perspective and are satisfied with the results of implementing their ideas. maria chernyakhivska, ihor antoniuk, for espresso tv channel from poland. greetings, this is svoboda lyme, my name is vlasta lazur. the us senate has approved a bill that, among other things, provides for the allocation of $60 billion in aid to ukraine. this is not yet the final, because the document must be supported by the house of representatives, and there are nuances there, if not... problems, well, in general, the draft law provides that the main part of these 60 billion will be provided in the form of orders for production of weapons and military equipment for american defense companies. in the senate, this decision was called historic, but 70 senators supported the document, 29 opposed it. today, we witnessed one of the most historic and important bills that ever passed through the senate. certainly, past years, maybe.

decade since the senate passed a bill that had such a profound impact not only on our national security, not only on the security of our allies, but on the security of western democracy. and although ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyi has already thanked the senators for supporting the bill. by itself, a vote in the senate does not mean automatic aid. now, as i said earlier, the bill has to be approved by the house of representatives of the us congress. where the republicans have a majority, a large part of them is focused on former us president donald trump, who has been critical of this bill and urged not to vote for it. the night before , speaker of the house of representatives mike johnson, who is considered close to trump, also criticized the bill, in particular, because it excluded the budget for strengthening the border between the united states and mexico. johnson has made it clear that he will not bring the bill to a vote, zahil writes. in the senate. the

foreign aid bill says nothing about the most pressing issue facing our country - us border security. with no change in border policy from the senate, the house will be forced to continue working on it an important matter at your own discretion. america deserves better than the senate status quo. well, i will remind you that, as of now, aid to ukraine from the united states of america is suspended, at least until congress approves it. new funding, is there any indication that after the senate vote , the bill will be finally approved by the house, and if not, what options remain? tetyana voroshko, senior editor of the ukrainian voice of america service, joins our broadcast. tatiana, good evening. congratulations. the ukrainian authorities, as i have already said, reported on voting. yes, as if this is some kind of final victory and help will surely come, but let's be honest, it's not quite like that, is it? could you, could you, could you explain for us? what exactly

did the senate vote for, what does this decision mean and is it really historic like we just listened to chuck schumer? well, i'll say right away that it can really be considered historic, at least that's what chuck schumer thinks, and the law was voted for a bill that contains three main national security priorities: ukraine, israel, taiwan, and as well as humanitarian aid. 60 billion in aid is allocated to ukraine, the majority of which goes specifically to military orders, and of those 9 billion... which will go to humanitarian needs, part of this money should also go to ukraine, in case this draft law is approved, well, actually for this bill , the debate lasted 6 hours yesterday, it ended early tuesday morning, and it was voted for by, as you said, 70 senators, 29 voted against, almost all democrats voted for, except for two, except for two democrats, also bernie sanders independently voted against, and chuck schumer, as you said, called it historic. welcomed this

draft law, and let's listen to another part of his speech, where he talks about the importance of this draft law for ukraine. with this bill, the senate kept its word to the ukrainians, who desperately need ammunition. today we made vladimir putin rue the day he questioned america's resolve, and we're making it clear to others like the chinese president. we also send a clear bipartisan signal to our nato allies, because of the strong bipartisan support we have here in the senate, because of this vote, i believe that if speaker johnson brings this bill to the house floor, it will pass with equally strong bipartisan support. and importantly, we saw that the number of republicans who supported this bill. during

the procedural votes, it increased to 22 republicans, republican senators, this is less, a little less than half, but nevertheless it also forces a rather powerful a bipartisan signal in the house of representatives and the most... you know, fiery speeches came from the republicans, who called on their own colleagues to support this bill, and macon's sword played a big role in this, who, supporting ukraine in this way, is also subject to quite serious political criticism within his party, even calls for him to resign as speaker, let's hear his summary of this tonight, our allies and partners are not naive, they know that unanswered aggression breeds pain. they know that victory russia will give a green light to china, and neglecting ukraine's struggle to restore sovereignty will only increase the cost of our own defense. our partners do not have the luxury of pretending that

