verdict with serhii rudenko from now on in a new two-hour format, even more analytics, even more important topics, even more top guests, foreign experts, inclusion from abroad, about ukraine, the world, the front, society, and also feedback, you you can express your opinion on the evil of the day ... with the help of a telephone survey, turn on and turn on, the verdict with serhii rudenko, every weekday from 20 to 22 at espresso. the war created many challenges for us ukrainians, and even more so for ukrainians with disabilities. but we know that only together united, we can be stronger. friends,

welcome! friendly online community enable me ukraine. this is the first platform in ukraine for people with disabilities to communicate. here you get all the information about disability, medical services and relocation. free consultations of a lawyer, psychologist, doctor, employment specialist, volunteers from all over europe. here you get support from... and real friends. together we support each other, share useful information and learn new things. together, we grow. join us, stand up part of our family, enable me ukraine. with the support of the national assembly of persons with disabilities of ukraine, enable me ukraine. and

now matthew bryza, former adviser to the secretary of state of the united states, former director of european and eurasian affairs at the national security council of the united states will work on the espresso tv channel. greetings, dear mr. ambassador. good day sir, good day, well, first of all i would like to start our conversation with what happened in davos. the davos forum is a key event when it comes to setting geopolitical clocks of the european union, the united states and what is... called gray power, in particular, it is about the financial sector and not only about it, there was the prime minister of china, nobody from the russian federation, well , in particular, when we talk about there were no official emissaries, but we understand that this story is extremely important, because it is not only a question of finances, it is a question of medium-term prospects for ukraine and , in general

, of the support of our civilization . russia is no longer welcome at the world economic forum in davos, and the russian house, which was once the center of world attention, has given way to the ukrainian house. at least last year, this space in davos was dedicated to the memory of the victims of russian aggression. this is another sign that russia is pushing back. plan of the world arena. if earlier it was a desirable partner for many countries, today its status has turned into a rogue. key story. how will the european community, america, in particular talk about the administration biden, and russia. we understand that there is a very long debate going on between republicans and democrats, we in ukraine are extremely nervous, if not hysterical, regarding these

intra-american political debates, but we hope for the best, on the other hand , we understand that our european allies are extremely worried, yes, because we see how russia... prepares its population for what is called not just a confrontation with the west, but a possible aggression against certain nato member states, in particular in estonia they feel extremely, threatened, so to speak. so, what is happening here with the position of the united states and to what extent the united states will be ready to respond clearly and aggressively in the event of an immediate. danger to the state or raising aggression against ukraine. we saw on the example of yemen that it is possible to act clearly and boldly. i don't think there is a particular debate in the biden administration about aid to ukraine.

the biden administration wants to provide an additional $60 billion in aid to ukraine, and the vast majority of members of congress, as i said, want this aid... to go to ukraine, there is only a small group of radical far-right republicans who are using biden's desire to give this aid to ukraine to demand something else from him. in particular, a new policy on the protection of the us-mexico border. during the russian invasion of ukraine , the biden administration provided rhetorical support and was slow to provide military support. always. supplying another type of weaponry that ukraine desperately needs with some delay. this trend is likely to continue and further. i do not predict that russia will attack nato territory in estonia, latvia or lithuania in the near future. russia is stuck in

its trenches in ukraine. ukraine has successfully pushed the black sea fleet out of its territory, and putin understands that if he starts. military actions on the territory of nato, this will lead him to a state of war with the alliance, he does not want this. when i headed the think tank in tallinn after the russian invasion of ukraine in 2014, we were concerned and studied possible scenarios in which, as and in the case of crimea, russia could send troops there, hiding its involvement, let's say, the same little green men, that's them. scenarios where they claim that russia is useless here, these troops are occupying some minor administrative centers, and then putin says: these are russian troops, we have taken over nato territory, are you ready for a nuclear war to try to liberate these insignificant buildings? it 's not something that worries me, or something that

