Russia continues terrorizing the civilian population of Ukraine, but now we also have something to answer the enemy and gradually these responses will be scaled. In addition, there is one condition under which we will be able to properly finalize the war. We are talking about breaking the regime of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. More about this, Ukraine's response to Russian missile terror and support for our allies in an exclusive interview with Channel 24 was told by Advisor to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine Mikhail Podolyak. If the UN lived in our reality, it would have to call Russia to take immediate steps to de-escalate the war. However, the UN lives in a parallel reality and told Russia and Ukraine to do this. It looks like they want to reconcile the Ukrainians and Russians, or bring them to the negotiating table. What made the UN so “worried” in the second year of a full-scale invasion? Nothing special is happening to the United Nations right now. The UN takes a rather formal approach to such resolutions and statements. The UN should not constantly talk about de-escalation, the need for a ceasefire, the need to respect the humanitarian grounds for waging war. It would be desirable to suspend Russia's membership and force it to comply with UN charter documents on withdrawal from territory of Ukraine. After this, de-escalation will be automatic, but the UN will not do this. However, he will continue to effectively talk about the need to engage in de-escalation. First of all, such a position does not affect any processes. Russia will not stop the aggression. The people who are dying in Ukraine and Russia are solely a proactive problem of Russian aggression. The Russians themselves are killing their own people. We know that when the Russian military launches missiles or other means of killing, they also kill their own citizens. Russian air targets are flying towards Voronezh, Belgorod and the like. Then the UN will say that they have done everything necessary to stop the “conflict”. However, these statements will have nothing to do with the real ending of the war. The following ideas will be relevant to the real ending of the war: The UN has not been very active in expressing its support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia after large-scale attacks on Ukrainian cities on December 29 and January 2. However, suddenly, after the “attacks” on Belgorod and Voronezh, they decided to remind them that the war must be de-escalated. Do such UN statements influence the decision of partners to provide weapons to Ukraine? Or is this statement solely a normative act? This is purely a normative act. The UN is obliged to make such statements and will continue to do so. This does not affect any decisions: neither the decisions of Ukraine, nor the decisions of the governments of countries that support our country. On the contrary, they make much more voluminous statements that there is no other solution to this war except for Russia to lose, because otherwise it will constantly scale up and lead to negative consequences. Ukraine has support from the national governments of countries that have already decided everything for themselves. The further into this war, the more they decide in the right sense of the word. Russia has invested in the United Nations for a long time. For decades, the aggressor country has used the UN as a media platform to promote its positions regarding aggression, war and the possibility of specific behavior that is inherent in Russia's external political aspects. In addition, the Russians have actively infiltrated their people into the governing bodies of the UN at various levels. Let us finally admit that for the majority of Russian citizens there are no humanitarian components, except one, to kill or to help the relevant institutions do it. Many elements of the global political process are corrupt and Russia is actively involved in them, in particular at the level of various international institutions. This is the kind of infrastructure that has been in place for many years been connected to each other for years. It will continue to exist and no one will change it. Ukrainians would like international institutions to be more active in terms of fulfilling their functional responsibilities, but they will not do this. To summarize: UN statements formal. They are absolutely correct from the point of view of the formal letter – they clearly record the position of the UN regarding “We are against war and for world peace.” They have no tools to influence the aggressor state. The UN's fundamental instruments of influence are to suspend Russia's membership in the Security Council and temporarily take away its veto power. It would be much more significant than these statements. This war will not be decided by the UN or any other international institution. Unfortunately, they will not have a significant impact even from the point of view of organizing the correct ending to the war. Ukraine and the coalition to support Ukraine will decide. < em>Speech by Vladimir Zelensky before the UN Security Council/Getty Images On December 29, Russia launched a massive missile attack on Ukraine and received a response. In particular, we are talking about the shelling of the Belgorod region. Note that