the world's most dangerous aggressors are someone else's problems, and neither do we. therefore , today, without exaggeration, we can say that the eyes of the whole world are turned to... the senate of the united states. well, of course, there was opposition to this bill, for example, the senator explained that in this bill, again returning to the question the border, which the republicans themselves opposed , the support of the border, the strengthening of the border , the republicans themselves spoke against, nevertheless they say again that we are sending, as i said, pallets of cash to ukraine, loading it on planes at a time when we have a... a crisis of invasion at the border, which of course is not true, ron johnson, who used to be like that, changed his point of view and in his speech he explained that ukraine still cannot win, so what we support the war continues, and more people die, well senator tami tamberville

tweeted before that he does not oppose this support, he will vote against it because putin, so uncritically he took his words in the kartsyn interview, that putin said he was ready to negotiate, it is alleged. .. here they don't want, here they want to continue this war, well, during his speech he mentioned the border again. the 17 republicans who voted in favor of this bill can explain themselves why they changed their minds, that's their business, but my demands have not changed, we should not give ukraine a penny until the security of our own borders is fully guaranteed. we have already given ukraine more than 120 billion dollars. this money is more than enough to fortify every border of our own country, unfortunately, although it was predictable, the $120 billion we sent to ukraine only resulted in several years of stalemate on the battlefield costing hundreds of thousands of lives, both

ukrainians and russians. tatiana, look, you just quoted chuck schumer and he said that he hopes, he expressed hope that this legislation... the bill will pass with the same support in the house of representatives as it has in the senate, so my question is, actually, when is the vote in the house of representatives going to take place, and is there some clearly defined deadline, is it possible , you know how in ukraine, between the first and second reading a month can pass, or maybe two years, and the second question, i heard that the main task is to simply pass this bill to vote when it will already be taken out, then there will be no options, they will definitely vote, or is it really so? this is true, and this is true, in the house of representatives, taking into account the previous votes for ukraine and the statements, statements, statements of the congressmen, it looks like there is a simple majority there, there is the support of all the democrats, as well as a large part of the republicans, the difference between the democrats and the republicans in the house of representatives is very

small, that is, the majority will be found in the question of bringing this bill to a vote. mike johnson, speaker of the house representatives made it clear, as you said at the beginning, that he will not bring it to a... vote, it is not yet known definitively, but right now there are negotiations, there are talks about how to overcome these blocks, in fact, there are various procedural points, how it can be done, but for this, the democrats need the support of at least a small number of republicans, just at least for a simple majority, bypassing the speaker to bring this bill to a vote, if it is brought, the chances are very, very high big, that it will be accepted when exactly it will happen, well, it is difficult for me to say about it, that is, there is no clear term during which... they should either bring it up or not bring it up for a vote? well, they say that if they do it, they should do it very quickly, that is , now we see how this draft law passed through the senate according to the accelerated procedure, and it happened according to the standards of how the senate works quickly. let's hope that in the house of representatives they will find such a quick move, but i won't make

any claims about it. tatyana, who is in this whole story the role of donald trump, because he criticized this particular bill, literally at a meeting with his constituents over the weekend. he made it clear that he did not support this bill. can this criticism of his affect the vote and the desire or unwillingness of the speaker of the congress to bring this document to a vote. yes , it can definitely be affected, the role of trump is very big, we see that he spoke against the previous version of the border bill, and this bill was not buried, it was not passed, a vote was not taken, for it was not voted on, it was not considered, although the work on this bill, at the request of the same republicans to include the border there, was conducted for four months, well, he helped to draft it very quickly, that is, the role of trump was quite significant in this version, as well as in addition to this statement he wrote, which you... quoted, he wrote that it is a stupid thing to give money to partners, that we will not do

such a stupid thing again, if we give, then give as much as we want, and that i would also like to draw attention to this the statement he made about nato what will we say to nato, nato countries are not paid enough and russia called, let's say, i would say that you can attack a nato country, this is very important in this context, because the main argument of the white house, the main argument of the republicans who support ukraine is that that if we do not help ukraine now, then putin will not stop. will go further, and in this way we will have to take part directly in a military conflict, because we are a member of nato and we have to comply with the obligation . trump allegedly made it clear in this way that this is optional, that is, this situation that is now unfolding in the house of representatives, which will unfold now, will actually answer your question, what is the effect of donald trump on the republicans. tetyana, thank you very much, tetyana varoshko, senior editor of the ukrainian voice of america service, told us about the prospects of american aid. we will continue this topic, pavlo lakiychuk, head of security programs of the center for global studies

