will the chinese be there as observers, how do you think the agenda of what will happen in switzerland will differ now, and in general, if we are talking about the prospects of the european union, how seriously will the europeans be prepared to defend their independence and their sovereignty in the event of a threat , yes, because the russians are an extremely powerful threat to both the baltic states and central europe. first, the output. or from the experience of mediation in conflicts in eastern europe, such as abkhazia, ossetia, and nagorno-karabakh karabakh, i have noticed that the swiss constantly seek to play a role in such situations, they perceive themselves as highly effective mediators, which often turns out not to be true, so i don't think there is any reason to worry about the swiss convening european and american officials, this does not necessarily mean a softening of europe's position on the economy. russia to ukraine. i believe that key

european leaders such as emmanuel macron, olaf scholz and others such as george maloney are fully committed to supporting ukraine in its struggle against russia. evaluating the level of aid provided to ukraine, it is worth noting that great britain and germany are in second and third place, respectively. their commitment remains steadfast. among the european leadership, there is a common understanding of the potential threat to... the baltic countries from russia, if the nato deterrent is considered weak, which we have already discussed, president macron stated that it is possible that european or french soldiers could end up on the territory of ukraine , yes it was wrapped in very powerful diplomatic papers, but, but, but, no one says, well, we understand that there is a certain prospect, and we may have to help us on land as well.

macron has gone through a pretty amazing transformation. he tried to be the only european interlocutor who could dissuade putin from invading. i will never forget the longest table in the world, when putin was so afraid that macron would infect him with covid in the kremlin. and now, as we all see, macron has become one of the staunchest supporters of confrontation with russia. however, considering macron's statement to which you refer, i would not perceive it as the fact that... france is ready to send its troops to ukraine, and i do not see such a readiness on the part of any of the nato member countries. rather, i see it as an acknowledgment of that possibility under certain circumstances, particularly if russia continues its current behavior. as you and i have already said, mr. borkovsky, a scenario is possible when coalitions of nato member states will act outside of nato, but exercising its sovereign prerogatives, it may intervene in... ukraine, if russia pushes it to do so. in

in this context, macron's statement looks like a confirmation of the possibility of such actions. conversely, a categorical refusal to deploy any forces of nato member countries in ukraine will weaken the deterrent signal that ukraine's western allies are trying to convey to russia. the visit of united states secretary of state anthony blinken to the people's republic of china is extremely important. we dont know. all the details that blinkin discussed with xi jinping, well, but there are certain, certain parts of powerful public signals, and so does antony blinkin de facto warned xi jinping that it is impossible to pretend that china is not helping russia, because it is de facto providing it with everything it needs to wage war against ukraine, well, except for weapons and personnel, this is how they help the russians, and blinkin warned the chinese, asked them not to do them.

this, in response, xi jinping began to talk about the fact that he believes that the united states and china, they are all great powers, should be responsible and respect the territorial integrity, sovereignty of other countries, and so on and so forth. what really xi jinping meant, and how far the united states would go to discourage the people's republic of china from supporting russia. but china did not give everything to russia at once, right? in his peace plan, especially in the first point, regarding ukraine, the main emphasis on preserving territorial integrity reflects china's own interests in taiwan, so russia's invasion of ukraine has put china in a difficult diplomatic position. china together with russia, or xi jinping together with putin, they want cooperate to undermine the so-called rules-based international order established and supported by the united states, but xinjin pin does not want to... in any

way condone the undermining of ukraine's territorial integrity. by the way, in order to maneuver in this difficult situation, china was careful to avoid openly violating the sanctions of the big seven. was forced to publicly warn china against giving russia any military aid it might need. unlike iran and north korea, china does not became an open supplier of ballistic missiles or drones, i haven't seen reports of china supplying as many munitions as north korea does. so china is walking a diplomatic tightrope, and blinkin shares this opinion. his visit to beijing is aimed at continuing efforts to reduce earlier. increased tension in american-chinese relations. this strategy is consistent with a series of visits by us ministers or government officials to china even before blinkin and sinzimpian met near san francisco in november last year. the current us approach is