the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not hit civilians. What arrives at the civilians of the aggressor country, as the Russian Ministry of Defense admitted, is their doing. However, the fact that Ukraine began to respond already says something. The Ukrainians made this huge step forward themselves, or with the help, or by informing their partners. In addition, The New York Times writes that the West promised Ukraine long-range weapons and would turn a blind eye to where the Ukrainian Armed Forces would use them. Ukraine does not attack civilian infrastructure or civilians. Although, I don’t quite understand what civilians are in Russia, because war is possible when society supports war. 2023 showed that Ukraine has instruments of strategic influence to change the situation in one direction or another. Let us remember what is happening in the Black Sea and on the Crimean peninsula. This clearly says and proves that Ukraine now has much more significant tools to influence a certain situation than this was in 2022 or early 2023. This is absolutely the right strategy. The victim country – Ukraine, which was attacked by the aggressor country Russia, cannot calmly watch as it is killed, attacked, and the like. Consequences of the massive attack on Kiev on January 2/Telegram of Nikolai Kalashnik For me, this situation has been quite strange since the beginning of the war. After all, Russia is violating international law, attacking the entire territory of Ukraine using cruise missiles. By the way, starting from December 29, and until now, the strikes have been carried out exclusively on the civilian population. This is an absolute component of terrorist-genocidal warfare. And Ukraine should sit and do nothing in response – this has been a little strange since the beginning of the war. It seems to me that everyone who supports Ukraine understands that this is not equal. Russia uses any means to kill civilians and receives no response. Gradually the volume of this response will increase. Despite the fact that Russia considered itself an invincible country, it turned out that this was not at all the case. The so-called “second army of the world” turned out to be a fake. Therefore, Ukraine is gradually increasing its instruments of influence. There is one problem here. It is called a large-scale war with a lot of use of various tools to kill people, which is what Russia is doing. And it is already obvious that the aggressor country will not stop. There is not a single format where Russia said that it will not attack Ukrainian cities, will not use cruise missiles, ballistics, will not destroy Kharkov or any front-line city, will not attack Kyiv with “Daggers”. Russia will definitely not do this (will not stop terrorizing Ukraine – Channel 24). Our partners already have an understanding that as long as Russia does not have a war on internal territory, we Even a year ago they began to say that this would lead to an acceleration of the transformational consequences of the war, which would end it. Now the Russian General Staff itself is transferring the war to the territory of a terrorist country. After all, the Russian army is attacking both Voronezh and Belgorod with its own means. As soon as the breakdown of Vladimir Putin’s system in Russia begins, then we will have the opportunity to properly finalize this war. Everything else is myths and fairy tales that have nothing to do with reality. There are tools. By the way, Vladimir Zelensky said that Ukraine continues to persistently develop its long-range capabilities, investing sufficient amounts of money, and does this together with partners. No one will continue to look at what Russia is doing. Ukraine will clearly prove the terrorist component in Russia’s actions, because the Russians have so far refused to attack the military The enemy does not attack objects, even critical infrastructure, so persistently. Now the Russians are attacking the civilian population, and this is a terrorist component and the corresponding warrants. Russia will have much more fatal consequences than it now seems. Is there an understanding in the West that It’s time for us to change the tactics of containing the aggressor to the tactics of “we repel the aggressor on his territory”? This understanding appeared a year ago. It is simply being scaled up, because not everyone is ready to admit that there is no point in negotiating with Russia, in the form it is today. This country has thrown off all its masks, and clearly says that in the future he will attack, kill, and switch to a military economy. They banned any rights, freedoms, any discussions on their territory. This is a country – a camp that will constantly attack and destroy someone. Today in the countries of our partners, especially in the political elites, there is a clear awareness of all the dangers that Russia generates. That is, Russia, if it does not lose, will be the most aggressive country with a large number of conflicts in different regions, and with a large number of tools for fatally influencing political processes in these countries. These could be terrorist attacks, political assassinations, political interference in electoral processes, coups. We are already seeing this in a number of countries. Of course, the main thing that our partners understand