strategy of the 21st century, joins our broadcast, good evening, good evening, glory to ukraine, glory to the heroes, and you to what forecasts do you lean towards, ukrainian aid will overcome all this resistance that we are currently observing in the american congress? well, february is coming to an end, so the congress and the senate , regardless of what mr. johnson proclaims in trump's mantras, will have to pass, if not, a bill on aid to ukraine, israel, totaiman, then at least the budget, finally, the federal budget of the state, where in ukraine, there are also certain money, points, etc., besides there are a number of other programs. projects with which the states help in ukraine, in addition to the states, we still have europeans

, so whether they will accept or not accept this document, well, it is obvious, and it is a landmark document, not only for us, it is extremely important, for the americans it is a kind of point of furcation, which will determine their policy for this year, and i have... hope that the document will be adopted, colleagues who directly take care of us policy express restrained optimism, so let's do our part. and tell me, please, what, what, if after all, well, let’s not now consider the scenario that it will not be approved at all, but if on it will again take months and there will be no end and no end to it. decision, what is the option for ukraine, does it have anyone else to count on for

assistance that would be commensurate with the assistance provided by the united states? first of all, it is necessary to understand that this aid consists of two parts, it is macro-financial aid, it is aid to the state to sustain the state, the state economy in ukraine, and purely military aid, these are funds that will be spent by the united states itself. to help ukraine with weapons, military equipment , etc., so there are two components here, and consider them it is also necessary whether their compensation, yes, or additions to them should also be considered in two components, the first is macro-financial assistance, we are very much counting on, well... the decision of the european union on assistance to ukraine, so it is not completely, does not

cover completely state, but it is not military expenses, it is not military aid, so the second component is military aid, military, there is, first of all, the statistician of programs and projects, but you see, money for ammunition does not come for other reasons. .. not enough, but rockets, rockets, bombs, lamps, arrived because they follow a completely different program, the provision of assistance for such programs... there are several more in the federal budget for the 24th year, which has also not yet been adopted, but sooner or later, well, no, not in 3 - 4 months, and by march, it should be adopted by march, even so, let's say, there are also relevant articles related to aid to ukraine, so the americans have reserves, and

frankly speaking, no one wants to interfere. that subject of lendlease, because that law on advanced was precisely republicans, and biden is not very favorable to it, but it is also for him, but i will explain it to our audience, the law on lendlis, it somehow existed there for a year, it seems that ukraine did not use it, or in washington there they did not see the need to use it, its validity period expired and that's it, well, there is no absolutely so the picture is more complicated there, and in principle the effect of this law can be restored, the issue is that the current us administration is betting on other ways of helping ukraine, well, this is connected for the first time with the domestic political situation, well, besides the states

, there are our european allies who provided by all together not. less aid than the united states , each small, somewhere possible, but together it is a significant piece, and it is increasing, for a reason, german chancellor scholz is hanging around europe, putting pressure on partners and asking, and sometimes demanding, to increase aid to ukraine, not only from germany , and from our other allies. by the way, here political observers are talking about the fact that in the context of scholz, they are talking about the fact that in this way european leaders are already preparing for the possible presidency of donald trump and are wary of the fact that american aid may be these contributions have been reduced both for ukraine and for nato as a whole, and they, they are already preparing for it, well, the fact is that we are still living in

february, the 24th of the year, and have been looking since february the 24th. of the year, well, at least for us in february 25th , it is too early, nevertheless , politicians are looking at the future and are considering the options of electing donald trump as the president of the united states from various angles, including that the united states, donald trump, as the president is likely to carry out his threats to the north atlantic alliance and will screw up a lot there and will have to rely a lot on ourselves, well , actually, this is a good trend in one part, because it forces the europeans

to rely on their own strength, it also applies to us when... we say what we should do about it year and for the future , we must rely on partners, but in order for this dependence to be less, as little as possible, i am not even talking about minimal, just as little as possible, then we can invest our defense-industrial complex in the production of ammunition and weapons, repair of own equipment forces thank you very much for your comment, pavlo lakiychuk, head of security programs of the center for global studies strategy of the xxi century, we talked about the prospects of ukraine receiving american aid, we continue this topic, it is now number one, extremely important, ihor shovkva, deputy head of the president's office, joins our broadcast . good evening. good evening. mr. zhovko, what are your hopes for voting in the house

