to challenge the regime, which actually wanted to destroy her, because the poisoning of a newcomer was not a joke, huh, i think that on the one hand there was an underestimation of the regime, on the other hand , the confidence in one's popularity was exaggerated, maybe than it was in fact, it is difficult to fully understand this whole story, i think that it is realistic only when we see... the open archives of the russian special services, we will understand the essence of this story, you know, i very often think about a person who, by and large, also became hostage here of all this history, of his political popularity, who, by the way, was also a person with ukrainian roots in russian history, this is the priest george gapon, ugh, do you remember him, people? 1905, this was also

an incredibly popular, incredibly charismatic person, a person who was ready to make a self-sacrifice, at the same time a person who had some connections in various institutions of power when gapon was alive, no one knows about these connections did not know, he was perceived as an absolute oppositionist, but... then it became obvious that there were certain structures in power there, which were interested in such activities, in such in the so-called worker amateurs there, because they considered it safer than real political forces, than social democracy, than anarchists, than socialist revolutionaries, than those who throw bombs, than real opposition, yes, and gapon , as a person, very sincerely, naively believed that if he stood there on the side of the workers...

justice for rights, you can already imagine the conditions in which the workers lived in the then russian empire, he believed that he makes a big deal that he changes the country, and in the end, in the end, this horror of bloody sunday happened, the shooting of workers in st. petersburg in front of the tsar's palace, but you can imagine the level of popularity in all of russia. gapon at that time was a forgotten person, but when this bloody sunday happened, gapon was hiding in the apartment of maksym e godko, he was a cult figure, and only when they found out that he had some connections with some special people there services, that he had contacts with the authorities, in the end... he was killed by the revolutionaries themselves,

they could not give him that, well, these socialists revolutionaries who believed that he was a traitor to the revolutionary movement, but again, is it possible to think so, well, again, a person actually did not understand how the political processes in the russian empire revolved, was very sincere, very charismatic, they were in love with this person millions of russians, but to understand that it was real, to write a book, if... this is what i am telling you, these are the archives, you understand, and now imagine what happened after 1905, if there were no archives, then opened the archives, invented a story, and wrote comrade stalin personally, that gopon was a provocateur of the tsarist guard, he was certainly never a provocateur, he was a person who tried to protect his workers through some contacts in the special services. trying

to recruit people from power to his side, and this, this story of this unfortunate, unfortunate georgy gapon, because he was an unfortunate person who devoted his whole life to these simple people and was killed as a result for this, reminds me very much of the life of oleksii navalny with the only difference that we do not have an archive, and with that the only difference is that we still cannot write, we do not have a real book about george... although we should not write it, because he is one of the most incredible representatives of the ukrainian people in the imperial political life, like, by the way, oleksiy navalny, this two stories, you understand, two stories of this eternal ukrainian love of truth, even a person becomes a russian, as it were, and infects the russians themselves with this love of truth and this naive kind of faith and justice that we so often see in ukrainians. people and not so

we often see in russian, and even a person becomes a chauvinist in his views, but still this truthfulness somehow remains childish, it is a phenomenon that can be talked about for a long, very long time, but i... it is also clear that for the west, this story with navalny is another indicator that putin just wanted to ask about it, well, joseph biden came out to speak about the death of alexei navalny, the munich conference began to revolve around this news at one point , and it's normal, as in me, well, it's a symbol, a symbol of contempt for political murder, but considering all this, in the past. own elections in the russian federation, in a year when everything can change in america and many, many other factors, shouldn't putin carry navalny around like a sack and protect him like a baby, well, that's if you were putin, and putin he is putin, he is not khrystyna yatskiv, why does putin have

to carry around someone with a written bag, he wants to demonstrate that he is the master of the situation, he does what he wants, the main task... putin to show everyone around him that he is, that there are no red lines that he could not cross, and that he does not count for anything at all, and by the way, i have to tell you that i now perceive putin as this, zmiya horynich, remember, there was one with three heads, this russian folklore character, there is one head of putin that i know well, that i have seen many times since the end of the 90s, it is... the head of this st. petersburg gopnik, ugh, yes, let's wet in the toilets, kill everyone, restore order, this putin ee he seemed completely unfit for any serious political activity, he reacted completely abnormally to challenges, did not

