this trip had a positive effect on me, i became more cheerful. thank you so much for such an incredible trip, it will never be forgotten in my heart. let's together give memories that will warm hearts and help to survive these difficult and scary moments. congratulations, friends, the second part of the verdict program is on the espresso tv channel. my name is serhii rudenko, and in this part we will talk about the following. in time for winter, president zelenskyi in berlin called on europe to invest in the restoration of ukraine's energy sector. on which can you count on help? shameful practices of censorship. the ministry of culture claims that

they did not know about the introduction of temniks in ukrinform. as the government's information policy can affect relations with western partners, even harshly and uncompromisingly, most ukrainians consider it necessary to criticize the government during the war, to what extent it is permissible to rock the boat. that's all about it. we will talk for the next 45 minutes, in the meantime i want to remind you that in addition to the live broadcast, we also work on platforms on youtube and facebook, for those who are currently watching us live there. please subscribe to our pages and take part in our survey. today, we, friends, ask you the following: are we allowed to criticize the government during the war? yes, no, please vote on youtube with the appropriate buttons if you have your own opinion. individual opinion that does not

fit into these two unequivocal answers, please write your opinion in the comments below this video, if you are watching us on tv, pick up your smartphone or phone and vote if you think that to criticize the government during the war, let's say, 0800 211 381, no, 0800 211 382, ​​all calls to these numbers are free, vote, at the end of the program we will select the results of this vote, i want to introduce today's guests of our studio, this is oleksandr mereshko, people's deputy of ukraine from the servant of the people, chairman of the verkhovna rada committee on foreign policy and interparliamentary cooperation, mr. oleksandr, i congratulate you, thank you for being with us today, thank you for the invitation, rostyslav pavlenko, people's deputy of ukraine from european solidarity, member of the parliamentary committee on education, science and innovation, former director of the national institute of strategic...

research, mr. rostyslav, i congratulate you and thank you for being with us today, congratulations, thank you for the invitation, i apologize, bye the light is a little bit so steep, well, it is, but this is the reality in which we all live now, so thank you for being with us today, and we are waiting for the inclusion of yaroslav yurchyshyn, people's deputy of ukraine, chairman of the parliamentary committee on freedom of speech, and prompts i am the editor, mr. yaroslav, mr. yaroslav, we welcome you, thank you for being... with us today, good evening, so, gentlemen, since we are asking our tv viewers about the admissibility of criticizing the government during the war, i will ask format blitz survey and you, what do you think about it, then we will talk about the results of kmis, what kmis measured and what sociology has to say about it, but since we formulated this question for our viewers, i also ... the question is addressed and

we will start with you, mr. rostislav: shall we assume criticize the government during the war? look, not only suppose it is a function of victory, criticism should not be general and criticism for the sake of criticism, but showing specific problems and shortcomings and suggesting what can be done instead, this is the very prevention of what is said that the government corrupts, and ... absolute power corrupts absolutely, so of course let's assume, with one condition, criticize, suggest. thank you, mr. yaroslav? this is one of the foundations of democracy, but i will also agree here that criticism is for the sake of criticism, just so that the government does not do everything wrong, so that we are not the government, this is not an approach, and this applies both to the opposition and to individual representatives of the non-political there. sector, in

principle it is more optimal to start not with criticism, but to start with a proposal, and if the proposal, well, in principle, remains without reaction, only then it turns... into the format of criticism, it worked very well at the beginning of a full-scale invasion, but, well, whatever - the government, the government in the broadest sense of the word, the entire parliament, regardless of whether it is the majority or the opposition, did not relax, but of course it is necessary to propose, and constructively to criticize is quite acceptable, thank you, mr. yaroslav, mr. oleksandr, well, of course, it seems to me... that the question here is not whether criticism is acceptable or unacceptable, within their limits. i would say yes, criticism yes, but spreading russian propaganda narratives no. thank you, mr. oleksandr, i mentioned this sociology from

