finland's acceptance of sweden into the alliance is, in my opinion, a very powerful step, and i am sure that putin did not expect this because he believed to the last that the norwegian would block it in this entry, this process, because he apparently did not achieve what he demanded regarding there is the kursk issue and uh, putin will calmly declare to himself that he sees uh, there is no unity in the alliance. the alliance was not able to advance and they were so sure of this that uh, in fact, no one was able to comment on it, even from the russian side, it is normal putin said something on like well, they have no claim against us and let them enter and so on, we only have claims against ukraine. that is, this is a clear geopolitical loss for russia, and here i agree that just in relation to finland , sweden, uh, nato worked very effectively, but in relation to ukraine, for example, i think it is such a paradoxical thing. the european union seems to have always been such an amorphous management compared

to nato - it is an organization that was very calm , they tried to interfere somewhere in some such uh conflict matters, but providing candidate status of ukraine to moldova it was a very uh very bold step and uh, i would compare it to providing, for example, an action plan regarding membership in ukraine, that is, in fact, an action plan regarding membership, it is an announcement of candidate status for some country, so i don't understand, for example why it would not be possible to provide ukraine with an action plan regarding nato membership, it cost nothing at all for nato. if we talk about any consequences, well, what could putin do, i cannot understand it, but from the point of view of geopolitics, providing ukraine with a plan actions regarding membership in nato against the background of providing a candidate in the european union would demonstrate the unity of the approach of the geopolitical course of the european union and

the euro-atlantic community in relation to ukraine and in relation to the support of ukraine, it would be simply powerful, but you noticed that this issue is not even something that has not been discussed, it seems that the parties agreed not to mention him at all in his eyes , the words pdc for ukraine or georgia, and this seems to me to be a very, very wrong signal for russia. well, in fact, this is quite an important moment as his which you emphasized because the question of ukraine's accession to nato was raised in such a way that it would be considered only after the end of the war, and it was said that the door to nato remains open to ukraine, although it seems that zelenskyi said that it is actually like the kyiv metro, is there a turnstile that is open when you approach, it closes and you have to pay a certain price so that it does not happen directly with ukraine, we will join ukraine in nato,

but there is another side of the coin when directly ukrainian officials gave somewhat ambiguous signals as to whether ukraine wants to join nato or not , in particular, the same deputy head of the president's office, ihor zhovkva, seems to have been saying for some time that we do not aspire to join nato at all, because nato as an organization was not very effective at the first stage of hostilities, then his message appeared literally yesterday. yes, we are ready to join nato, and more than that, we are already ready to be accepted there, and in particular, the minister of foreign affairs, kuli, i said that yes it is written in the constitution . there was such an e-er implication that if sweden and finland were accepted without

the pdc, then why wouldn't ukraine accept without the pdc if ukraine, for example, is ready and yesterday its zhovkva and it seems that kuleba also declared that in fact , we already have nato standards in fact there e- that's all accepted and used on the battlefield, and in ukraine there is a unique difference from other countries, the atom we are at war with russia, that is, if we remember how the alliance was created in general, it was created to counter this evil empire, so no one from russia is with russia this evil empire, which is so logical the continuation of putov's russia is a logical continuation of the soviet union, so only ukraine dared to fight against this evil empire, and therefore we are actually ready to become a member of nato, but again the approach of the alliance is a little unclear to me if

ukraine is really a problem with democratic institutions with reforms of the sbu there, other law enforcement structures or problems with the courts and so on. what really exists and this problem needs to be solved by an action plan regarding membership which for example, it would be announced that such a plan would be provided, it is, on the contrary , aimed at studying these problems. i do not see any obstacles at all to this plan of actions regarding membership could be adopted now and, uh, it could be started to be implemented in parallel with the war, because that's why that this absolutely does not interfere with carrying out, for example, judicial reform or the reform of the sbu or even preparing some changes or drafts of e-e laws simply within the framework of the action plan for membership, the candidate country gets much more opportunities to implement ford, then it is simply a similar illogical approach of nato, which for example, i have been constantly saying

in recent years that on the one hand it is actually the decision of the bukharev summit in april 2008. it is written clearly in the final revolution that ukraine and georgia will become members of nato, but it is not said when and as well as in this there is a problem, that is, if they were what ukraine wanted in 2008, we received the pdp at that time. i am not saying whether there would be a war between russia against georgia and ukraine. i think not, because the situation would change radically but on the other hand, ukraine and georgia would have 100% much more opportunities to carry out reforms and to approach these standards, to approach those valuable frameworks in which the nato countries live. but if we return directly to the tone itself, then and the adopted price strategy, or is there actually any key points that can really be perceived as

strengthening ukraine's capabilities directly in the fight against the russian federation, what key points would you single out if they are such, in fact the main thing is that there really were no discussions within the alliance within the framework of some formal informal events well, this reminded me of the atmosphere of the previous meeting j7, when it was noticeable that all the leaders of the big countries understand absolutely clearly that ukraine must be refused and russia in the form in which it is exists, that is, within the framework of putin's regime, it does not exist, and the same thing was confirmed during this process, i think that this is the most important thing, in fact , nato