go er to the residence when there was an accident with the kursk submarine, treated with contempt towards... these unfortunate women who lost their husbands, submariners, behaved completely inappropriate, not some person in sweatpants, came to the committee in the office of the president of russia, and this putin did not go anywhere, we saw him at the tokir karslen several times, then the second head appeared putin, who threatened me more than the first one, is the head of a completely cold-blooded person who calculates, who solves mathematical problems, who creates some kind of traps for his enemies, is always in... expected opportunities to strike, very calm, very balanced , who is smart and very rarely makes mistakes in his plans, such a putin emerged around 2004-2005 after the yukos affair, after the resignations of mikhail kasyanov, oleksandr voloshin and other people who still remained in

the kremlin essentially from boris yeltsin . this second one putin was terrible, but at least i could analyze him, just like, you know, how one computer tries to work with another. and now i saw the third putin for a while , this putin, i think, i didn't see him first, emmanuel macron first saw him when he came to moscow to talk about the attack and gave putin a 40-minute lecture on history, the same lecture that we now everyone saw that toker kaltsen, and this is putin, about whom i was told even after the 15th year, people who worked with putin, that he is in some historical empirics, that he lives there, that his... that he, as sergey lavrov said, consults with ivan the terrible and peter the first and catherine, these are his three advisers, and this, and these are the three advisers of this person, but the problem is that these two heads have not disappeared either, yes, and here we are dealing with such a monster, a three-headed one, and you always have to understand

which of the heads makes which decision at the moment, that is, the decision about navalny's death, it could have been a cold, cold calculation to show that he was not going to. give nothing to his enemies, uh, right, and just before the presidential election, to show that this is not an election, but a plebiscite, this is a strengthening of absolute authoritarian power, what the west can do now with putin, when in 2021 navalny was put to the prisons, president biden said that if something happens to navalny, putin will feel it quite seriously in his country, now he is forced to state that all... real possibilities for sanctions pressure on the russian federation have been exhausted, this is an important point, about which must be said, this is the exhaustion of the resource, and then we have to agree with those who emphasize that the only possibility

to respond to putin for the murder of navalny is to prevent putin from gaining strength in ukraine, this is what mike johnson said, by the way, we mentioned it , that it is logical, why did the speaker of the house of congress say that, because it is not known how else to answer, what else can you pester him at the moment, there are sanctions, everything is disconnected, there is no trade, the situation is difficult, well, i... i'm sorry, no, not to give him ukraine, no give him ukraine, and many people are writing about this now, if you want him to really understand what the consequences of navalny's murder can be, give ukraine russian assets, give ukraine 60 billion dollars, give ukraine the opportunity, if not to liberate all its territory now, then at least not to give putin the opportunity to hope that he can seize this state, this is absolutely the right answer, because once again it is not only about the personality of navalny, the loss of navalny, it can be said. such a loss for those people in russia who hoped on some alternative, on a different one, you understand

, any alternative is important because it is an alternative, and the russians have no alternatives , but the essence of the situation is that a government that cold-bloodedly kills its political opponents in the colony cannot be considered normal, puts them to death or arranges their murder, ugh, because by and large we can honestly say that putin has restored. the death penalty in russia, so to speak, obviously, then navalny did nothing for which he deserved the death penalty, they were all the time inventing one crime after another, one after another, they just mocked the fact that even earlier there was justice, of course it didn't start now, it started by and large with khodorkovsky, with yuko, when they simply decided to steal someone else's company, and then they started with them. talking about selective justice, and when it turned out that nothing could be done with them, they

believed that they could do so, and from that time this regime began to become what it is. there is always this imperfect reaction of the outside world, the fact that they continued to communicate with them, have affairs, conduct negotiations, always allowed them to believe that they could hold someone hostage, but they released khodorkovsky, too, released after many years of imprisonment, at the personal request of the former. german vice-chancellor hans, dietrich genscher. but khodorkovsky was a figure, let's say, who did not engage in political activity during his stay in prison. and for putin, maybe it was an important moment that he could allow him to leave the country. also it must be remembered that the russia with which khodorkovsky left is not the russia in which... navalny died, this is the russia that navalny died, this is the russia of the third president, by the way,