of representatives, whether there will be enough votes there, and most importantly, the desire in principle to submit this document for consideration by the house. representatives, look, let's first start by thanking the entire senate for this very important vote, which was already the result of the previous, procedural votes, and thank you and pay attention to the number, after all, 70 senators, representatives of both parties, this is a very important indicator , including the fact that, in relation to the questions you ask, if there were 50 or a little more, then we would speak to you differently, today voted in the final vote for this bill 70. senators, representatives and the democratic party and the republican party , so starting to answer your question, and now there's no point in speculating, but how it 's going to be, and how, certainly, everyone has now well studied or is starting to study the procedures, how it works between both chambers, there are certainly very high the chances that this bill will not only be brought to the house of representatives,

but also voted on, and this figure of 70 people, it will be a serious, very signal for representatives, including the republican party, now it will be very difficult to find grounds including legal and including moral ones in order not to vote for such a bill, once again it is very... it is important to make a decision today, not only instrumentally, technologically, we definitely need these funds for our armed forces, to support our economy, and this is another decision that once again proves the leadership of the united states of america in the world. the united states of america always very skillfully demonstrates its leadership in critical situations, including for other states, so we have every chance, every reason to hope that the corresponding strong the decision will be made in the house of representatives. our colleague has just lost his head. of america, who works in washington, she spoke about the fact that in principle, if this document, this bill is brought to the house of representatives, then there is almost no doubt that it will be voted on, there are doubts

whether it will be brought in principle, if there is a delay, if soon this document will be put to a vote, and the story will drag on again, because i will remind you that there were expectations that it would be voted on at the end of last year, if this story drags on, what will be done ukraine, is there a plan b if the american aid does not come, and in principle it does not come, at least. the white house is talking about it, i added your narrative, and there were expectations that it would not be voted even in the senate, and the representatives of a certain aggressor country were very much expecting it, and you know, and some, probably, other representatives in other states, in including ours, but you see, it was put to a vote today and voted, so it may not be brought by the speaker, if you are asking about it, but even there there are legal procedures and legislative mechanisms, how to bring it out. and we've heard from the democratic party that they 're going to do their best to get it on the floor, and i agree with you that if it's brought up, or rather when it's brought

up, it's definitely going to be voted on. with a positive result for ukraine, and if it is not passed, i am very, very, very, very, very, very, very low probability of such a course of action, if it is not passed, ukraine will be, ukraine will work. what do you think is the role of donald trump in the fact that aid for ukraine has not yet been approved? well, the future, or expected, or possible presidential candidate from the republican party obviously makes those statements that are heard, including by representatives of his party, so there is definitely an influence. he literally called on the senate not to approve this aid, and apparently this apprehension, and more precisely, weighing all the pros and cons. on the part of the house of representatives, this is a direct consequence of his statements, is it not? well, look, if you read very carefully, you have to read such statements very carefully, his last

statements, he does not talk about it, he does not talk about the impracticality of aid at the moment, his last statements, or one of the last statements about the need to give such help in in the form of credits, and let me remind you that we have a similar mechanism with the united states, we have, for example, a mechanism for the disbursement. so let's, you know, journalists like to dramatize, always exaggerate, let's read very carefully the statements of mr. trump and not only mr. trump, let me remind you that we have other representatives of the republican party, we have representatives of the democratic party, we have representatives of the administration of the president of the united states, so let's weigh everything that we hear, and you ask what ukraine, ukraine, and the president of ukraine will do what he did before, communicate with representatives of both. political parties, you see, every visit of senators or congressmen here to ukraine, and they are always bipartisan, they have corresponding meetings in the president's office