the kyiv international institute of sociology, and this sociology says that ukrainians believe that the government should be criticized even during war, but at the same time... 50% are convinced that only constructive criticism is permissible in order not to destabilize the situation in the country, and 31% believe that it is possible to criticize the authorities even harshly and uncompromisingly, because this is the only way to avoid possible mistakes, only 13% believe that it is not possible to criticize actions during the war authorities, so as not to destabilize the situation, well here actually, you gentlemen spoke in... in the context of political activity, or opponents of the authorities, or political forces, or leaders of the public sector, the question is quite broad, regarding criticism of the authorities, regarding actions, regarding criticism of the government's actions, since we are also talking

about mass media, because here, mr. oleksandr, you are talking about not having these narratives... but you can put anything under this concept, say: well serhiy rudenko is saying something against president zelenskyi, this is generally a russian narrative, and it is not clear where he picked up this narrative, that is, where it is about russian narratives, obviously the security service of ukraine should work, obviously the security service of ukraine should give clear answers to the who does it and how and whether it is a narrative that someone specifically promotes, or let's say, the thoughts of a certain serhii rudenko there, can be used , including by russian propaganda, after hearing it on the air, they can replicate it, and then it will look like i am rehearsing

russian narratives, where , where is the limit in your opinion, when journalists criticize the government, journalists also investigate. illegal enrichment there, as in the latest investigation of the deputy prosecutor general, or the questions that arise from journalists, completely logical to the representatives of the authorities about how they live during the war, what they do, how they are, whether they buy new houses for 48 million uah, who buys these houses for them for 48 million uah, whether there will be such a thing that all the time , we will talk or in... the authorities will say: listen, this is a russian dog, in general, someone is driving. mr. alexander. well, actually, this issue is resolved quite simply, there are legal mechanisms, which you also mentioned, by the way, that allow for the separation of criticism, which is, well, a necessity in a democratic

society actually, we differ from totalitarian russia in that we have a democracy, and there is criticism, this is a normal and desirable phenomenon in a democracy, and there is also a court, there is a court. new bodies that allow resolving disputes are related to the fact that this is permissible criticism, which is protected by the constitution, or are these russian narratives aimed at discrediting, for example, the authorities, that is, in the final, in the final case, it should be decided by the judiciary, with this this is clear, but how to solve situations when we see or learn about... facts of censorship or interference in the work of the media or restrictions on the work of the media during the war, restrictions on tv channels regarding access to t-2, er, attempts to introduce temniks in ukrainform, attempts to influence editorial policy or public policy. mr.

yaroslav, where, where is this limit here and do we always have these preventive measures that allow it. in the same direction, where the government is, to talk about the fact that it is not necessary to do so, and law enforcement agencies should also respond to attempts to censor or limit freedom of speech. the best mechanism countermeasures are self-organization, self-regulation of the media, and actually journalists even in ukrinform, not even in ukrinform, specifically in ukrinform, we are talking about this, because this is the most recent example, yes, we decided not to follow the dark people, and in principle, we chose the path without censorship, with regard to the actual cases when someone... there forgets that ukraine has gone through a rather

difficult path, from the kuchmi times, from the movement without censorship, through the creation of a competitive and sufficiently free media market, and tries to implement some recommendations, who to invite, how to cover, of course, this is at least article 171 of the criminal code, obstructing the activities of journalists, in ukrinform, in principle, we will raise this issue before the ministry of culture and information policy , there should be a supervisory board that can be appealed to in case of such situations. for our part, as from the committee, i know that my colleagues, iryna gerashchenko, here rostyslav can confirm, turned to the actual general office of the prosecutor general, the office of the prosecutor general transferred this case for jurisdiction kyiv'. from the prosecutor's office, we are waiting for their reaction in ukraine , any cases of pressure regarding the actual

