exclusive material, about this and much more, watch espresso at 21. we continue the saturday political club and our guest today is the chairman of the kyiv security forum, prime minister of ukraine in 2014-16 , arseniy yatsenyuk, congratulations, good evening, good evening, well, let's start taking into account what we say on the day of the second movement of russia's attack on ukraine. the first months were months and tragedies of enthusiasm at the same time, because there was enormous help from the civilized world and it increased, increased, increased, increased from every month, and now there is an impression that the reverse process has started, so the question arises, how to overcome this trend, well, it is true that the reverse process has started, and in principle, vitaliy, this is natural history, i am only just starting, that's right of a full-scale war, only the beginning of the war was on february 20, 2014.

of course, i agree, we can talk about 10 years, which is 10 years of war and two years of a full-scale war, when putin realized that he simply cannot eat ukraine in 14- th year as for foreign aid, a lot unfortunately, it happened as it was supposed to, it was objectively clear that democratic societies would then enter their internal democratic so-called process. this is not authoritarian russia or china or any other country where there is no discussion about where to give money, or whether to give money for social welfare. taxes or give money to help ukraine, and in principle, and so i am surprised that the western world lasted two years, by the way, putin did not count on this, just as putin did not count on the fact that immediately after a full-scale invasion the western world will come together and the united states of america will lead the process of actually fighting against putin's criminal russia, starting with the sanctions that have been put in place, i think we can have a discussion about the effectiveness of these sanctions, i can tell you right now that...

the effectiveness of these sanctions should not be overestimated, but they are doing their job. and finally, the key thing is the supply of weapons and financing to ukraine. the total volume, see how the americans are lagging behind the europeans today in general, by the way. the paradox of because everyone expected america to be the leader, at least that's what i always expected, but the americans gave 75 billion dollars, this is both military aid and economic aid. europeans, taking into account the 50s, what are they like. will give in the next four years, they gave 107 billion dollars, that is, what is happening now, is happening now in the united states, and i believe that the key problem now, this is the united states of america, actually the election campaign, and when our high officials there started, i i just watched some interviews, i don't want to name names, but will be bitterly offended, they began to tell that no, no, you know, over there in ukraine, there is no question of ukraine, there is only a question of the border, it is a lie, it is not true, there is a question of ukraine.

well, we are clear now, you don’t have to fool yourself, you don’t have to fool people, and vice versa, if you go to american channels, you go out with a clear message, and this message is as follows: helping ukraine is not charity, dear american friends , and you know it, because thanks to your help , ukraine stood up, and thanks to your help russia is half disarmed, except for nuclear weapons, and it will take at least 5 years for russia to restore its own. potential and again represented a threat to nato in the volumes that it represented before a full-scale war. therefore, the first question is true, the first one is about elections, the second one is about ukraine. the third thing that pleases me is that today i looked at the wall street journal, this is a publication that, well, let's say it is a republican, let's call it a conservative publication, it is already putting pressure on republican congressmen and personally on the pro-trumpists, let's say so, talking about the need to accept the aid package.

in ukraine, and the day before yesterday, for example, the washington post had a very good op-ed explaining to the republican party why it would be beneficial for them to vote for the package for ukraine if they want trump to be elected, we don't know who will elected because he, they put it very simply, if you want ukraine to lose and trump to face, the likely next president of the united states, the problems actually lost war in europe. well, then you don't vote, then you will be personally responsible, like the republican party and today's candidate trump, for the defeat of ukraine. that is, there is a certain movement there, and i even watched, you vitaliy also said this several times in your broadcasts about the fact that they are gathering votes for the so-called specially mandatory petition, if you translate it that way, and had a conversation yesterday and today with two high-ranking americans, well, to tell you that they greatly amused me, i won't say, but...

at least at least they gave some clarity, and both gave the probability of voting more than 50% for the aid package for ukraine, and one of them ... said that it could take up to two months, to which my reaction was, guys, well, in principle, we are already on the verge, ah , so, now the democrats have already collected 213 of the necessary 218 votes, they have one more there, which is now won by a democrat in new york, so it will already be 214, so that the vote of both the past and former congressman is counted there, and now the question arises, what wonderful system would we have, it turns out that it is written there, so... in principle, there is a possibility that they will collect 218 votes, and then changing the speaker, who, let's say, the pro-trump speaker johnson, this issue will be put to a vote, if it does not happen, it is necessary to be honest, as of today