's beyond the scope of an article five response, should russia attack nato territory, which can permanently discredit nato. "dear mr. ambassador, i would like you to analyze now the message from the kremlin, which was voiced by the former president of the russian federation medvedev on his telegram channel, it is an extremely aggressive text, and it is not that they have changed their narratives, yes at one time they said that they were fighting, so to speak, with the ukrainian government, which is bad in the pews, but not now. medvedev announced the execution plan." of this war with what is called ukrainianism, and said that it is easy for ukrainians to be dangerous, and presented huge claims, in particular, it is about the occupation of our country. let me remind you that medvedev is the deputy

secretary of the security council of the russian federation. how should we perceive such threats. since the beginning of the russian invasion of ukraine, the former president and prime minister. minister medvedev looks inadequate, to say the least, because of his aggressive speeches and constant threats to use nuclear weapons. of course, those were just words, but what you're talking about is deeply troubling, because in my look, it's true. putin, medvedev and the elite of the putin regime have decided that their goal is to destroy ukraine. they said so. putin spoke about this a few years ago in his very long article in which he denied the existence of the ukrainian nation. therefore, putin's goal is to destroy ukraine. however, he does not succeed. why does medvedev speak like that? in my opinion,

these are perhaps sincere but unattainable goals related to the fact that he wants to position himself among putin's elite, as we say in english, ... trying to be bigger catholic than the pope. i believe that there is no chance that russia will achieve such goals. however, there is a need for europe and the union. the states provided ukraine with the promised aid immediately, and so that ukraine could defend its skies effectively and better than now. it is absurd to expect that ukraine will be able to dislodge entrenched russian forces without controlling the skies. yes, well, in any case , we see certain extremely positive signals from our friends in the west, in particular , it is about the signing of a number of security agreements, well, the key one is... a security agreement with to the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, this is an extremely important

signal. on the other hand, we understand that there are unpleasant signals, in particular it came from the federal minister of switzerland, yes, who said, well, it is very difficult to discuss the peace formula, and it will be very difficult to implement it, without having certain negotiating positions with the russian federation, and here we approach the most important. the most problematic dilemma, in particular, it is about how we will implement the peace formula and how ready our friends, partners and allies, provided that russia will only increase the degree of escalation. it is practically impossible to negotiate with putin, because only a week and a half ago, he declared that his goals in ukraine remain the same, namely denazification. of ukraine, as well as ensuring that ukraine never joins nato. when

putin makes such demands, and medvedev threatens in his style, they clearly indicate that they are not ready for negotiations. thus, if russia continues to escalate, then of course there will be no negotiations. as much as i i remember the italian federal minister said that support for ukraine remains strong, but he would like to see... negotiations, because everyone wants the war to end. despite this, you can not doubt. we support ukraine and want to continue providing assistance to it. so i'm not the least bit worried about these statements. i believe that in case of aid to ukraine from the european union, and it will be either at the level of 27 countries, if viktor orbán finally gives in, or, as many european leaders claim, at the level of 26 eu countries, from hungary, the help will be to come, and the more russia escalates, the more aid

ukraine will receive. bilateral security agreements. i have already mentioned the security agreement with the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, we understand that additional security agreements are brewing. there are certain, so to speak, general phrases and a key story, how such things as, for example, the provision of the necessary military will be filled. help and so on and so on and so on, we understand that it will depend on that, how strong and how far will our partners in security agreements be willing to go? how far, i think, in relation to the actual presence of nato troops on the territory of ukraine. however, there are some nato members that we talked about that are not under the auspices of nato, can send their own military forces and assets to ukraine. this question comes up from time to time and there is no clear answer as to what the limits are for individual western

partners of ukraine, other than that nato will not directly intervene unless some nato member states will not be attacked by russia. however, going back to your previous question, the more russia escalates, the more likely it is that some nato member states will intervene on the ground. i also think that the more ukraine can succeed in keeping the black sea fleet out of the black sea, the more it can prepare, with the support of its western friends, to destroy the land bridge between crimea and russia. i am sure we will see even more aid from countries of the event former president donald trump has shown that he can recruit. he won in prime. moreover, he won even in one state, but with a crushing result, and

accordingly, the european countries, members of nato, are very worried. we are very worried. donald trump gives quite strange signals, so in his last interview he stated that he knows how to negotiate with putin and could help zelensky and so on and so on and so on. i'm pretty skeptical of donald trump's promises, but... donald trump is, he is the reality of political life in the united states. what can we expect in the coming months? first of all, the chances of donald trump becoming the republican nominee. parties are very high. the next primaries will be held on tuesday in new hampshire. and he's likely to win again by an impressive margin, as he just did in iowa. i think his main rivals, nikki haley and ron desantis , will drop out, and trump will become the republican nominee. it's too early to predict if