is that the Russian army will have a completely different look after this war if she doesn't lose it. This will truly be a terrible army that will have a huge experience of bloodshed. It will have experience of violence, mass invasion of peaceful cities, massacres of civilians and the like. This is what greatly frightens the political elites of the West today. Another thing, and this is obvious, is that they do not make appropriate decisions so quickly, because it is inertial. Global politics is generally inertial. That is, they came to certain prerequisites at one time and made a decision based on these prerequisites. After that, they don’t really want to change them, everyone looks at it conservatively, but today there is less and less benefit from conservatism. Therefore, the political elites come to a consensus that Russia must lose this war. There will be no cold war. Someone thinks that it is possible to return to the times when there was the United States system with the NATO bloc and the Soviet Union system with the Warsaw Pact, but all this does not work and will not work. Russia is a country of blitzkrieg. She will either win, and then she will dominate the global political space, and absolutely wild regimes, such as in North Korea, will dominate along with her – there will always be conflicts, wars, ultimatums. Or Russia will lose, and the escalatory potential of the modern political process will significantly decrease. And even then it will be possible to agree on something for the future for at least 50 years. ” name=”What to do with panic sentiments in the West”>What to do with panic sentiments in the West
Which option are the West leaning more towards now? Because the Western press is trying to either broadcast or convey to us panicky sentiments. In particular, they are already writing about what will happen if help is not given, if there are not enough weapons, if Ukraine loses. I understand why there is a certain panic, because it turned out that the military-industrial complex is not as capable as everyone thought, that the armies are not as ready. I mean that everything we are talking about now concerns democratic countries, that is, those countries that are members of NATO. At the same time, the Alliance does not adapts as quickly to modern challenges as we would like. Reinvesting in the military-industrial complex when certain risks arise is not as easy as it seemed. And the societies of these countries are completely unprepared to accept another reality, in which there is the possibility of a large-scale war, particularly in Europe. A war that is already underway, and that may simply expand into the continent more and more. They weren't ready for this. Therefore, they are now conducting an audit of all this, what and why this is so, what changes are needed, and the like. It seemed that they clearly understood what the 21st century would be like: what to invest in, what technologies to use, what the format of life would be. They had the problem of assimilating another culture, something that we see with migrant themes in European countries. But they thought that they would also find a solution here. The world was confident that there would be no large-scale wars, and that there was a guaranteed peace in which there were certain rules. Today they understand that all this will not happen, and they have lost their bearings. That is, the political elites do not understand what the future will be like. Returning to the main thing, there are only two ways how the historical process can develop. First, you are investing in Ukraine today. This is at least much less money, because Ukraine has already been rebuilt, is already at war and understands how to counteract Russia. And then you have great hope that you will win. They must understand this. There is another road that definitely will not lead to calm, a return to pre-war times. They are not investing fully on this road and continue bureaucratic discussions among themselves. Like, maybe we’ll find some kind of option for 2014: we’ll tolerate Vladimir Putin, let him take something from Ukraine – “he’ll immediately calm down.” Indeed, Putin started everything this completely destroyed Russia's reputation, destroyed hundreds of thousands of people, rebuilt the entire economy in order to calm down, because he captured a small piece of Ukrainian territory. We understand that this is absurd. If Putin is allowed to do all this, it is tantamount to signing his own death warrant. Because then there will be scaled aggression in different forms. Scaled aggression against a number of countries and it will gradually increase. The world will be in such hysterics for decades until it pays the highest price for underinvesting in Ukraine today. This is absolutely obvious. When you don’t see the future clearly, then you begin to panic and are in a kind of state of passion. It seems to me that today the Western political process is no longer in a state of passion, as it was a little earlier. He is already beginning to adequately evaluate everything. That’s why the decisions are pro-Ukrainian, that’s why national governments are increasing aid. Governments understand this much more deeply, and they are already starting to change. And, for example, the media or information space changes more slowly. It