disconnection of the channels are unacceptable, the case is currently in the legal procedure in the courts, but it is very important to talk about this, because in our country, unfortunately, the courts have a tendency to drag out such sensitive cases under various, if for reasons, the party did not appear, the judge is busy and so on. therefore , public attention to this process is critically important, and i am convinced that the intensification of european integration will raise the issue sufficiently , and if there are no legal grounds, yes to restrict access, and the only legitimate option for restricting access now is to impose sanctions due to the affiliation of media resources to a russian propaganda holding, i.e. to the russian propaganda machine, so in principle, other

channels should speak without restrictions with access to those frequencies and to those specific spheres and which they have in their agreements, and therefore, if we on the committee plan to raise this issue once again in the public sphere, so that it is simply not forgotten, it is very important here. social and publicity and attention, well, it is unlikely to be forgotten, especially in the performance of oleksiy matsuka, how these temniks existed in krinform, so i remember very well the beginning of the 2000s and the temniks that were from the office of the president of ukraine , which was headed by viktor medvedchuk and what was the resonance at that time, people in 2004 were forced to publicly repent of the fact that... they worked there in these dungeons. karandeev, rostislav, the acting minister of culture and

information policy, stated in an interview with interfax that the department, which would have in principle to understand what is happening in ukrinform, did not know about censorship in the ukrinform national information agency, although the ukrinform information agency is a state organization that belongs to the sphere of management of the ministry of culture, information policy, the ministry does not interfere. its editorial policy, so the ministry was unaware of the existence of the lists of so-called undesirable speakers you mentioned. karandiev also expressed confidence that with the appointment of the new head of ukrinform serhiy cherevaty there will be no such practices. mr. rostyslav, what happened in ukrinform, in principle, probably, if there had been no war, the publicity of this event would have been much wider, and yes, some people think, well, god is with us. censorship during war is possible, military censorship can be, and it is necessary, we understand that, but civil

censorship, censorship, when they say take this speaker to comment, don't take that one, uh, cover this event, this event not , do not highlight, in your opinion, if karandeev did not know about it, could it be an artistic amateur activity of the former head of ukrinform, well, actually. maybe it will all stop there? look, thank you for the question about censorship, because we really need to look into this, because there are so many general judgments that go against the law, because if you don't know how to do it, do it according to the law. paragraph one, the constitution of ukraine, clearly states, the constitution says, yes, that censorship is prohibited in ukraine, period. no civilian, military, military, gendarmerie, no, prohibited. what is

censorship, what, i'm sorry, is the constitution allows? it allows restrictions, distribution of certain information, and restrictions by law, this is very important, not by the cabinet of ministers, not by the chairman of the verkhovna rada, not by matsuka, not by the president's office, not by an adviser to the president's office, by law. in ukraine, there is the so-called 3+1 principle, which is prohibited by law in our country, three is what is direct. regarding the war, it is a criminal act in ukraine to spread information about the combat work of the defense forces, about the location of the defense forces and about the movement of the defense forces, and that's why they say, they saw the work of the air defense forces, well done, remember tell your children and grandchildren, but do not film and do not spread, because this is the spread of combat

work, a criminal penal act and so on, plus one - this is the spread of what yaroslav... briefly said, this is the spread of messages that are consistent with the aggressor state , what is this, this is the justification of aggression, this is the justification of the ideology of the russian world, this is the praise of the forces of the aggressor, and so on, there are different types of responsibility, from criminal to administrative, to banning the relevant organizations, and so on, but that's all, everything else, sorry , this is a matter of information dissemination and healthy atmosphere, i'm glad that we're all here... regardless of party flags, agreed that healthy criticism that offers alternatives is necessary, because all the examples you gave, mr. sergey, and that prosecutor, forgive me, and that matsuka , and everything else, they have a very important common feature, they are based on facts, these are not conjectures, these are not

lies, these are facts that should be investigated by law enforcement agencies, hence colleagues called articles of the criminal code, and so on, all this should work law enforcement system, and if it does not work, then this is the subject of justified criticism both in ukraine and abroad, because sorry, when the espresso channel, as well as the direct and fifth channels are non-digital broadcasting, this is illegal, because there is no law , there is no decree or even a reference to any decrees there about the unification of information capacities and so on, do not indicate the disconnection of channels, moreover , on the one hand, the european council, colleagues, ukraine is joining the eu and nato , discussing the issue of allocation of 50 billion euros to ukraine, clearly indicated what was the problem disconnection of three channels, the state department of the united states also called it a problem, so it will all have

