and oleksiy mustafin, don't switch, it will be interesting later. the united states, britain and allies attacked the yemeni houthis. what is happening there and can the situation turn into a war? let's analyze together in today's episode of bbc ukraine, i'm olga palomaryuk. military and air base, airports, weapons depots are under attack by the houthis in yemen. the west is trying to stop houthi attacks on ships heading through the red sea. on the night of january 12, the military forces of the united states and great britain launched a massive attack on the facilities of the houthi group in yemen.

the us air force said it struck more than 60 missiles at 16 targets. these are command posts, weapons warehouses, production facilities and air defense radars. it is reported that a military base in the province of saada, an air base near the yemeni capital sane, areas of the airport of the city of hodeida on the red sea and others were under attack, here they are marked on the map. so, why did they hit these objects, because according to intelligence data. allies, it was from there that the houthis launched missiles and drones, according to the official representatives of the united states, they used planes, ships and a submarine, and the central intelligence agency says tomahawk cruise missiles were also used. the british air force reports that four of its typhoon aircraft took part in the raid on yemen. according to us analysts, britain and its allies were faced with the choice of whether to strike at the houthis in yemen, and here it is worth recalling, and where it all

started, biting iran's allies, the group controls the northwestern province of yemen, in particular the capital of sano. after the war between israel and hamas, the houthis became active, at first tried to launch missiles and drones at israel, then from november they began to attack merchant ships, resulting in 27 attacks. merchant ships from more than 50 countries were affected, and more than 2,000 changed their routes. around the red sea. on january 9, the houthis carried out the most massive attack against american ships, launching more than 20 cruise and ballistic missiles and drones at once. american planes and ships shot them all down. after the attacks on yemin , us president joe biden and british prime minister rishi sunak made statements at the same time. they say it was self-defense in response to the hussites' actions in the red sea. and then about how these strikes took place. the united states

led and coordinated these strikes. last night , dozens of planes took off from a us aircraft carrier that was already in the red sea, a place that has seen tensions recently. their target is the houthis in yemen, who have been attacking merchant ships. they were warned: stop doing it or there will be consequences. president biden said the strikes were a response to the unprecedented attacks. tives versus internationals merchant ships in the red sea, in particular , anti-ship ballistic missiles were used for the first time in these attacks. britain is one of several countries that joined directly. a more limited contribution: four british typhoon fighters took off from their base in cyprus loaded with guided bombs. it took them several hours to reach their targets in yemen. it is clear that this type of behavior cannot be left. no

answer we need to send a strong signal that such a violation of international law is not possible. people cannot do that with impunity. that is why, together with our allies, we decided to resort to such actions. iran supports the houthis in yemen. they have already undermined trade through one of the busiest sea lanes. they not only boarded ships, but also targeted them with drones and missiles. the hussites say it is theirs. response to israel's war on the gaza strip and how they support the palestinians. in reality, there is a risk of greater conflict. the united states and britain say their goal is only to reduce tensions. they claim that their goals are only military. radars, drone launch sites and missiles, command centers of the houthis. this is a video of one of the two british airstrikes. at this stage, there are only preliminary estimates that indicate... that both targets that

were hit by britain have been destroyed. the houthis, who control a large area in yemen , say that several civilians have been killed, and the houthis also say that they... will not retreat. iran, russia and turkey condemned the us-led strikes. these strikes may have destroyed some of the houthis' arsenal, but not their will to fight. ago president biden says he's ready to do it again. international analysts are already saying that the strike against the houthis was a dilemma for the west, because doing nothing would mean showing glory. especially after numerous warnings to the houthis, on the other hand, there is a risk that in the eyes of the middle east, the west, having dared such a strike, will finally side with israel in the conflict with hamas. the bbc's jonathan beale analyzes why they did it. there are two reasons:

first of all, to ensure freedom of navigation, because many merchant ships go through the red sea. 12% of the world trade follows this route. but there is another reason: two days ago there was a very big attack, the biggest to date. then, in total, the houthis struck 27 international ships with the help of drones and missiles. two days ago was the biggest. and grand shaps, britain's defense minister, believes that a british warship was also among their targets. americans thought the same way. but when we hear the americans say that what they are doing will lead to de-escalation, but military action... never leads to de-escalation, i think the best thing it can do is deterrence, the question is whether that deterrence is enough to stop the houthis, but i think the answer is probably no. more than 60 targets in 16 locations were attacked in yemen.