navalny was poisoned in the russia of the first president, he returned to russia as the second president and died in russia as the third president, it must also be understood that this perturbation happened very quickly, i believe that when we look at putin, in this conversation with carlson, by the way, this is also an interesting moment, so toker carlson did not ask anything about navalny, nothing at all when he was asked about it, he said that...he didn't want to ask these questions that all american journalists ask, he doesn't want to talk about murder, leadership is always murder, he said, but that was before navalny died, and what does toker carson look like now with his trip to putin and with all this behavior, he essentially nullified this entire propaganda moment, this entire performance, that too must be understood, and by and large... i think that what we observed when this was history from rurik to the present day,

it was clear that he himself understands that he does not have to say this, ugh, he was just talking , he was carried away somewhere, he wanted to say all this, but as a politician, there was one head fighting, who said, lord, if only they had received a signal, stop, we need to show that you are the leader of the conservative world, no, no, volodya. i told them about ancient novgorod , they should understand, rurik was there, volodya , please, this is for trump, so that it will be easy for him to say that he can negotiate with you and stop the war, you have to deceive them, no, volodya, i'm not done yet, i have to tell you about the austrian general staff, volodya , well, stop, there is not much time, you have to say something that is necessary for the american audience, we agreed, this is quite a serious calculation, we sat and prepared for it, volodya, do not disturb i have to tell about the poles, and ... hitler and hitler, and there is a third volodya, my god, what a fool you all are, my god, both of them, my god, who am i

dealing with, yes, he will soak this carlson and that’s all it took, but look , or the death of navalny, actually multiplied by zero, the impression of the interview and not only the interview, of all those millions of people who watched it and somehow still wavered. one's sympathy or antipathy , or simply an equal attitude towards putin, because we understand that there are many such people in many countries and even in the same united states, is he enough for... now, at least for a while, it becomes toxic, so that even trump didn't put on him anymore with his masks and so on and so forth, i don't know how he was not toxic at all before this death, everything he did before was not toxic, but it would have been say, but they got used to it, this addiction to toxins before navalny's murder can also get used to it, but it just really happened very quickly

after he appeared on the screens again, this will certainly be a serious mistake, so... prepare for such an interview until 2024, so he did not give an interview as an american from 2021 to western journalists from 2022, that is , this really was not a very serious appearance on the screens as a result, then he had to explain everything that a few days before navalny's death he wanted to say in an interview with russian television, this is also, by the way, a huge problem. that he is forced after an interview with an american journalist, then to explain to russian journalists for two hours what he wanted to say in the previous text, this is also a problem, and as a result, all these efforts, all his publicity really turned out to be completely meaningless against the background of his next crime, because everyone understands that he is not a statesman, he needs to show something, that he is a statesman, well, such a statesman,

authoritarian, but with his own values, with to enlighten with your imagination, with your imagination. justice, here he was deceived, here he wanted to join nato, he was not accepted, here he wanted to go somewhere else, and then it turns out that he is just a murderer, well, even more so, again, with navalny it is impossible to understand what he wanted from him, well, by and large, what did navalny say that he should have been killed about putin, that putin has a palace in gelendzhik, that definitely deserves death, or that putin has some corrupt structures, yes , putin himself is a great fighter against corruption, as you know, they there with lukashenka the main ones wrestlers well, some fight one way, some another , that is, i have a huge question, so to speak, about all this, uh, well, we will follow, there, by the way, today in russia they are trying to find navalny's body, there are also big problems with this, finally, this is the munich conference and the standing ovation for navalny's wife, i'm sorry, but i know

what women look like who have just been informed of the death of their husband, and what do you think, i think that women... who are in the political political, i i would say symbiosis with her husband for many years, they are ready for anything, but look not only at yulia navalna, look at svitlana tykhanovskaya, how long is her husband alive, fortunately, although he can be destroyed by lukashenko at any moment, she is with it lives, you know, when you live with tragedy, you look different than when you can't live with it, so i ugh. and then, you know, there is another moment of adrenaline, you are talking about yulia navalna, i saw this performance, well , imagine it, i don't know if it is possible to imagine it, your behavior at the moment when you are informed of the death of a loved one, i can not imagine, but i have repeatedly seen the behavior of women who have just received the news