aimed at easing pressure on china. at the same time, making it clear that excessive support for russia can cause diplomatic consequences and possibly other sanctions. dear mr. ambassador. bryza, well, i would ask you to respond accordingly to what is currently happening in russia, taking into account the very different signals coming from the kremlin, but what they are doing now on the battlefield, we understand, indicates their readiness to continue the war, regardless to certain signals, that is, we have no illusions, but there may be a number factors that could demonstrate that the kremlin is hesitating, or the kremlin would not be ready to enter into... a very long war, but at the moment we see that the kremlin is showing its readiness to fight for ukrainian lands, yes, sparing neither its soldiers nor their resources. putin feels that he cannot stop now or it could be the end of him, even physically. however, as already

mentioned, the russian offensive lacks success. in fact, their progress is minimal, although they are advancing, but at a very slow pace. it took them almost a year to... advance only 16 km beyond bahmud. their inability to launch a successful offensive without additional mobilization is a significant problem. during the last mobilization, hundreds of thousands of men fled russia, indicating putin's internal problems. currently, his powers are essentially in a state of stagnation, despite some progress. it remains to be hoped that the ukrainian troops will persistently resist the current offensive upon arrival. of additional military aid , the dynamics will change, which will give ukraine a certain rest before the next thrust. but think about it, even if putin can mobilize, say, 100,000 soldiers for an offensive, where should they recruit experienced commanders, they are specifically struggling, because so

many were killed and wounded, so even if more people are recruited into the army, more commanders will be needed, that is, if you are on the russian side, they need to produce a lot more artillery shells. projectiles they need to attack. yes, they now produce five times more art shells than ukraine. but you understand, a significant escalation will require a much larger volume of production. so i think that over the next year, we will see that russia cannot make significant territorial gains, and the ukrainian military ... will become more and more powerful, and then maybe 2025 will be the year of the ukrainian offensive. ultimately, if ukraine succeeds in attacking the crimean bridge and cutting off russia's communications with crimea, it will completely change putin's approach. in particular, his commitment to continuous attacks on the civilian population and war crimes against

the ukrainian population. mr. ambassador, yes what should we do with the publication in the american press, in which it was said that part of the american officials recommended our official kyiv not to strike at russian oil refining facilities. i believe that the recent request or warning of the white house to ukraine not to strike deep into russian territory, in particular on oil refineries, was ill-considered and unreasonable. this is a rather selfish, arrogant and strategically unreasonable step. of course, i understand that president biden really wants to win the election in the fall. i think that it will be better for all of us, for all friends of ukraine, if he wins. however, as far as i'm concerned, the importance of disrupting russian

fuel supplies far outweighs any potential slight increase in the price of petroleum products, i.e. gasoline, in the united states before the november election. exist. many factors affecting the prices of oil and petroleum products, such as gasoline, and the removal of relatively small supplies of russian refined oil, gasoline, or diesel fuel from global markets for ... a number will have a significant impact on the u.s. election. from a strategic perspective, it appears that president biden's political team may have acted hastily, succumbing to panic. there may have been an internal debate, arguments that boiled down to those in favor of allowing ukraine to hit russian refineries, warned of potential job losses and a lack of a second term for president biden, which would lead to less support for ukraine , if oil prices will rise on... but there is some truth in these fears: any significant the rise in oil prices will be a global

phenomenon, not just the result of losses at russian refineries. accordingly, i cannot ignore the topic of the washington summit, as we understand that a historic summit will take place, a summit during the russian aggression against ukraine, and we would hope that at this summit our status and perspective will finally be defined. tives to join the euro-atlantic community as soon as possible, we understand that sweden and finland managed to join nato in record time. we understand at the same time, what kind of responsibility would this entail for the rest of the euro-atlantic community, because during the war, well, at the same time, the fifth article of the euro-atlantic union would have to be applied. as i understand it, nato intends to use the 75th anniversary summit in washington to emphasize its status as the most successful military-political alliance in history,