the allies focused on specific points related to what is happening in the red sea, places where drones are manufactured, where drones and missiles are launched. they were aimed at military facilities, of course, they would not destroy the entire military potential of the houthis. saudi arabia bombed them for years, but they still remain defiant and armed. if the west has already said: "stop it, or, then it has to do it, or, but frankly, the west doesn't have that much of a choice." in an election year, conducting a ground operation is not an option. nothing indicates that. the west is pressing. they can carry out a larger operation, but in terms of military action, that's about all they can do. so, the houthis promise to react. a member of the group's military leadership

wrote on a social network that there were no attacks at sea stop such protests took place in the capital of yemen in sa'an, thousands of people came out, many with yemeni and palestinian flags. well, it is interesting that russia came to the defense of the khossites and has already submitted a request for an urgent meeting of the un security council. the turkish president also condemned the us airstrikes in britain. erdogan said that the strikes by western allies were disproportionate and that his government had received news from various channels that the houthis were conducting a successful defense and were making successful responses, both the us and britain, this is the end quotes along with the extent of the strikes on yemen. will weaken the houthis, says bbc security commentator fran garner. i think this is rather a kind of message, because the allies chose their targets quite carefully. there were 60 targets in 16 locations, including the capital sana'a and

hudeidah, the main port. they hit airfields and missile storage sites and, in at least one case, a control post. and it seems that they approached it quite cautiously. to minimize the number of victims and destroy, first of all, warehouses and weapons, but evaluate how successful this operation has been yet too early, did they hit the targets they intended, yes, but whether it will produce a significant result, i guess we will have to wait to find out, because the houthis have vowed not to stop their ship attacks. i might take it from a missile attack. on several targets in syria several years ago, in response to syria's use of chemical weapons, but it did not have the desired effect. the houthis have accumulated a very serious weapons arsenal with the help of iran. drones, missiles, cruise and anti-ship ballistic missiles.

they still have a lot of such weapons, and they have promised the united states and great britain painful retaliation. i think that is the most likely form. the response will be to try to hit western warships as they did the day before when they launched a complex mass attack with a combination of drones and missiles in an attempt to penetrate western air defenses. military ships. in order to better understand what is currently happening in the red sea, it is worth telling who the houthis are? the houthis are an armed group in yemen that represents the muslim the shiite minority of the zaydi country. in 2014 , the houthis started a civil war in yemen against the government. therefore, they took under their control a significant part of the territory of the country, including the capital city of sana. husite declares that together. with hamas, hezbollah and led by iran, they are part of an axis of resistance against

israel, the us and the entire west. who supports the houthis and why did they decide to attack ships in the red sea? the houthis follow hezbollah, a shiite armed group in lebanon. it is hezbollah, according to the available data, that trains and divides the houthis by experience the khoshites consider iran an ally, as saudi arabia is their common enemy. iran is suspected of supplying weapons to the houthis, and the us claims that it is with the help of iranian intelligence that they can successfully attack ships. bbc security columnist frank gartner analyzes. the houthis greatly overestimate their political weight. all this time they were fighting, but this conflict was within the borders of yemen and a little further abroad. when they hit targets in saudi arabia. and in several cases in the united arab emirates, but they decided to join the gaza war

at the behest of hamas, they declared it part of the iranian-led all opera, along with hezbollah, hamas and all other iranian allies in the region. they decided that, in fact, they would control a large part of the coast of the red sea and choose which ships to let through. which are not, many ships that have nothing to do with the war in israel, no connection, ships that did not belong to israel, were not connected to israel, did not enter an israeli port, they fired missiles, western ships that there passing, mainly american and british, tried to repulse these attacks, instead they became the target, so it all started with the fact that the houthis launched missiles at israeli ships and ... and attacked commercial ships, and now they targeted warships directly. i don't

think it will end there. it is very likely that the houthis will try to show again that they are not defeated and will again attack the naval ships. since the beginning of the war between israel and the gas sector, the us has been most concerned about this conflict expanded and did not involve others. american secretary of state anthony blinken has repeatedly visited the region, during his last trip he declared that the actions of the houthis in the red sea are unacceptable. in general, the american administration the other day made very strong statements that there would be, as they called it , the consequences if the houthis did not stop attacking the ship. and then the bbc correspondent in washington , tom bateman. the us administration says it is still assessing how they are doing. call the extent of damage during combat operations, but they believe that they received according to their words

a good result of these strikes, and at the same time they use words like interrupted and reduced the ability of the houthis to conduct missile attacks, they have the latest missiles, including anti-ship, powerful weapons, the pentagon spokesman patrick ryder stated that so far there has been no retaliatory action from the houthis, while many representatives of the houthis warn that they are... reacting to the aggression of the usa and britain, as they call it, so it is worth adding here that there was no response, because threats are already being made. the us is trying to keep a rather difficult course, the americans are trying to deter the houthis from further ship attacks in the red sea, but at the same time they are trying to prevent escalation. secretary of state antony blinken has just spent a week in the middle east doing just that. that's all for today, more history. on our bbc.ua website, on our pages in social networks, and we will be on the air again on monday at