is more conservative, so today it is more panicky. Yes, they can write whatever they want. They may write that the counteroffensive was unsuccessful, indeed, because “Russia is a small country,” that’s right? Well, such a small, worthless country that had to be destroyed in three days. This is what it looks like in Hollywood? One man came and killed several divisions there at once. I emphasize once again, you can choose two options: Are you then ready to speak out against the country of murderers, against Russia? No. There is a certain cautious sociology in Germany and Poland, according to which 15% or less of people are ready to defend their national interests with arms in hand. I think they don't want to do deep sociology because they understand what that would mean. Then we will see completely different numbers – 3 – 5%. This means that no one is ready to defend the values within which they live today. Everyone must realize that Ukraine is the guarantor of a classic European future. No more, but no less. This means that you must mathematically calculate how much money you want to invest so that you have this guaranteed future. I’m ready to invest, for example, 50 billion – good, ready to invest 100 billion – good, but we need to plan what kind of money it is, how it comes in, what tools Ukraine has. If you want more control, please let’s invest together. This is control; if you jointly invest in some kind of production, you clearly understand where the money is, how it works, and so on. This is the only thing that Europe needs to fully understand today. And they realize this through the European political elites. There are media that are more panicky, but they lag behind in terms of understanding how the historical process will develop further. And there are societies that, on the one hand, see and hear the statements of their politicians, and on the other hand, they see certain negative processes that are taking place in Europe today, and on the other hand, they see the position of their media. That's why they are confused. It seems to you and me that there is no support, that there are some doubts and the like. But this is not true. Slowly but correctly, everything is working out in favor of Ukraine. There will be support, support will increase, especially military support. No one will allow Russia to claim the championship, to win this war. When we talk about Russia, I want us not to forget the main thing – on December 29 they attacked with 122 missiles . You understand that these are specific missiles that kill specific people? They have been doing this for two years. There is no politics, geopolitics, nothing here except killing people. When we talk about how this war should end, about negotiations, we must forget the mathematical formulas and return to the key component – the humanistic one. Russia just came to kill. Back to what it is killing us with, Russia is hitting the territory of Ukraine with missiles that were manufactured in the second and third quarters of the past year, although Russia does not have the ability to create a full cycle of missile production. Do questions about this arise in the West? Do they arise. This is a complex issue, and we need to constantly talk about it. That is, to identify specific companies that supply certain technological items to Russia. They talk about this constantly in the West, investigations are constantly going on. Unfortunately, the Sanctions Institute does not work as we would like. Because a person who is 15 thousand kilometers from the epicenter of the war does not understand what war is. But he understands what profit is, excess profit, premium profit, corruption profit, when for the same instrument they give not 100%, but 300% of the profit, a person will go for it. And many private companies, unfortunately, do just that. We're talking about circumventing sanctions on dual-use devices that are then used in rocket construction. This is only one component. But for me it is outright cynicism when “white” (which work officially, observing all legal requirements – Channel 24) European companies simply work in the consumer market, realizing that 42% of the Russian budget in 2024 is a military budget, this is a murder budget . And they concern this budget, they invest in it as much as possible, giving their taxes so that for these taxes (Kremlin officials – Channel 24) they carry out recruitment and mobilization, send Russians to kill Ukrainians. < p class="bloquote cke-markup">This is a vicious circle, because war means money, big money. And the less money the aggressor has, the faster he will not have the means to kill. This is understandable even for children 5 – 6 years old, but it is not clear for the boards, boards and directors of these companies. You know, it looks strange when in society, for example, of one or another European country, there is a discussion on how to speed up this war, that is, how to speed up the achievement of its finale. To do this, it is necessary, for example, to increase military assistance to Ukraine, and they are sincerely discussing this. At the same time, they do not ask their companies the question, they say, look, you are making this war longer because you are investing money in the Russian military economy. There are many countries that allow these private