, europeans are not able to replace american aid, period, it is unrealistic, but please tell me, mr. arseniy, today i had work with a military expert, who noted that it is purely in the military. the russians drew their conclusions from these two years, we do, of course, too, but we understand that we have not only a purely military plane, we as a country will draw and have already drawn certain conclusions, because the russians have restructured the economy on military lines, no matter what the sanctions are, by the way, about them, they find an opportunity to finance the war , have we sufficiently coped with this task? let's divide it into several. questions, the first one is about the sanctions, very briefly, the sanctions that were imposed are unprecedented, now i will tell you that in principle the result of the sanctions is unprecedented for russia itself, it is that no one expected, if you look at the state of the russian economy, it has enough funds to finance the war, and at least it has enough funds for this year and for

the next year, so there are various forecasts that the russian economy will overheat, well , let's see what will happen there in two years, what will happen with the russian economy, the state ... today, russia has found ways to circumvent sanctions, this is a fact, we can talk a lot about it, what needs to be done in order not to circumvent it, but , on the one hand sanctions cut off russia from high-tech equipment and technologies, which were not supplied, were not supplied to russia anyway, on the other hand, the fall of the ruble to the extent that everyone expected and the russian economy to the catastrophe, as of today... happened, why am i talking about i say this in response to your second question, did we draw conclusions, when we had a discussion about the fact that we are fighting against some nefarious enemy, i always listened with amazement to all this, that is, firstly, it means that we somehow we underestimate ourselves, that is, these are the exits that we are fighting with

complete idiots, who are not one of the largest armies in the world and are not some kind of nuclear power, and who are not four times our size, and who are not dozens. times more in armaments , ammunition, that is, it means that, firstly, we somehow humiliate ourselves, and secondly, that we are unrealistically looking at the size of the challenges before us, so whether the country has drawn conclusions, i hope that a significant part the country very clearly realized that inflated expectations are just as big a problem as excessive pessimism in principle, because we don't care the other cannot fall in any other direction, you understand, because there will be panic. and there will be euphoria, and panic and euphoria are the shortest way to defeat, but there is a little problem with realism, so here i am always, i will tell you frankly on your airwaves, i can praise portnikov, that was the condition , it was such a condition of the ether, well, in

principle, i practically do not listen to ukrainian media, well, frankly, that is, western media, well , when i listen to vitaly, there is such a clear, consistent... line of thought, and there is realism , and it is extremely important that this realism came all over the country, it's very unpleasant, it's very bitter, it's bitter, unpleasant as any truth, but it's the only medicine, and it's the only formula to win, that 's why, in principle, the changes have happened, but we are still a long way from realizing the full extent of the difficulties that lie ahead, because ... the war will not end in 2024, i don't know how it will end in 2025, let alone that the hope of some quick solution, especially hope for any negotiations with russia, is essentially absurd ones, this is a complete absurdity, there

is a diplomatic settlement, well, all this diplomatic settlement will be reduced only to putin's demands for capitulation, listen, i am reminding lavrov, by the way, in the 14th year, everyone simply forgot. lavrov meets with john kerry, the secretary of state at that time of the united states of america. they were not far from the same package of requirements in the 14th year that was. made public in the 22nd year, there was not the accession of ukraine to nato, there was the so-called actual federalization of ukraine, that’s all his public statements, there was the status of the russian language, that is, there was actually a formula for dismantling the ukrainian state, destroying the ukrainian state, so little has changed in them, or rather nothing has changed in them, putin has no plans in relation to ukraine in any way have changed and... the west must now realize that biden rightly said that this is a struggle of democracy against

autocracy, democracy now has only one formula for winning, one and only, it is ukraine's victory in the war with russia, ukraine's loss in war with russia, will have such consequences for the west that they cannot even imagine today, so they must invest in their security, we protect their security, but if you already mentioned these demands. lavov and generally about the year 2014, as the beginning of the war, let's still try to understand why there was no big attack in 2014, well, you should analyze this, because you were the head of the ukrainian government at that moment, i remember very well meeting of the national security and defense council, just these days, where the possibility of a major russian attack on ukraine was discussed, you were there, you calculated these options, it was real, we all thought that what happened. year could have taken place immediately after the maidan, especially since there were no presidential