to be fixed, the only question is, at what price and what else will ukraine pay? in the delay of help, in the fall of one's image and other things, other things, which, unfortunately, are paid for now with the blood of our defenders, it all depends, i'm sorry, on the responsibility of the authorities, so i have a huge request to those who make decisions in to ukraine, just understand one thing: ukraine is joining the eu and nato, and society will not let you deviate from this course, so all your censorship will be exposed, all your... or darkrooms will be exposed, and your corruption will also be exposed, so you better just get used to the new rules. thank you, mr. rostyslav, mr. oleksandr, you communicate quite actively with our western partners, how do they feel about what is happening in the media, in the press, in particular with the scandals regarding ukrinform and the disconnection of tv channels, do

our western partners often talk about , that despite everything... the foundations of democracy and freedom of speech, they should be cornerstones in a democratic country, which is ukraine. well, i did not discuss such specific issues with western partners or western colleagues, because we mainly talk about other issues related to the provision of military-technical assistance, support to ukraine and so on, but we all understand that , for example, if we take nato, we must understand that nato... as written in solid scientific monographs, it is also an organization that is united around certain values, including such values ​​as human rights, as democracy, as the rule of law. this also applies to the european union, i.e the issue of freedom of speech, the issue of criticism, this is an integral component of both the legal system

of the european union and the values ​​of nato, that is, if we really claim full participation in membership in these organizations, we must have the necessary high level of human rights protection, and if some events are happening. or situations related to the violation of freedom of speech and so on, then this right must be protected, one must fight, one must contact law enforcement agencies, go to court and so on, i believe that this is not only a right, it is it is the civil duty of every person, including a journalist, to protect their right, this is normal, this is democracy, well, obviously, it is the government's obligation to ensure the right and access to... information and not to limit mass media, because well with all due respect to the judicial system and to the appeal to the courts, but we understand that, in principle

, the problem is not that through the court to defend the right of espresso to be in t2, but the right of justice, which should be and which will have to be renewed and regarding espresso, regarding the fifth channel, regarding the direct channel, well but... we will wait for a decision in principle from the authorities, i think that the authorities will still hear us. one more topic, gentlemen, is quite relevant, this is the conference on the restoration of ukraine, it began today in berlin, the day before mustafa naim loudly slammed the door, and he wrote a statement from the position of the head of the agency for the restoration of ukraine, he said that shmyhal, the prime the prime minister of ukraine is sabotaging, or let's say, er... he did everything to ensure that the agency did not fulfill its duties, did not implement projects, and two more deputies

mustafa left and also resigned, but we can only see the reaction of shmygal, who says that mustafa did not actually go to berlin, because there will be a report on june 12, and they say that everything is related to this, or until... enough arguments we heard in this situation, taking into account the fact that the conference on the restoration of ukraine is important, and the agency headed by mustafa is still headed by mustafa, it is key in the restoration of ukraine, and this is how it looks to our western partners that the minister from she was going to germany, she could not meet with kubrakov, because he was suddenly dismissed, now mustafa naemny could leave for... countries, because the prime minister was against it, mr. rostislav, do you understand what is happening now in the government and in the central authorities, and why it is happening, how it affects

the atmosphere of our cooperation with western partners, especially on the day when an important conference is taking place in berlin, well, of course, there is nothing good in this, because today we have seen a lot. money, yes, good, it's on the first day, it's logical, statements, we heard about the promises of expanding military aid, expanding economic aid, but the president of the european commission, ursela vanderlajen, said, perhaps today, the key phrase, that even the allocation of the aid that was discussed today, it operates according to the logic and formula of reform for money or money for reforms , and what is this, my colleagues will provide... last week, the verkhovna rada agreed, ratifying a document that provides for specific points, specific indicators, which ukraine must achieve in