with the president of ukraine, we see that those senators, congressmen, just recently came, and one of them today, who had met with the president before that, i mean mr. turner, made very powerful statements, being, by the way, a representative of the republican party, but against the background of these statements by trump, it probably makes sense to mention... that volodymyr zelenskyi repeatedly invited trump to kyiv, or in principle offered a meeting, please tell me why it doesn't work out, i understand that kyiv is very interested in establishing contacts with trump, that's for sure you better ask the representatives of mr. trump's entourage or mr. trump himself, i will remind you in response that the president of ukraine had experience of interaction with the president of the united states of america, donald trump, so nothing. let's say unexpected or dangerous goth or let's say exaggerate or focus on one

individual, probably, again, it's... more, it's more speculation than talking about concrete facts, but it looks like from that one individual now a lot depends, it is not clear how much, but after all, trump, not even being a presidential candidate, plays a rather leading role in this whole story. mr. zhovko, recently tucker carlson, who is close to trump, by the way, an american tv presenter interviewed vladimir putin, tell me, did you watch this interview? i didn't have time to look. the entire timeline of this interview saw only separate clippings and saw, let's say, a textual presentation of these main provisions, which were spoken by the president of the aggressor country. a number of experts and diplomats, including, as with who we spoke to, they say it's no coincidence that this interview comes at a time when billions in us aid are stuck in congress, and some believe the kremlin simply used carlson to first sow more doubts among skeptical americans

about aid to ukraine. secondly, in order to convey signals about the kremlin's readiness for negotiations, do you think this interview had any of the listed goals? if such conspiracy theories of yours are to be followed, then this interview has failed its purpose, because just a couple of days after this interview, the senate voted positively for ukraine. obviously, this was definitely not the kremlin's plan. i could be wrong, of course, but i think you will support me in this opinion. you know, i personally did not find it in the presentation that i saw. some new narratives from the president of the country gresan, which we do not hear with you during all these two almost two years of open aggression, tell me what new could the americans or representatives, as you say, certain support those who support representatives of a certain political forces, there they will hear something new that they have not heard before from putin, well, for example, for example, putin, you know, asked such

rhetorical questions, why is this to america? let's agree, we 'll all agree sooner or later, maybe it was new for the american audience, i don't know, i don't know, you have to ask the american audience, maybe they have some other level of perception, i think any sober-minded person, no in the narrative of a distorted history, not in the narrative of any other proposals for negotiations, and we hear proposals for negotiations or the position to negotiations is always at the beginning, again open. only that position is very simple: let's freeze the conflict, let's leave to russia such territories that it tried to grab, and then there will be negotiations, and then, and we all understand this with you, they understand perfectly well, these are the americans, they are very intelligent people, and then we will simply resume this aggression by concentrating even more forces, recovering by releasing even more equipment, rockets, artillery shells, and continue to fulfill our purpose, if you think that most americans really want it, don't

think so. that this is the narrative that is perceived in the states. and, we, we will certainly continue to follow the topic of american aid, allow a few questions that are not related to this topic. peace summit: in november of that year, you predicted that this global summit could take place on february 24th, on the calendar mid-february, what are the prospects for this summit? the prospects of the summit were revived after the meeting between the president of ukraine zelenskyi and the president of switzerland an agreement was reached that... the summit will be held in switzerland, it is very difficult to talk about the dates of the summit when there is no place, now we have a place, and now we are working on the date, including with the swiss side and including with the countries participating in the summit . it is very important that this summit against the background of those successful meetings of national security advisers that took place, i will remind you there were four, and the last meeting, which gathered representatives of 82 countries in switzerland, we are definitely working to ensure that the peace summit, the first

inaugural peace summit, which will start... the peace formula had a correspondingly sufficient number of participants, including at the level of the leaders of the global south, and the president of ukraine constantly talks about it in his conversations with the leaders of such countries. yesterday, for example, there was a conversation with the president of the republic of south africa, we are working on it, just as the swiss side is working, just as our partners in the european euro-atlantic community are working, each of them has its own equal relations with the countries of the global rooster, be it china , india and... other countries and definitely there very much difficult diplomatic work is in progress, which , i'm sorry, i will not voice to you on the air, but we will look at the result, the result will definitely be positive. you said that all the previous meetings of the advisers were successful, but just the last meeting in switzerland, there was no chinese representative there, i understand that from this point of view this is not a very successful story, because in kyiv they hoped that the representative of china it will still be, especially since a huge chinese delegation came

to davos at that time. they were at other meetings.