he can beat joe biden, but if he does will happen in november, he has several times...opinion about the effectiveness of nato in the past and suggested that the united states withdraw from the alliance, but he will not be able to do so because congress has passed a law that the president of the united states cannot withdraw the united states from their contractual obligations to nato. the senate approves treaties, only it has the power to annul the participation of the united states in the north atlantic treaty. but this will not happen, so the united states... will remain in nato. trump aggressively talks about ending the war on his first day in office tenure. if he is removed, which means that he will put pressure on president zelensky to conduct negotiations, even if ukraine is not ready for them, and this is a cause for concern. on the other hand, let's not forget that it was president

trump who, after coming to power, did what barack obama did not dare to do. namely, provided significant lethal aid to ukraine, meaning anti-tank weapons, after the russian invasion of ukraine in 2014. so after donald trump, god forbid, becomes president again, he will be limited in the radical nature of their actions. however, i note that he will try to take very radical steps, especially with regard to ukraine, nato , and the domestic political system of the united states. threats to fire tens of thousands of experienced civil servants and replace them with their political cronies appear serious. even if it is difficult to implement given the american law, he will still try to introduce radical changes. dear mr. ambassador brydze, in the end , i would like to ask you what mistakes would be in ours

situation, when it comes to ukraine, what mistakes would be the worst, the most fatal? what mistakes we have no right to allow ourselves to make, well, and accordingly, the key story is also the desire of russia to make the aggression against ukraine the longest, not only the largest war since the second world war on the european continent, but also the longest, so we see that russia wants stretch in time and involve additional resources of north korea, iran, and possibly the chinese people. republic in my opinion, it is important that ukrainian society does not lost the fighting spirit it had shown until now. political differences within the country should not be used to stir up tensions arising from the war. now, more than ever, ukraine needs to remain united. i support president

zelensky that now is not the time to hold elections. certainly not in the midst of an existential war. in addition, i have full confidence that ukraine will win and that we will eventually provide ukraine with the support it needs. if she continues to fight, not only those are incredible the brave soldiers, men and women who are on the battlefield, but also the entire civil society that has come together to support ukraine, and if russia remains as demoralized as it is on the battlefield, then ukraine will inevitably win. however , it is important that ukraine maintains internal unity similar to the transatlantic unity with which all of us in nato must support ukraine. and the biggest threat to the victory of ukraine, in my opinion, is the question of our ability to provide the necessary assistance that ukraine needs for victory. very much to you

thank you, mr. ambassador, for this extremely important conversation. i would like to remind our tv viewers that matthew bryza, former adviser to the secretary of state of the united states of america, former director of european and eurasian affairs at the us national security council, was currently working for them. glory to ukraine! glory to the heroes. the time of our program has run out, stay with the espresso tv channel. my colleagues will inform you about all the most important events of this day. take care of yourself and your loved ones, do not ignore air alarms. see you on air. welcome to the channel. today, the focus of our war and weapons program is on two interrelated topics, which some consider a challenge to our security, and others, on the contrary, new opportunities

for the country's defense capability. so, the first topic is the development and use in ukraine of the potential of private military and defense consulting companies as one of the tools for strengthening the country's defense forces. in ukraine, by the way, several draft laws have been prepared. private military companies, but work on them was never completed, so what experience and practice right now, in the conditions of war , ukraine must consider what pros and cons there may be. and the second topic for discussion is the expansion of citizens' rights to own firearms. it would seem that after the 22nd year, the need for an adequate law on weapons, an increase in the percentage of gun owners. in the state, these are things that were clearly understood and society demanded a certain liberal law on weapons. let me remind you that in the first reading the draft law on

the right to civilian firearms in ukraine was adopted a day before the start of the active phase war on july 23, 2022, however , the second reading of this draft law is currently being prepared in the parliament and a significant number of amendments to this document have appeared. and in fact, in the eye of the amendment, it can be regarded rather as a step towards undermining the defense capability of our state, we will also talk about this in our program. my name is serhii sgurets, i am the director of the defense express company, which , together with kanal spresso, aims to cover the most relevant events and topics in the life of our army and the defense-industrial complex. and andriy kepkalo, the founder and head of omega consulting, joins us now. mr. andrii, i congratulate you, i am glad to see and hear you. greetings, mr. serhiy, thank you for the invitation. well, before the broadcast, we had