of the death of their husbands, these are men who died in the war, and it would seem that these women understood the same , that this variant of the development of events is... correct, but they did not interact, they waited, waiting and interaction are not all the same, then again, people in such situations behave very differently, so that it is it is absolutely obvious that some people just die in their grief, some people try to do everyday things, uh, so as not to lose their sanity, that's how the human brain works in general, everyone's different and... and i 'm sorry, but i think that when you know that your husband is in the far north, he is kept in isolation all the time, you perfectly understand, uh, maybe not with your heart, but with your head, that something has to happen, and on the other hand, you still do not think that there is an obligation, that you you have to represent the person with whom you are connected and the memory of him is alive first

a person, and then a memory with him, because you are the same tool. from which this person can still say something to the outside world, the same always happened with the wives of famous prisoners, they took on the mission of their husbands, who at that time either kept him in prison or did not give him the opportunity to leave country, and these women were its main representatives. olena boner received the nobel prize for academician andrei sakharov, winnie mandela, well that is. a huge number of such examples can be given, and what happens with by women who replace their murdered husbands in the positions of heads of state, how is that? it happened more than once, well, you might think that a woman who learns about the death of a loved one, the last thing she wants to do is become president or

prime minister, but the exact opposite happens, such women become flags, political women leaders, very often more important than their husbands? well, actually, you already mentioned tikhanovskaya, yulia navalna met with her, and here the question is whether she can become a continuation of what was started or not because navalny himself... was not a person who could concentrate all this russian opposition energy. yulia navalnaya may be just a reminder of the sacrifice of navalny himself, but again, you and i, well listen, sirimawa bandaranaike, the first prime minister of ceylon, who is now sri lanka, who led the country after the death of her husband solomon bandarin, was not there. he was killed, she became the head of the country, well , i have a lot of such examples. i remember the number from world history, that's how it generally looks, you you see, this is what a marriage of like-minded people looks like, what you and i are talking about, we are talking

about different things, because marriage in politics and marriage in ordinary life are different unions, well, you can, it's one thing when you you are waiting for a person, from anywhere, from the front, from the detachment. from some dangerous expedition, you wait for him, it’s another matter when you present him, and that we have a lot of soldier’s widows and mothers, how later they become social activists , save other children, other people, who find this their vocation after of such grief, it might seem to us that they should somehow close themselves off in this grief, no, these people very often become real heroines, and by the way... even in authoritarian countries, i am not talking about ukraine now, it is also very often it happened that people who lost their children or husbands, who had nothing to lose, they tried to save at least someone else's, if they couldn't save their own, well, there are different

reactions, people are accepted, accepted absolutely, we started this program from avdiyivka, and many said that the political goal putin before the elections to seize it, to serve this victory on a platter to the russian people. but again, didn't the story with navalny overshadow avdiivka's admiration in the minds of russians? well, again, what russians, ugh, russians who watch television or russians, let's say, who live in another world, in a world of other news. and for russians who watch television, avdiyivka is undoubtedly more important than navalny, although the truth is, children even reported navalny’s death on russian television, which, by the way, is very strange, so that they. anyway, let it be brief, let it be in a few words, but they reported that navalny died, that too, prigozhina, in my opinion, they did not honor that, if i am not mistaken, no, there

was also something said about the catastrophe, but just in soviet times , when some opposition activist, some dissident died or died there, as you understand, no television reported about it, but here is a real message on all propaganda channels, so from this federal service of execution of punishments. but the fact itself, and they understood that this is a significant figure for people, but in any case, for most people , of course, the ukrainian theme may remain important, i do not know how important avdiyivka is for russians, maybe it is important for them, as well as those, i mean russians who are sick with the chauvinistic virus, maybe it's important for them that the russian army is moving forward, i can't say that, to be honest, and it's a huge question for me too, uh, as far as it can be seen'. but in any case it is absolutely obvious that the situation is related to what we are currently observing in russian

