. parliaments of nato member countries. do you believe that the parliaments of countries like turkey, hungary or slovakia will do it quickly? can it take years? it could take years, that's for sure. if sweden took two years, two, two. so how many will go to ukraine in such a situation? moreover, they will say that they are absolutely in favor. they simply want to reach a political solution to the conflict in this situation, to reach an agreement between moscow and kyiv about fire something like that, and moscow will believe that if it only reaches this agreement, ukraine will immediately join nato, so

there is no need to rush. so, there may be some intermediate option. an intermediate option is when ukraine receives an invitation to nato, and individual parts of nato, nato countries, say, the united the united states, great britain and france provide ukraine with security guarantees of the swedish and finnish type. but again, we studied carefully. guarantees, it is implied that if, say, sweden is waiting to join nato, or finland, and at that moment russia attacks it, then a russian division crosses the russian-finnish border and goes to helsinki, it means that the united states participate in this war, or are they only helping finland? it is necessary to understand the essence of guarantees. and ukraine is still being helped now, well, in fact, and that too helps not only so, i am asking

what will change in these guarantees on the line of contact, if there is a change, that the united states provides guarantees to ukraine, and clearly for a specific territory, yes, or for an undisputed territory, or for a territory, then that is one story, by the way , how to define a military border for ukraine, but it defined the border, and tomorrow the russians broke through somewhere in some other place, does this mean that they will not break through, they will definitely... they, let's say, provided guarantees similar to the fifth nato articles, until while the fifth article on... should act in reality, and russia took and launched a missile, let's say, kharkiv run, the next day, or even on the same day that it is signed, at the same city in which it is signed, for some reason kyiv, we came to sign, here is a missile bombardment, what does that mean, what should the united states do, or should they

say, well, you know, well, it's not the same thing, well, then it's the bankruptcy of this whole idea, because we ... announced that you are with us, you are in nato, we invited you, but you will be there while shelling, or the united states said, well, listen, you don’t respect us russians, we said that this is all, this is nato territory, we defend this territory, there is just a protocol process, ratifications, where are you going, we destroy with our missiles from the territory there, i don't know poland or germany, your launchers, ladies, well, great, they were destroyed, and what will happen the next day, and there are guarantees that vladimir putin... will not hit romstein there, say, with his missiles , but we know it for sure, who guarantees it, who is the person who will say, you can hit russia, and she will not respond, that is the problem with all this, that is, i precisely adhere to this point of view that if ukraine receives security guarantees in the controlled territory, the russians will not shoot,

because they also do not have a guarantee that america won't shoot back in that situation, they don't know it, they may not want to check it. they will continue to operate there within the framework of donetsk region or kherson region, i believe in that, but not to cross this line, which will be determined, ugh, but i am not the president of the united states, i may think so, it's my expert opinion, but i'm not responsible for the millions of people who may die as a result, if i'm wrong, if they die, i'll just sit down at the computer and write a text called millions disappeared from the face of the earth, i will think... about metaphors, about how to describe all this in such a way that it will be interesting to read, about future readers who will be interested in my testimony of this disaster, if i myself survived, but the president of the united states states, he is not only responsible for his life, but for everyone's life these millions of people, and he has to risk it for the sake of peace in europe, for the sake of ukraine, and

the prime minister of britain too, and the president of france too, first of all as the leader of the nuclear powers, what should they do in this situation? this is a difficult question, that is, we convince you, as you can see, there is a whole group of people who make such statements, such as jen stolterberg, andersfors rasmussen, pavlo klimkin, i am simply listing for you the people who spoke about such a discussion, i can include myself in it , and we say, no, don't be afraid, it's risk-free, but these people do such statements when they do not hold positions. this is an expert assessment of the situation when you are the head of the state, you have a different level of responsibility, so i don't know, andrei, how it will all develop, you understand, but let's say if donald trump is elected president of the united states of america. in this case, is the architecture that you and i