9 p.m. good luck. the espresso tv channel continues live. the verdict program, my name is serhiy rudenko, i congratulate everyone and wish everyone good health. in the second part of our programs, see strengthening mobilization, a step forward. and two back. the cabinet of ministers withdrew its bill after the devastating evaluations of the deputies. body armor, clothes and food at inflated prices. during the week, the ministry of defense is shaken by corruption scandals. the passion is endless. a torpedo exploded in the verkhovna rada. how does the office of the president affect other branches of government? friends, we work live on

the espresso tv channel, as well as on our youtube platforms. for those who are currently watching us on youtube and facebook, be sure to like this video, and also subscribe to our pages on these platforms and take part in our survey. today we ask you this question: does the office of the president exceed its powers? yes, no, please vote on youtube with the appropriate buttons, and if you are sitting and watching us on tv, pick up your smartphone and vote. yes, 0800-211-381, no - 0800-211 300. 82, all calls to these numbers are free, at the end of the program we will sum up the results of this vote. i would like to introduce the guests of today's program, these are my colleagues, journalists, olga musafirova, tetyana vysotska and oleksiy mustafin. ladies and gentlemen, i'm glad to see you on the air and thank you for joining our broadcast. well, since

we're asking our viewers about overreach, or about... that the office of the president is overstepping or overstepping his authority, let's do a blitz with your impressions, because we're going off a poll, a poll, we'll talk about that later, about what people think about the excess of powers office by office of the president of ukraine, what do you say about whether the president's office exceeds its powers, olya, let's start with you. good evening, sincerely , sergey, i don't think about it, and i will now explain why i don't think about it, and for some reason it seems to me that most fellow citizens don't think about it the same way as i do, you know why, because we have a lot to think about, i have a son at zero, he has to go out tonight, tell

me, am i going to think about whether the office of the president is overstepping his authority at this moment, or am i going to be thinking about... something else, that is, i have an answer such that this question is very far, beyond those daily decisions and thoughts that weigh me down. thank you, ulyu, 2,000 people have already voted in our television survey, that is, people are still reflecting and giving answers to our survey. oleksiy, what do you think about this? well, in order to over- or under-authorize, one must have them. tell me on the basis of which document we can determine whether the office of the president has these powers or not. this is an auxiliary body created by the president, that is , the constitution does not define its

powers in any way, the powers can be announced by the president himself or the cabinet ministers or parliament. from the point of view of international politics, i can say that when we look at the results, for example, of the first weeks of the new year, from the point of view of the work of the office of the president and the minister. of foreign affairs, sometimes questions arise as to where exactly the center of decision-making in foreign policy is located, because in reality the office of the president conducts many separate negotiations without the involvement of at least the public minister of foreign affairs or diplomats, and therefore if i would not say that the office of the president

exceeds the powers , because obviously to him, maybe the president delegates some powers on foreign flights. but the fact that the president's office partially replaced the ministry of foreign affairs in some matters is visible from here in europe. i, i think that andriy yermak will say that all powers have been delegated by president zelensky. oleksiy, please one more time. i am saying that the constitution prohibits the transfer of presidential powers to anyone. and he can delegate powers, he is a person according to the constitution, who engages, no, he cannot delegate his authority, his is full, but he can give, give instructions, including the office of the president, god be with him. office of the president of ukraine, i absolutely agree with olga musafirova that there are much more serious questions and issues in society in general, including that the prime minister

of great britain rishi sunak came today and signed a security agreement, and a security agreement and contract, which is designed for 10 years, but it will be valid until ukraine joins nato, and this is the first agreement, which is a similar agreement, which was signed after... the nato summit in vilnius, which is very it is important that this agreement with great britain. tatyana, you are in strasbourg and you are monitoring the reaction, including the western media, whether this is the subject of any discussion, or the situation in yemen with the houthis, in principle , overshadowed everything and simply the west is now watching what is happening in... in krasnoye the sea near yemen, whether they are also talking about this agreement, because for us it is historic, and as rishi sunaki said, for

great britain it is historic, or it is historic for all of europe. and in fact, it is a historic agreement primarily because of what it is the first such agreement that ukraine signed after the beginning of the war, and in fact, even after 1991, after... the budapest memorandum, so it is a really important document, and it is of course being discussed at the expert level and at the level of journalists , despite the fact that the middle east overshadows ukrainian news is true, it is true, it must be stated, but of course the agreement is being discussed, and already now, for example, i see in the english-speaking segment of twitter that discussions have begun about whether this is a security agreement, whether it is security guarantees. is it simple assurance of security in security, so to speak, interaction, because the agreement is called an agreement on cooperation in the field of security, and