elections yet, there was such a transition period, why did they not dare to launch such a big attack then, you mentioned the presidential elections, another demand of lavov was the postponement of the presidential elections, which were scheduled for may 25, that is, they did not want to in general, full and absolute legitimate power in the country, why did they not dare then, first of all, they were convinced that ukraine would fall in 2014, because that volume of the warehouse. well, simply the incomparable difficulties that we faced, well, when the entire combat-ready army was 500, this is the official data signed by the then military leadership for the entire country, for the entire country, including crimea and the entire continental ukraine, when on the accounts of all -just 10 thousand dollars for the entire state, it is clear that they expected that ukraine would fall by itself, this is the first secondly, i think that they also had a plan that related to the autonomous republic of crimea. they expected that of these 500, and they knew

that there were 500, that most likely ukraine could send there 500 to the territory of the autonomous republic of crimea, and this is military servicemen, yes, this is despite the fact that they already had the military group was about 20 thousand, by the way, they did not violate the agreement that yanukovych signed, that is, they are extremely cynical monsters, they are from the point of view of international law. did not violate even the number of military personnel who were there located on the territory of the autonomous republic of crimea. and they thought that, then, maybe ukraine will go to crimea, they will put everyone there, because russia was completely ready, and then they will quickly seize everything, including kyiv, this was their first option, the second option, which we are not capable of we will form volunteer battalions, the third option is that we will not be able to stop this wave, it is not separatism, it is a wave in general about... russian state rebellion on the entire territory of ukraine, for example, as it

happened in kharkiv, when they were able to stop, the fourth option they had was that the government in kyiv would be the same as it was in the 18th year, it seems that the government in kyiv had changed 10 times, that the government would move here and there, that is, they had other expectations, they did not expect that ukraine will gather, society will gather , volunteer battalions will appear, and that no decisions will be made that will actually be... self-destructive decisions, plus they were not ready yet, if they were ready in full force, as they are ready in 22 year, unfortunately, i am forced to state that it is unlikely we would be doing this interview in this studio today. vitaly asked what hindered them then, well, the lack of the kerch bridge, which in terms of logistics is very useful for them, they built it to add, but the fact remains the fact, plus, you understand, when they were dragging their feet. yes, including these ill-fated minsk agreements, it added

stability to ukraine every day, every day, because if it were not for the period from 14 to 19, when for the first time in the history of ukraine, ukraine began to finance the army, in general it created 5% gdp, when at all brought the state to order, well, i will tell you, the 22nd year would have been as it was, as it was written in the reports of the cia and bnd of the german intelligence. kyiv would have fallen in a few days, but the americans in 2014 were generally aware of the scale of the situation that could arise, why they behaved so cautiously. i have to tell you frankly that they did not just not realize, but they were in such a state of not understanding what to do, they just saw the president then, however, literally flew away, then i had several meetings with the president of the united states in the general hall the cabinet succeeded, then

they managed to introduce sanctions, then they managed to get aid packages, the americans did not give then non-lethal lethal weapons, but they gave non-lethal weapons, that is, they kept a lot, then they managed to vote for the united nations for the first time, i know your ske, i have the same one, well at least there is at least some legal document, this is the so-called resolution 100, which condemned the illegal annexation of crimea, because i say this for future generations, you understand, the time will come when russia will be legally responsible for everything for committed crimes, but of general understanding, vitaliy , what to do about it, listen to me... i would also be in all the capitals of europe and our key western allies, well, believe me, the mood in their offices was ten times worse than in the prime minister's office - minister, even though we knew what to do, we have no other option, but yes, you know, to the general picture, i told you the story about how i had to convince in some countries of the european

union, because i don't want to call the premium ers and presidents, about the fact that guys, it's not. which are not little green men, they believed that it was little green men , i am telling you in all seriousness, some of these people believed that this was the so-called self-defense of crimea, i am not saying this little green men, you studied the history of the second world war, this is the russian regular army, but imagine what happened in this time in germany, which was always focused on russia and had this feeling of guilt towards russia for the second world war, forgetting that... in general, it suffered the most during the second world war, because it was the main theater of operations, and which it was necessary completely reorganize your entire politics and economy , in fact against russia and take the side of ukraine , and then for the first time merkel would come then, now i will tell you three or four times, she and i had a key disagreement with