have just described possible, or is it no longer possible? in principle, i do not think that donald trump will consider the issue. ukraine's accession to nato, i.e., if trump becomes president, then, accordingly, this is an idea from the side bana may not get anywhere without trump, you know, and just exist as a theory, huh, but if trump really becomes the president, then what can i say, i say again, i don’t really believe that this story will end like this with nato, because trump, as you know, in general... is a very big supporter of nato, this is ra and it is unlikely that he is a supporter of ukraine joining nato, well, at least according to the characteristic signs that he presents, we saw that j.j. dee vance, he generally says that it is necessary to promise in russia that ukraine will not become a member of nato, because from the point of view jd vance's view is that russia is really

confused, but jd vance has another idea, which i also find completely illogical. it is that it will be necessary to arm russia and then ukraine in such a way that russia cannot attack it. well, all this does not mean that russia has to agree with it either. at the same time, we always want to ask, how will we put russia in front of the fact? how do we put russia in front of the fact? and i have no answer to this question. if we, if we leave the point. view of this article, about which one i quoted from the financial times, whether it's true or not, if that's a controversial issue, but still, i remind you once again, the language is western ukrainian. officials have decided that essential security guarantees can be the basis for negotiations. mr. vitaly, from the point of view of the ukrainian government, is

the ukrainian government really ready for such a position, and how will it convey this position to ukrainian society. here, in any case, there will be a certain split, that is, some people will believe that in fact it means leaving these territories at will and they are already. they are already writing about it after this article was published, others say, clap their hands, say, oh, great, finally the war will end, well, first of all, it is necessary to clearly understand whether to leave these in the territory or not, this is a no no no situation , when we advance somewhere and we are told to stop advancing and give this control over these territories to the russians, i want you and i to move into reality, to understand that the choice is not between these territories will actually be controlled by the russians or not, but the choice is between whether ukraine will lose some more regions, most importantly, whether ukraine will even exist on the political map of the world as an independent state in

the near future, because the prerequisites for the disappearance of ukraine are there, not because the russians will conquer ukraine. no, i have already said many times, the russians have no chance of conquering ukraine, they do not have the strength to do so, but they have all the opportunities through a long-term war to bring ukrainian society to... indifference to the very idea of ​​statehood, if people live in war, in the cold, in lack of prospects, in fear of being killed, and this happens not for 2.5 years, but for 10 years, then as you understand, there is a feeling that let it all end, under any conditions, most people's mood changes, this is the so- called the chechen version of the end of the war, this is how the second chechen war ended, i always say that it is dangerous. yes, ukraine has different dimensions, yes, ukraine has a larger population, yes, ukraine is in europe, but if ukraine is not surrounded by security guarantees, then in order to bring the ukrainian population is in such a state,

it just takes more time, and to be honest, i don't really care what ukrainians think today, i care what they will think tomorrow, because the people who sit today and answer sociologists that they believe that the war can end only at the borders of 1991 and... only with reparations from russia and the punishment of war criminal vladimir putin in 5-6 years, when they will see that some ukrainian regions are still under russian control, putin not only punished, but he travels around the world and meets with e leaders, at least of the countries of the global south, nothing special happens with the russians themselves, and we live in expecting every winter as a disaster, this person can change your point of view, it happens, it's not really. .. probably the consequences of the information policy that we had or still have in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th years, we, sorry, very often not us, but some, mass

media, some right-wing, conditionally saying, yes, experts, zmi, they are all this time tried to make amends for this reality, that is, not to talk to people from the point of view of rationality. truthfulness, they sometimes belittled there, for example, the capabilities of the same russia, including, i am not saying anything, maybe in the first few months it was done correctly, but then, it seems to me, this position did a very, very big disservice to our citizens , who still live in some such illusions that so-and-so, as if a miracle should happen soon, and... and we here are absolutely not opposed to a miracle happening. but we we have to say that unfortunately, as of today, and time has finally shown that this