to this desire to show that they are advancing, they will try to continue to do so, but again, do they have the strength, do they have the resources, what do they really want to achieve, well, if we are talking about avdiivka, it is a war of 10 years, and the last thing... they are also there for, let's say, there, well, for months, if they are going to spend so much energy on each settlement of ukraine, then what do they want to achieve as a result, how long do they want to fight for each village in the donbass, this is the same question that putin should ask himself. uhu, actually, the way out avdiyivka fell on the first week of the presidency of the ukrainian army, colonel-general oleksandr syrskyi. i don't envy him , to be honest, it's extremely difficult work and extremely difficult decisions that were ultimately made, and by the way, syrskyi, as

it turns out, appeared in... ratings and is trusted by 40% of ukrainian citizens as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of ukraine. i was a little surprised that we even had the opportunity this week to observe any numbers, ratings and so on, and discussing this for ukrainian society is extremely important, and that is why i would like to devote at least 5 minutes of our conversation to this. you've seen these numbers, i've seen these numbers, i've been saying the same thing all the time, i'm absolutely not interested in the trust numbers in the... why, why was this sociology released now and is there a downside to it? i think that this sociology was made public with one simple goal: to see how public attitudes changed after the resignation of the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of ukraine valery zaluzhny, because it was socially significant, politically significant, any significant moment, we will not doubt it, and it was important to understand how the ratings of trust in... local

leaders, in political leaders, change, well, we saw it, but it could be predicted and without any ratings, you needed sociology to understand that, let’s say there, at the moment, the trust rating for the old man will increase, ugh, and the trust rating for the president of ukraine will either be stable or decrease, and the trust rating for the new commander-in-chief will be extrapolated with trust in the armed forces as such, because if we say that there is trust in the armed forces... as such, about 90% of ukrainian society has it, if not more, then any commander of the armed forces of ukraine will have a high trust rating, any high-ranking public military man like budanov will have a high trust rating, but not as high as a former commander-in-chief of the armed forces, simply because the former commander-in- chief of the armed forces has become mythologized figure, this is not a question of position, it is a question of zaluzhny's personality, it seems to me that this is something

that many cannot realize. this is generally what distinguishes such a society as the ukrainian one, the mythologizing of images. in this regard, we are not very different from the russians, but i can tell you how we differ from the russians. russians mythologize a character, very often completely random and incomprehensible, who appears out of nowhere, like lenin or stalin or putin. who are these people anyway? where did they come from? one arrived at the station, the other is there at all found himself among the desk... associates, yeltsin put it in general, he took it, it is not clear from where, and they fall in love, and they love lenin even after, but then a person dies, and they suddenly start to despise her, say that they loved her too much , to pull out of the mausoleum, like stalin, i think the same moment awaits putin, but after his physical death , the debunking, the cry will begin. "oh, we didn't know, we didn't

think, oh, he killed navalny, my god, what, oh, he attacked ukraine, who could have thought, god, we lived here, we didn’t know, cucumbers were pickled, cabbage was eaten, and you can imagine how terrible agrippino was, who was cruel, god, and this is what we hear every 50 years, and this is russian love, but there is another love , ukrainian, which continues for two years, in the south everything is fast..." quickly goes down, this is a known fact, ukrainians fall in love, and it is strange to me that every person who becomes the center of this love, she cannot understand that it is will end, but i always wait for the moment when someone tells me, oh, you know, we like what you are say, we are told what you do , i know that in two years a person can write to me: i am very disappointed, you did not live up to my expectations, it turns out that you

are the same as everyone else, i am ready to... in that the moment when this person says that he likes what i do, it's always psychological, and people who are involved in politics for some reason don't want to see it, they don't understand what they have, well, i 'm just a journalist, i can to be more distant, in politics it is a very short period of falling in love, and then with you there remains some small sect that loves you, as a rule, and they move on to a new one. love, and this is expected of everyone , because this is the ukrainian political character, if i had my way, i would have elected the presidents for two years, because they would have resigned at the center of their popularity and would have been considered the fathers of the nation, well, or like in switzerland, it changes every year, and every time you could love them, a person comes out here, so...