Oleksii Arestovych

I don't think that he poses the question that way. I think he only trusts, believes in himself and Russia themselves. Look, by the sheer fact of their size and the border with China and the nuclear power, even though they're allies, they're containing and restraining China.

I don't think that he poses the question that way. I think he only trusts, believes in himself and Russia themselves. Look, by the sheer fact of their size and the border with China and the nuclear power, even though they're allies, they're containing and restraining China.

In a certain measure, when the USSR lost the Cold War and Kissinger traveled to Canada, Nixon in 1975, and this triangle of USSR-USA-China had been resolved not in the USSR's favor, China and the US ended up being allies. Today, the question is posed the same way in this battle of the United States and China, which is a key thing for Americans. And China, where is going to be Russia?

In a certain measure, when the USSR lost the Cold War and Kissinger traveled to Canada, Nixon in 1975, and this triangle of USSR-USA-China had been resolved not in the USSR's favor, China and the US ended up being allies. Today, the question is posed the same way in this battle of the United States and China, which is a key thing for Americans. And China, where is going to be Russia?

This is something I always say inside Ukraine. When you want the Russia to be what are the national extreme nationalists are demanding that the Russia needs to fall down, that the West needs to destroy, take away their nuclear warheads. And I always ask, do you think the West needs a broken Russia or do they need Russia as a factor that restrains China?

This is something I always say inside Ukraine. When you want the Russia to be what are the national extreme nationalists are demanding that the Russia needs to fall down, that the West needs to destroy, take away their nuclear warheads. And I always ask, do you think the West needs a broken Russia or do they need Russia as a factor that restrains China?

And Putin clearly understands what he's trading with. He's trading with his position in relation to China. He is letting them understand that if things go really bad with the West, I'm going to go and join China. You're going to have to deal with the joint potential of China and Russia. And if not, I'm ready to stay neutral and play this role of containing China.

And Putin clearly understands what he's trading with. He's trading with his position in relation to China. He is letting them understand that if things go really bad with the West, I'm going to go and join China. You're going to have to deal with the joint potential of China and Russia. And if not, I'm ready to stay neutral and play this role of containing China.

So this is one of the key arguments in the negotiations.

So this is one of the key arguments in the negotiations.

Let me quote the Bible here. There's a good phrase in the Bible. My enemy, why did you betray me? Why did you leave me? And it's clearly saying that the enemy, it's this character, subject that is most honest towards you. more honest than your friends, especially in the politics.

Let me quote the Bible here. There's a good phrase in the Bible. My enemy, why did you betray me? Why did you leave me? And it's clearly saying that the enemy, it's this character, subject that is most honest towards you. more honest than your friends, especially in the politics.

Because the enemy is the best teacher. Putin is my opponent. And it's an honest battle. But internal politics is always dirty. And usually your best friends are the ones who betray you.

Because the enemy is the best teacher. Putin is my opponent. And it's an honest battle. But internal politics is always dirty. And usually your best friends are the ones who betray you.

No, never spoke with him. We have incompatible ranks.

No, never spoke with him. We have incompatible ranks.

No. Okay.

No. Okay.

I think that the real numbers, according to my evaluation of killed and missing in action in our condition, what that means, killed and missing, it's around 150,000 more or less, and about 400,000-500,000 of injured. And Russian losses are three times as large, I think, of killed and injured. But we need to understand the next issue. Our relation ratio of killed and injured is better.

I think that the real numbers, according to my evaluation of killed and missing in action in our condition, what that means, killed and missing, it's around 150,000 more or less, and about 400,000-500,000 of injured. And Russian losses are three times as large, I think, of killed and injured. But we need to understand the next issue. Our relation ratio of killed and injured is better.