the issue of freedom of speech, by the way, and in the issue the rule of law, and in the issue of fighting corruption, and in the issue of the effectiveness of one's own administration, because for me, by the way, the fight against corruption is also an issue of the effectiveness of management, because corruption kills this effectiveness. kills the belief in justice and kills the proper distribution of resources, so it can be said that this atmosphere, as you say, that has been created, it is obviously unhealthy, eh, because the partners are no longer just shouting, or saying somewhere on the sidelines or in meetings, in you are now having a video series, and they are writing in the documents, and there is a resolution of the european parliament, which is generally aimed at supporting ukraine, the right things are written there about the aggressor. who is putin, where should he go and so on, but it is also about the fact that ukraine should use all opportunities and resources in order to convey its

position. and when it comes to the point that the head of the relevant agency is forced to talk about his resignation on the eve of the conference, well, it’s definitely not healthy when they write to him by hand in disagreement, although the apparatus there prepared the opposite resolution, yes, obviously these things could be work out the working order, understand who and how conducts conversations with partners, go through the work component and then make some personnel conclusions. if they are important, well , after all, mustafa made his statement yesterday, yes , the day before, and kubrakov, yes, well, sorry, more than a week has passed since he was removed, well, who instead deals with these decisions, who should the authorities talk to instead, i it seems that this is a completely irresponsible approach, which says that they owe you, they owe us all, and therefore somehow it will be, well, forget it, because the fact that ukraine thank god, and by the way, the most important thing to thank is the armed forces, that ukraine...

achieved the fact that it will now be negotiating with the european union about membership, then it must be understood that in the future there will be no concessions, that in the future we will not be able to talk, that someone owes us and so on, we are forced to conduct the conversation professionally, and part of the professional conversation is to make it clear to our partners that all the authorities and the opposition speak with one voice, that there will be no restrictions. departure, including the ruling and opposition deputies, this problem applies practically of the entire parliament that there will be no such surprises in power, because it unfortunately just shows that, well, as the partners like to say, you still have to do your homework, you know, it's counterproductive when this kind of signal is sent, instead of , that all of ukraine is united in the fact that we are going to europe and defending our right to exist, mr.

oleksandr, is there really? some serious complaints against mustafa nayem and oleksandr kubrakov, which already led to the resignation of one and the near resignation of the other, because he wrote a statement of resignation, i mean mustafa naim, so that our viewers somehow understand why this is happening, if mustafa naim in this situation should not be responsible for the construction of the fortification there. and protective structures on the basis of a gesture, why did he make this statement on the eve of the restoration of the forum on the restoration of ukraine, so what, what, how do you see this whole story from the inside? well, the fact is that i personally do not have any complaints against specific people, but the fact that there are personnel changes, especially during the war, it is perhaps a normal phenomenon, and

each, each episode, i think, should ... consider separately and look for the reason, specific reasons, but i believe that if you are an official and occupy a responsible position, then you have a choice: either you implement what you believe in, implement it in your program, defend your principles, or you just capitulate and resign, that is , each person decides in his own way, this is the right of every official, it seems to me that if a person really believes in what... he is doing, then he must fight to the end and must, well, choose his right , implement your program, and we have a phone number yaroslav yurchyshyn, because we had some communication problems, mr. yaroslav, you obviously know this story with mustafa nayem in more detail and what the representatives of non-governmental forces and... corruption

forces are saying, what, what they say who in this situation is right, who is wrong, and who will put an end to this conflict that has begun, and we are witnesses of this conflict, who, who should put an end to it? well, it is the full responsibility of the government to take such steps on the eve of the conference to provoke, well, actually a demonstration of disunity in ukraine. who teams, well, in my opinion, at least short-sighted, but at the same time, well, we can hear a positive assessment there from the point of view of the anti-corruption organizations there or the recovery organizations, but that will be their focus, and we hear the government's own position about that the report is critically needed.