thanks to which it managed to prevent major conflicts between its member countries and russia and the soviet union. in addition, the summit is expected to highlight the need provision of greater political and military assistance to ukraine, and therefore readiness for such support. however, as far as membership is concerned, since ukraine is not a nato member, support from the alliance is limited. there were no signs of plans to accelerate ukraine's accession to nato, and such discussions are unlikely to take place during the summit. as for sweden and finland, it is important to recognize their long-standing readiness for nato membership. both countries have been diligently developing their military potential for ten years. finland boasts one of the most experienced armies europe with a significant presence of artillery units along the russian border and a powerful air force. equipped with american fv17 fighters. similarly, sweden has

a very capable military, and over the past decade and a half has essentially committed itself to providing military assistance to nato members, pursuant to article five, even though it is not yet a member of the alliance itself. they were ready, both militarily, to join nato and to participate in the alliance's defense efforts. however, the situation in ukraine is significantly different. in conditions of conflict. ukraine needs support from the nato community to protect its sovereignty and restore territorial integrity. it is unlikely that the alliance will speed up the process of ukraine's accession to nato in the conditions of the current war. however , at the 75th anniversary summit, nato must unequivocally confirm that ukraine's membership in the alliance remains an unwavering commitment and that the alliance is ready to help ukraine in this, but only after ukraine wins this war. it is also important that nato does not play along. war in ukraine, when it is a war of choice or a war of aggression, unleashed by putin

in fact, we all know that it was a war and aimed at subjugating ukraine. i would like to ask you about the correct strategy on the part of official kyiv in relations with the administration of president joseph biden and the possible, possible administration of donald trump. we understand that the key story is to preserve and protect ours. our interests are national ukrainian interests, but on the other hand, we are grateful to the biden administration and understand that donald trump, in any case, his team can have serious effects, and in six months in america, something can happen it is not known what, to put it delicately, at the same time, but we understand that tucker carlson does one strange interview after another, in particular with people who belong to russian culture and russian influence, but a couple of days ago tucker carlson recorded an interview with . ukraine is doing absolutely the right thing, its strategy for

the biden administration, which will be the strategy for the trump administration, is to continue to emphasize, both morally and strategically, the need for the united states to continue to help ukraine. hard imagine a us president who would support ukraine more than joe biden. as we remember, he was the responsible person in the obama administration for ukrainian policy. after the russian invasion of ukraine in 2014, and having the honor of working directly with him, i saw firsthand his unwavering commitment to the nato family and to deterring russian aggression. if trump is re-elected, even though he generally shows less support for ukraine and was impeached precisely because of how he treated the president by zelensky, i mean the first impeachment of president trump. however, despite this, it was not barack obama who provided military aid to ukraine after the previous russian invasion. it was donald trump who first authorized

the transfer of javelin anti-tank missiles to ukraine. moreover, when speaker johnson announced his intention to put it to a vote. aid to ukraine, trump did not object to it and even expressed positive emotions towards speaker johnson after the successful approval of the aid package. i think that even donald trump, no matter how predictable and problematic he was not, because of his relationship with russia, will understand that the united states needs to continue to support ukraine as much as possible. as for tucker carlson, he is completely discredited in the united states. his interview with vladimir... putin humiliated him, and now he is considered a puppet or a clown in putin's pocket. and his next interview with mr. dugin strengthened this perception even more. the interview with vladimir putin was absolutely disgraceful. carlson behaved like a schoolboy watching michael jordan or lionel messi. and people saw this and understood that he was just

a fool on putin's leash. carlson's journalistic reputation has been irreparably damaged and although... he still has supporters among some far-right conspiracy theorists, his influence in the mainstream has greatly diminished. so there is no reason to worry about its continued relevance. thank you very much, dear mr. ambassador braza, for this brilliant analysis on the air of the tv channel, i want to remind our tv viewers that matthew was working for them now bryza, former adviser to the secretary of state of the united states, former director of european and eurasian affairs at the us national security council. thank you. glory to ukraine. glory to heroes. 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 feedback. you

can express your opinion on the bad day with a phone survey. turn on and turn on. verdik with serhiy rudenko, every day on weekdays from 20 to 22 for espresso.