this kind of discussion, not to repeat ourselves about topics that we seem to have talked about before, but i looked, and in fact, we talk very little about private military companies right now, and you are a person who has a significant experience of creating such companies, and there are a certain number of people who believe... that this step and this direction of movement in the state towards private companies is dangerous and irrational. unfortunately, we have not yet been able to find an opponent to your position today, so i will try to master some things that concern private companies myself. but first of all, based on your experience, i would like you to tell us, relatively speaking, what a private company is in... some standard understanding, if at all there is a standard understanding of pmcs or consulting companies, because the word consulting is in the name your company i think

but it didn't appear just like that, well then let's start from the beginning, unfortunately, we have private military companies, they are always associated with mercenaries, it's very bad, i... i don't support such an opinion, but , if we are already talking about mercenaries, then i want to tell you that mercenaries have existed as long as there has been war, for example, about mercenary troops, even written in the bible, and there are many examples when er mercenary troops were once used by someone, i even read machiavelli, machiavelli vs employment application. but i have a different opinion on this matter, and there is the subject of both mercenaries and private military companies, it unfolded for a very long time

somewhere, somewhere until the beginning of the 2000s, and here in the 2000s the industry of private military companies, it grew up and became more settled, why? because the united states of america... started, started hostilities, both on the territory of afghanistan and on the territory of iraq, and i was directly involved in these activities, and i just want to remind you that since the early 2000s, this , it has developed, we will not talk about the 90s, 80s, 70s and so on, how is this topic of pvc, is it grown up? in general , the united states of america decided to enter the territory of iraq, and i remember then.

the secretary of defense, if i'm not mistaken, was donald rumsfeld, and he, he went on television, and he said, let's put it this way, he, i think, he was trying to reassure the people of the united states of america, and he said things like, the war in iraq, it will last, maybe 5 days, maybe five weeks, maybe 5 months, but it will not last for 5 years, and it turned out that... they, the americans, counted on one thing, another turned out, and when the other turned out, and they realized that it would be a war for years, then the question arose, what are we going to do about it, and american politicians, they decided to talk, think together, and what to do about it, and there were three options, again, this is not speculation on some facts, i directly participated in this, and there were

three options, the first option is... .to pack their belongings and leave, leave iraq, it was not right away, well, they didn't accept it. the second option was to announce mobilization, and then, it was, well, political suicide. it doesn't fit either. and so they chose the third option: to create private military companies and use private military companies, both on the territory of iraq and on the territory of afghanistan. that is, what we are getting to here in this short excursion into history is that the united states of america is the country that uses private military companies the most, the second country is probably the united arab emirates, for them a private military company was a support in the critical situations unfortunately, in our country we look at private military companies as a kind of caricature. you see, private military companies, there is a demand for them, all of them

today. use private military companies, governments use private military companies, multinational corporations such as axonmobil, shell, total, they all use, use the services of private military companies, non-governmental organizations, such as save the children or karitas, they use the services of private military companies, on others a little services, even there some kind of logistics or some other, but these are private military companies. guarding the vatican, who is engaged today? the swiss. well, how did the swiss get into the vatican? you can say naymantsi. and i don't want to use this example because it's so bad, i, well, i don't want to use it, but i have to. even terrorists have their own private military companies. i can name you, malgama tactical. she is based, if i'm not mistaken, in afghanistan, but, she

working. in favor of terrorist organizations, that is, the whole world uses the services of private military companies, and here for some reason it is always taboo, and i do not understand why. and when we talk about a private military company, what signs or symptoms are there, well, in terms of basic things, that you can really say that this structure or this group of people is a private military company, or a consulting company, or a defense consulting company, which... . unmasking signs of a private company, it's a company, it's very simple, it's a limited company a responsibility that provides services of a military nature, for example , we are engaged in the training of the armed forces . we trained

sappers, and so on, that is, this kind of activity has signs of a military nature, well, for you, for example, the signs of the pvc, fine, but if the company is engaged in medicine, the training of medics there, engages in security airfields, is engaged in gathering intelligence in the interests of law enforcement agencies, these are also private military companies, no, but the last time you said intelligence gathering, it can already be considered a private military company, and by the way, there are now on the market very big demand for private, let's call it that, for private intelligence agencies, intelligence companies. if you want an example, then let me give you this example: bellingkat, well, it's a private company, well, put it like this,

journalistic investigative company. the conclusions of this company are listened to, for example,