companies to sell things to Russia through their markets. There are three possible solutions here: On January 1, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia joined BRICS. Putin is trying to stay afloat and show everyone that look, I’m not isolated, because countries want to communicate with me, such as Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia. And they say: “Okay, the economy is the economy, we have nothing against it.” Vladimir Putin/Screenshot from video Let's take an objective look: all countries are interested in the growth of their economies, stabilization of their national currencies. This applies not only to the countries that are members of the BRICS organization, this also applies to European countries. Even you and I have specific examples where there are not entirely correct economic communications with Ukraine in the border areas. Therefore, the motivation of these countries is understandable. BRICS is not about Russia and not about the policy of supporting Russia. This is about economics and above all economic policy and China, which is obviously the leader of BRICS. That is, Russia, as always, uses one or another format to promote its positions, without having any reason to do so. It is simply more aggressive, it knows how to use certain or other other propaganda tools. That is, he talks more than he actually does or influences certain processes. Therefore, once again, BRICS is about the economy, income, China, economic policy and definitely not about supporting Russia. Countries that want to join BRICS want a more secure financial future. They believe that in this way they will have a stronger position in communications at the level of the European Union, at the level of the United States, at the level of technology markets. I would like us to understand this correctly. Russia, of course, uses the BRICS theme for political purposes. And almost all members of this collective body do not need this, which they constantly carefully say. Like, let's not have politics, let's still talk about whether we can stabilize our national economies, whether we can stabilize our national currencies. That's why I I would take this calmly. Those countries that join BRICS have exclusively economic interests. This is definitely not about supporting Russia. In my opinion, Russia today, in fact, does not have countries that would directly support it. I don't take countries like Iran. But such significant support for Russia does not exist at the political level, and this is another consequence of this war. Russia is acting nervously and the Russians are constantly telling themselves that they will fight to the end and win. Because they feel that two years of war did not go as they expected. They did not expect that Ukraine would resist so much, that it would stand and have chances of winning. We didn’t expect that European countries would not behave as usual, like, let’s agree on something, let’s give something to Russia. They did not expect that the world would distance itself from Russia and would not vote for Russia, would not offer anything to Russia and would not support these calls for the war to stop on Russia's terms. They did not expect all this, and therefore they understand that the further the war goes, the greater the chances that Russia will really be isolated. By the way , if the legal status of Russia were different (if Russia were recognized as a sponsor of terrorism – Channel 24), then it would have a completely different appearance on the global market. Then she would be truly isolated, and no one would send her an invitation to take part in this or that summit, because it would be unprofitable. Then countries would understand that Russia will not exist in this political form, and therefore there is no point in signing something with a country that will be completely reformatted, in which there will be a different political system and in which many foreign economic and foreign policy initiatives and agreements will be revised. We need to work on this, and we constantly talk about this on different platforms. “We” means proactive Ukraine and a number of other countries, which also say that, first of all, it is necessary to analyze on the basis of what Russia is a member of the UN Security Council. That is, it has Does Russia have the right to be in the Security Council for legal reasons, not even from the point of view of the war in Ukraine, but from the point of view of 1991, when it was decided that it would be a descendant of the Soviet Union and would use its “veto power”. Based on this, it is necessary to stop Russia’s right to use the veto. And besides, we must still assume that Russia is not a legitimate country from the point of view of the vertical power structure that is in Russia today. Read the second part of the interview with Mikhail Podolyak soon on the 24 Channel website.The UN's cynical reaction to the massive shelling of Ukrainian towns cities
Ukraine will increase its response to Russia's terror
Partners understand how the war should end for Russia
Sanctions and international isolation of Russia
New countries have joined BRICS: will they support Russia in the war
How to increase pressure on Russia
We can end the war correctly under one condition: a frank interview with Mikhail Podolyak
60
previous post