merkel, it is about the northern flow , in everything else, in principle, we were on the same page, but you have to give it to her. as appropriate, yes, yes , yes, and frankly speaking, the most key thing where we radically diverged was the nord stream, she said it was a business project, and as mrs. chancellor said, it pure geopolitics, not only are you making yourselves hostages, you are completely, well , exposing us, you are making us defenseless against russian aggression, with this northern stream, but today the prime ministers of canada arrived to mark the second anniversary of the large-scale invasion of ukraine. italy and belgium, the president of the european commission as well. under-the -counter bilateral agreements of a security nature, framework documents, do not require ratification by parliaments, so the question is their effectiveness. i remember very well one of the broadcasts with mr. vitaly, who remarked that after what happened in the 90s,

the budapest memorandum, which did not really protect ukraine. ukraine can suddenly lose, it will only lead to the fact that most countries will start acquiring nuclear potential, because it will be a science for everyone. those security guarantees that are being signed now, how much can they protect us in general from any aggression in the future? well, let's start with nuclear weapons, what you quoted vitaliy, in principle, this was my main message in 2014, when i spoke on the podium. organizations of the united nations and he said: "look what is happening, we got rid of the third largest nuclear potential in the world. by getting rid of it, we got conditional guarantees, there is no word guarantee anywhere, but the budapest memorandum. as a result, without nuclear weapons and having a paper that is not legally binding "by the way, we received aggression from the person who signed this

memorandum." and the one who directly forced us to get rid of nuclear weapons was russia. and we didn't get it. the real amount of help from those who were ksponsores, well to co-sign this memorandum, it is the united states in the first place. now about these security guarantees: first, i want to state very clearly that this is not in terms of legally binding security guarantees. what is a security guarantee for me? it is plus or minus a remote version of article five of the washington treaty, this is at least what the united states has. with israel, when there is a very clear amount, $3.750 million is given every year for a decade, whatever the administration is, republican or democratic, or? any other that is there there can be no other, israel receives this amount, why? because this document is signed and it is legally binding. the second part

of security guarantees is generally the direct participation of the armed forces of the state that is the guarantor in the war on the side of the country that received the guarantees, then it is called a legally binding guarantee. and it's now, it's not that, it's not that i'm saying it now. in an article for independence day a year ago. i specifically wrote what legally binding security guarantees are, that they must be ratified parliament, they are not ratified , i would not completely nullify the role of these documents, because for me this is a political act, a political act of the political obligations of the signatory state to continue supporting ukraine, and this political act will further require a legal act of each state , who signed it. in its parliament when voting its own budget, when voting its own defense order, that is, it is a completely different story that involves the annual political process, that is why it is so politically

a political declaration of support for ukraine in ukraine's war against russia for its independence. we also signed an association agreement 10 years ago, by the way, it is worth mentioning that this is part of the crisis, and now we are approaching negotiations with the european union about... membership, and along with this, many people simply do not realize this, we have been living in the economic regime of a member country of the european union for two years, after that, and it turned out that this life in the regime of a member country of the european union became the source of a huge crisis in relations with poland and other allied countries states, because our european partners, paradoxically, did not expect that ukraine is a really competitive country on their market, primarily for agricultural products, but it must be said that this is not only a problem. poland must be frankly recognized. now , a wave of farmers' protests has risen throughout the european union, let's call them that. what is the struggle for? first of all, there is a struggle for

the kep program, that is, let's call them, the program of agricultural subsidies of the european union. there the total volume of this program is 60 billion euros. so that you understand that this is 40% of the total budget of the european union. that is, ee. polish farmers receive a direct budget subsidy from the funds of the european union, from this amount of money only 20% of all farmers of the member states of the european union receive these funds, and 80 receive either less or nothing . therefore, the first reason why the wave of farmers' protests arose was the fight for european union money. second, why the wave rose, there were for... implemented new environmental standards and starting with pesticides and ending there with the so-called green deal, which ursula fonderden just

carried out, it means that it increased the burden on the agricultural sector, and therefore they rebelled against their governments on the issue, which means that the burden on the agricultural sector should be reduced. third, the third is the ukrainian factor. i looked at the internal media, what they are doing, so they write, for example, about the european development bank. finances ukrainian agricultural companies, gave the figure that during the past year the european the bank of development and reconstruction financed about 1 billion dollars in total for all ukrainian companies, and this gives ukrainian companies the opportunity due to the fact that, firstly, it is cheap money, and secondly, that there are no such environmental standards here, let's call them that, and others to produce , so there is no green deal to sell. cheap products in the member states of the european union, this was taken as a flag and carried away. therefore, look, in this situation , exactly what must be done, exactly, must be done