miracle is still unexpected. so i don't know how the authorities will propose it, although for one reason, i don't know at all whether they will have the opportunity to propose it, whether this option will ever be realistic. maybe the government won't need to offer anything, maybe it will stay like that. if the western allies arrive. to such a decision, well, i don't see any problems for the authorities, has n't the president of ukraine repeatedly said that there could be a situation when we part of our we will return the territory by political means, well, that is what he will say, as he has repeatedly said, that this is how we now receive security guarantees for our allies, from our allies, we become members of nato, our main desire there is fulfilled, we continue negotiations for joining the european union union, and... regarding the occupied territories, we will continue to fight for them politically, no one is forcing us to give up these territories, we will never give them up, we believe that this is

ukraine. territories and as nato members of the european union, we will fight for the return of these territories with the support of our allies, may i say so? maybe if we still remember that the popularity of volodymyr zelensky is based on the common sense of his supporters on the sectarian attitude to politics, then i think that he can afford anything , and those who have now started to accuse volodymyr zelensky , by the way, absolutely baseless in all mortal sins, when he himself wants a continuation. and the preservation of power, he never did them in anything will convince, it’s like the situation with petro poroshenko, that is, if we consider it from the point of view of volodymyr zelensky holding power, well, these are not my problems, these are the problems of the president himself and his entourage, i do not believe at all that president zelensky can win any real fair competitive elections after the war, but if they believe in it, but let them work for his election result, not for reality, this is again not my problem, i just repeatedly said that in

history. it does not happen, the war president never does not become the president of peace, but president zelenskyi became the president of war and it is not his fault, by the way, he wanted to end this war, he wanted to come to an agreement with putin, these were of course unrealistic, unprofessional expectations, but he wanted it, he did not start the war , the war was started by putin, but one way or another, in this war, zelensky looks like the president of war, not the president of peace, which means that when it comes to peace, new people, new forces will appear, i think that in general there will be a serious . formatting everything of the political field, or it may not be so, or the war will continue for years, there will be no elections here, and there will be such an actually authoritarian regime of volodymyr zelenskyi, i don’t know there for another 10 years, it may be so, absolutely, absolutely, in in many countries, as you know, which look like outposts of democracy, martial law was not abolished for decades in taiwan, let's say in the times of chiang kai-shek, the first real free elections were held there. after 30 years, it is given, after

chankeshiya managed to withdraw his troops to taiwan, but taiwan was considered the fortress of the free world, no matter what, and ukraine can be considered the fortress of the free world, and elections, what are elections, here the inhabitants of this country will forget for a long time, they simply will not be, but they will be after the war, i guarantee that , vance and vols, let's move on to the vice presidential debate. states of america and in general to the election campaign in the world's largest democracy, there is exactly one month left before the elections will be held, before the americans will go to the polling stations and choose a new the president actually, this debate took place this week, who was more convincing, we will discuss about it,

in particular. many were surprised that divens, who is the republican candidate, the candidate of donald trump for the post of vice president of the united states of america, showed himself not in the worst way, there is even an expert environment, and the vote showed that somewhere about 50 to 50 opinions were divided, people's voices were divided, at least on ... cnn, and one more interesting detail, the candidates are not mentioned ukraine, i.e. the war in ukraine, they concentrated more on the domestic issues of the united states, discussed everything there, including social issues, immigration, but did not discuss ukraine. well, mr. vitaly, there is a month left before the election, and

this... debate took place, perhaps, which was not completely followed in ukraine, unlike what happened when the debate between trump and haris took place, we see that the election the campaign is going along roughly the same lines as before, that is, nothing such an extraordinary thing did not happen, well, except for the fact that there trump once again distinguished himself by calling harris mentally retarded, even the republicans. criticized the former or former vice president donald trump, well, and such information, if i may add, reuters reports that republicans are preparing to challenge the results of the elections in the united states of america, in particular in those states where those shaky so-called states, and even today , by the way, the current president...