and now oleksandr morozov, political expert, publicist, who is currently in prague, will work on the espresso tv channel. i congratulate you, mr. oleksandr. good day, congratulations. a small story when we are talking about the arrest of the deputy minister of defense of russia ivanov, that is, small against the background of the general apocalypse, but in any case this is a very characteristic and possibly symptomatic moment, that is, a person who, in principle, was, well, his main function is to work shoigu's wallet, yes, received a black label from the fsb, and so did we we understand that this means that

the patrushev clan is rather strengthened at the expense of the shoigu clan, first of all... first of all, it must be said that the arrest of a person with such a status is an extraordinary event for the entire russian political and military-political machine. and the consequences of this will naturally be very significant, i think those who are now saying that the blow to serhii shuigu is quite serious are right. and if he did not try to soften this blow now, besides , many expect that after the inauguration... this is significant, and if indeed it is a blow is done by patrushev and his people, and they are primarily the initiators of this, then, of course, this will mean further mobilization,

escalation of the war on their part, and there is another assumption, which is related to the fact that the kremlin is preparing to create a so-called defense council, supra-agency body. such ideas were put forward publicly, to transfer to this body everything related to military construction, provision of the army, that is, the entire state procurement system, to remove it from the ministry of defense. in this case, the beneficiary is chimezov, and probably, then his person may lead ministry of defence. for now, this is all speculation. regarding the corruption component, it must be said that deputy minister ivanov lived very richly, everyone saw it, he did not hide his wealth and his prosperity. family even by kremlin standards, it was too bold. he felt reliably protected, but at the same time the whole system was backfired, a lot is being written about it now in

telegram channels, where some details of the investigation are reported. those who managed subcontractors are already giving some testimony there. there are really huge kickbacks and stretches budget funds. in fact, there is also good news in this, because this whole environment of zetriots, all those who will come to ... logical reasoning is engaged in the development of the occupied territories, they are all shouting out loud now, looking at the arrest of ivanov and the details that are getting into the public, they are all burned out, because they see perfectly well that all this so-called restoration of mariupol is all a huge financial scam and looting. in fact, this is not so bad, because it shows the terrible depravity of the entire putin system. i would like to make some of this conclusions of citizens who look at it in russia. well, unfortunately, the hope that someone will draw some

conclusions is not too optimistic for me, but if we talk, for example, about the role-playing games now in the kremlin and around putin, that is, you mentioned that the strengthening of patrushev - it will mean strengthening the war party. on the one hand , patrushev is primarily the fsb and... and russian security forces, and in this sense of the word he is a key figure of the war party. but at the same time , a completely unexpected turn of events cannot be ruled out. why? because of course, patrushev is a supporter of the entire concept of the destruction of ukraine and the conflict with the west, but at the same time, it is quite possible that he may insist, or at least propose a scenario or, in any case, an operational game around a ceasefire scenario, this is quite possible. here's the problem: we don't see anyone from the military side directly, who actually has to put putin on the table for some success on the battlefield. which of these militaries offers

a long-term military strategy for this war? that is, what to do? we read and all that do they see, of course, that the kremlin is going to storm kharkiv or seize odessa, or maybe it is going to go to the banks of the dnieper everywhere? all these are political fantasies. they become a reality even in russian domestic politics, only if there is a military plan. so, big changes in the power structures are possible here, and depending on who is there and how they will end up, we will then already focus on what future scenario both the power structures and the army structures will offer to putin. accordingly, this will determine the scenario of the war. well, in any case, a kind of operational plan. of war, which is lying on putin's table, it boils down to the old formula of marshal shapushnikov, to advance before the end of the offensive impulse, that's how they classically