behind closed doors, i emphasize, behind behind closed doors, not at the border, behind closed doors, to immediately have these very calm, but, well, even angry, you know, and purposeful talks about how to solve this problem today, and it's not easy. today, and what will we have tomorrow, because this problem will be ten times more difficult during negotiations on ukraine's accession to the european union, therefore, in principle, we have already faced the reality of ukraine's accession to the eu, it is a high competition and it is an uphill battle. please tell me what our government delegation came to the border, but the polish one did not, you were surprised , i was not surprised at all that poland did not come, look, i did not surprise you that ours came, what, what of these? i speak culturally, i was not surprised that poland did not come, that's why i will be so cultured, you know, i will not, i will not criticize the government,

i will say that it is extremely important now that the ukrainian government delegation comes to warsaw and together with the new prime minister donald tusk, who has a very difficult coalition, you have to really look at him a coalition of three parties, one of these parties is a peasant party, the peasant party derives the name of the peasant party from the word village, and if the village means agrarians, and if agrarians, then in principle it means that, from an internal political point of view, it also has asks it is very difficult, i can say this not from the books, because i well remember how i conducted negotiations on the accession of ukraine to the world trade organization, may god have mercy, but, but i know for sure that if you approach professionally with arguments, this the battle can be won for sure, in principle, to what extent can we now hope

that what... western countries will reformat their support for ukraine, what, what to do about it? you understand, vitaliy , that i see the biggest problem now , including, by the way, for agrarians, that we have elections for the european parliament in june, look, and this completely plays into the hands of all right-wing radicals and isolationists let's call them the forces, first of all in europe, and also isolationists, this is a well-known policy. on roosevelt's behalf. we know roosevelt only as the winner of the second world war. we forgot that the united states was isolationist and generally refused, a special act was passed in the congress of the united states, which prohibited the supply of weapons to europe. absolutely for the initiative. ugh. i don't remember which year, 33rd or 39th? i don't want to make a mistake now. yes, that is, we forget about it. therefore, in principle, what i see now, the trends are not good. but

this trend is called democracy, and now democracy, world democracy is in chaos, i see the chaos of world democracy, on the one hand, i see a certain unity of world totalitarianism, but all is far from lost, and i emphasize once again that the gains of democracy today are only on one plane, the gains in ukraine and the fall of democracy, i i think so, maybe someone will say that i overestimate the role of ukraine, no, i do not overestimate it. and the fall of the free world now lies exclusively in the plane: ukraine wins or loses, and therefore, when they help us, it is not only us, it is helping them, to each of them, because the fall of the western world, they can't even imagine what will happen, that is, these are generally changes in the financial system, economic flows, foreign trade, all these are other players, this is

a blow to... the dollar, you understand, then, that is, this is a blow to industrial production, this must be explained in the united states to republican voters, and with examples , including explaining that look, thanks to this money that you did not allocate, and if you allocated it, you would get jobs , you would get additional taxes, look at all the world's arms companies, look at the level of growth in the stocks of companies that make weapons, there's lockin... it's an american stock up 70%, germany's ryan metal is up 300,368, something there is almost four times, so it has a direct effect on them , they just need to explain it correctly on their fingers, go to the channels and fox news and cnn and, in principle, in this way drag the electoral part of them onto themselves, well, i will ask, how would you assess the level of such healthy lobbying in general

in... the country in world, we are not talking exclusively about those who are now officials , about ukrainian politicians, whether we have enough professionals and whether the quality of their work is sufficient in this sense, it is not news that i am not a supporter of volodymyr zelensky at all, but i must note that during the last two years, he used his qualities, which he had as a speaker, as an actor, in a way that no one else would have used. this is a fact, and it is necessary, it is necessary to recognize and respect the facts, and the way he worked as a tribune, it certainly deserves respect. now we watch the second part, i.e., the president of the tribunes is a vagabond, in principle, it is generally normal, but the executive part, the executive part, well, it needs realism, pragmatism, professionalism. ugh. well,

the question immediately arises. as far as the west is concerned.