eh, so the discussion continues on the basis of the words guarantees and assurances, that is, if the agreement gives security guarantees, it is a 100% guarantee, that if ukraine is, for example, in a difficult situation, great britain will help it, and assurances are more like the smoothed wording that was used, by the way , in the budapest memorandum, it is like promises to ensure security, but not guarantees, and in fact, if we talk about the word guarantees, european diplomats joke and do not joke about the fact that the only real security guarantee is the fifth... clause of the nato charter, i.e. if one country is attacked, all other countries join the war, everything else it is still more, well, but this also applies to those who

are part of the north atlantic alliance, we are not part of the north atlantic alliance, but in great britain no one forbids to stand up for ukraine outside the guarantees of nato and outside the obligations of the great britain britain regarding nato, isn't it, oleksiy? no, not like that, because if great britain gives some other country that is not a member, not a nato member, guarantees such as are in the washington treaty on the establishment of nato, this will mean the entry of this country, the actual entry of this country into the circle of nato countries, because if an automatic attack on these on this country would mean an attack on britain, then according to the washington treaty, an attack on britain is an attack on all countries. nato, this is precisely the main problem of these interim guarantees. of course, this is an unprecedented step for ukraine, perhaps even for europe, this is an unprecedented step,

but let me remind you that a similar agreement was also concluded with finland and sweden. with finland , it effectively ceased its operation with finland's accession to nato. sweden is in a very similar situation, it still hasn't become a member of nato and e. it still has agreements signed with boris johnson , an agreement, more precisely, about benefits, well, it doesn't say in the text about guarantees , it is precisely about cooperation in the field of security. thank you, oleksiy, ola, president zelensky said about the fact that if such guarantees had been achieved in 1991, in particular with britain, the war would not have started, he said. eh, is it possible to speak so categorically, considering the fact that the war with russia or russia, russia’s war with ukraine, one way or another was sooner or later,

but... but the final point in the confrontation between russia and ukraine, or rather, in the desire russia to destroy ukraine was still not set in 1991, and now we understand that this war, which did not happen in 1991, it was simply postponed in time, well, in my opinion, it is absolutely, well, not stupid and there is no point in revising the events there 30 plus years ago, which could have happened in 91, but did not, could not have happened in 91, because, if we remember, both the united states and the vast majority of european states, in principle, perceived

ukraine as, well... as some kind of nonsense , a part of russia that has separated, and maybe in a year or two they will unite with russia again, that is, at that time we can talk about any serious defense agreements, alliances , it seems simple, and even more so to talk about it today, if it had happened then, if theology here... does not pass, but - well, this thesis, which i share with all my heart, is that our war with russia, unfortunately, was inevitable from the very beginning, the formation when independent ukraine appeared after the collapse of the soviet union, of course , it would be very cool if during these years,

during the period of independence, our state could receive some certain guarantees, in addition to that piece of paper of the budapest memorandum, but once again we are revising what cannot be returned and changed in any way, that is, i propose to sincerely rejoice in today's events, of course, this is not an average event an event, a serious event, and for me, you know, there is still such a marker as ... russia reacts to this. well, of course, no one takes medvedev seriously, but i was sincerely pleased with his reaction today, when he said: "and these loud-mouthed british, if they allow themselves to bring their contingent to ukraine, then it will mean that they, therefore, practically are at the stage of war with russia. you know that what is on putin's mind is on medvedev's

tongue." accordingly, we can state that today's event, which happened in kyiv, it in moscow, it will be analyzed, well , what is it called, with a dolevchik in hand, very carefully, and they will measure it by all means and methods and what it might turn out to be for them in the future, and i do not rule out that they will wait for... the next steps from the following states, but less so, we have to wait for this first. britain has set an example, it will be very cool if it will be followed, well, we will not say who, but developed european countries will join today's initiative. literally half an hour ago, i had a colonel on the air. of the

retired army officer glen grand, i asked him about this aid package that was announced publicly by the british prime minister, that there would be anti-tank missiles, that there would be more air defense and that there would be long-range weapons, i asked him, i said, is this means that great britain has decided that ukraine can now use. long-range missiles, well , long-range missiles are either crimea or towards russia, well, that is, those that fly much, much longer than the missiles we have now, he said, well, you are right noted, because i don't know if they will talk about it publicly, but we will obviously see further from the actions that will take place in the armed forces of ukraine, how they will apply.

i have tatiana.