formulated the whole thing. we understand the offensive impulse, it is one or another russian military personnel and equipment, but when this case is completed, they would like to make one or another attempt to nullify the results, or vice versa, for example, try to make one or another cease-fire, i do not know . is it really so, i don't know what kind of blood putin will be now ready to attack, but in any case, are they now preparing for even more large-scale actions, or do you think they would like to maintain the current level of escalation and aggression, well, shelling peaceful cities with ballistic missiles with cluster munitions is a military crime, and we understand that it fits into a strategy of intimidation of very specific... residents of very specific cities. in recent days, i have been watching, reading what is being written, following the news and military

summaries and comments of military experts. i i'm inclined to think, i have a feeling that , after all, it is necessary to focus on a possible major offensive by the kremlin, that is, an attempt to organize a breakthrough, why? because, on the one hand, it is clear that such a tangible tactical success, firstly , would look good for the kremlin against the background of the upcoming american elections, this is the first thing, and secondly, it would look good against the background of european solidarity, which is currently being actively formed and formed all these six months. that is, the kremlin in such a situation would show the usa and europe, well, whatever you do there, if not tried, we are still achieving a tangible result, and in this sense of the word yes, the temptation is very great, i think that putin is preparing for a convincing offensive, but at the same time, let us emphasize that at the moment we do not see the military possibilities with the help of which the offensive can be to carry out, because when they write that 20-40 thousand soldiers are ready to storm

kharkiv, this is again... a realistic number for such an attempt, and it is obvious that the general staff should insist on having 100 thousand, 200 thousand, just for attempts to take a big city. and besides everything else, i don't have doubts that russian military leaders will weigh the consequences of the scale of civilian casualties and casualties of their own military in such an offensive operation. i think this issue will not be easily resolved. history with a large... greater mobilization in russia, they are afraid on the one hand, on the other hand, well , large-scale offensive actions, they foresee an increase in the number of personnel, but there is also such a sociological question as the level of absorption of corpses by this or that society , so we understand that ours time this threshold was lower, for example, during the afghan war, during the russo-chechen war, it was also lower, here we see that this threshold has risen

and already... hundreds of thousands killed and not a single noticeable, i emphasize, noticeable, socially important reaction. yes, it's an important issue, it really shouldn't be treated like that. undoubtedly, the kremlin is cynical and a dictatorship that knows no moral limits, but besides that , you can't look at it too lightly. why? because it is clear that putin says to himself that he is, as it were, waging war with minimization of victims, that is why shelling, rocket fire. this same attempt of meat assaults last summer, around which a great conflict arose, which led to the prigozhyn rebellion, is a kind of wound on the body of this whole putin's military concept, the war machine. and it is obvious that putin and his closest entourage are afraid to mobilize and mount a major offensive, precisely because behind them they already have a rather ineffective attempt to break the ukrainian front.

mass raid, will putin make a bet on the offensive? a difficult answer to this question, because, after all, apart from the strengthening of the war party and patrushev now and apart from the possible creation of the defense council, we of course see at the same time a large, i.e. continuous inflamation of this ultra-patriotic propaganda in russia, i.e. if the kremlin wanted to move towards an armistice or not to carry out a major offensive, not to achieve a result, then most likely they would turn up this faucet, this wick. the president's administration would turn it up a little bit, but i don't see it, and everyone who watches it, everyone sees the opposite the degree of pressure on cultural figures who speak from anti-war positions, the announcement of all famous people as wanted, i.e. an attempt to shut everyone's throats, and vice versa, to let as many supporters of a long war with the west, i.e. not only with ukraine, to the top as possible, is very noticeably, clearly increasing, well, such

a collective dugin has mastered... in the discourse, so on the other hand we saw that tucker carlson, a well-known media personality, he is interviewing dugin, what do you think this means, yes, because it is durov, then dugin, and before that, of course, the kremlin führer. i i think that tucker is continuing some kind of line that is being constructed for the possible arrival of trump, and this line is like this. let's see who is in russia, not from the point of view of the liberals... let's feel the discourse for containment, the udder, relatively speaking, that's quite accurate, that is , with whom to deal later, if, for example , we decide to go to politics with the russians , we will accordingly have to accept what they have some ideologues, politicians, that is, the point is that tucker is talking to dugin, the next...