itself . for the further development of the alliance and everything, as it seems to us now, the connection with mykhailo has been lost. i hope that we will now establish it, and i will add that in fact, when talking about the nato summit and ukraine, in relation to ukraine, there was a phrase that significantly determines the directions of interaction with ukraine it is that ukraine can count on us as much as it is necessary, this is what the nato vice-secretary from toltenberg said in particular, in these words,

conceptual approaches are laid, which are implemented in several directions, although there is indeed a perception on the part of the ukrainian side that directly in the country, certain countries of nato, and the alliance itself provides such, conditionally speaking, ideologically , the provision of cover. to annoy the russian federation, as we can see, all the aid that came directly from nato to ukraine is mainly non-lethal weapons, in particular, there are protective bulletproof vests and so on. and the direct lethal potential was provided by individual nato countries that worked on the basis of bilateral agreements with ukraine, not in the rammstein format where

multilateral e-e interaction was directly ensured and where we received a significant list of weapons of the main american british polish and our own those very components of the three grandfathers of the state ensured at the first stage a significant strengthening of ukrainian defense capabilities, because it can be said that the reserves of these states are much greater than those of other nato countries, in particular, european countries, which were actually engaged in the demetralization of their armies all the time, frankly, because for a long time it was believed that there will be no hostilities in europe, there will be no need to spend a lot of money on defense, and right now the situation looks like ukraine is forced to rely directly on the help of allies and such as the united states, and countries such as directly germany today cannot provide the urgent support that

ukraine needed, directly returning now to that and then in madrid, we can talk about the fact that a number of technological projects were also started in madrid within the framework of the alliance , the nato countries decided to start an innovation fund with a volume of about 1 billion dollars in order to choose projects that should contribute to the overall defense system being more effective, because it says literally before the nato summit appeared one of the publications in which it was said that today nato actually does not have any concept that could be applied in the format of actions that are being implemented there today directly there near severodonetsk or there near popasna when russia uses significant the amount of artillery in such a volume in such a volume that it is even difficult to imagine from the point of view of

those concepts that existed today in nato as a method of countermeasures, although it is somewhat strange because you can say that nato and other nato countries knew what actually the army of the russian federation is actually an artillery army that uses its reserves of e-e and artillery weapons in such a significant amount that e-e no army of the world can resist in such a linear format of confrontation, and therefore right now i hope that the nato countries will revise and technological countermeasures will be introduced, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the question of increasing the number of european armies, increasing the number of weapons used by these armies to uploading the defense-industrial complexes of european countries so that they produce more

weapons and more equipment that will be used directly on the contact line. if this war reaches directly to the nato countries, it should also be emphasized that in accordance with the results of the same nato ukraine, in principle, still counts on systematic assistance from all e-e countries, if the question of joining nato does not arise, this does not mean that those areas that are mutually beneficial and will not be implemented between nato and ukraine in particular, we remember the statements from totenberg and the minister of defense of ukraine varshkikov and commander zuluzhny that ukraine is moving to nato standards and actually to nato weapons, because the direct combat operations showed that the stocks of soviet weapons that

the ukrainian army has and possesses today are running out about the fact that the weapons are being replaced at will with those samples supplied to us by nato countries, and of course this is nato's own weaponry, and we see that this number also has a significant number of howitzers and heimers are still not in such a quantity as we would like. however, they are still being supplied, and the rotary systems of anti-aircraft defense systems are all just samples that were developed in nato countries and the use of which includes nato procedures. so this is an objective process of the transition of ukrainian arsenals to nato e-e standards and nato capabilities . it is difficult to say how quickly this process was completed, but we can see that so far, nato weapons are the main direction of the balance of this power, which is in of the russian federation and our capabilities on the

battlefield, it is also important for us that in reality there are certain risks from the point of view of how far the alliance will be ready to implement the decision of the madrid site, because it is possible to say whether there is a certain dispersion in the vision of the low countries of the prospects for how the war should end in ukraine and what exactly to do with the russian federation and putin directly because if she says that such countries of the united states, britain and poland are determined to ensure complete dominance over the russian federation and the understanding of what evil is, which ignores all interstate agreements and civilized rules of the game, must be punished. other countries that are also members of nato take such an intermediate position, trying to ensure a balance between their interests, the interests of the

alliance and to take into account the risks or the prospects that exist in relations with the russian federation. i am speaking directly about germany and france , because it can be said that there are attempts to repeatedly hold meetings, negotiations with putin, both before the war and during the war, in particular, from the same france, showed that in fact this does not have any positive result. and in general, it creates some kind of additional architemization of putin's actions in general, which actually well, no, absolutely, it's not inappropriate in under these conditions, we can say that the summit in madrid will provide certain positive directions for our defense to be based on direct international support. this is actually happening, but the main thing is that we should also say that the potential for the conduct of hostilities so far mainly relies on the

capabilities of the ukrainian army and, as all the participants themselves noted, nato and directly during the meetings and in the official and behind the scenes, everyone says that directly the negotiations with the russian federation are mainly conducted on the field battle so that you can say that you can talk about the fact that the ukrainian army itself provides the opportunities to create all the prerequisites for further negotiations with the russian federation that they will be possible were carried out after we receive specific advantages in all directions in the introduction of hostilities, so far it is actually a bit early to talk about it because on all the fronts where we maintain the defense of the burning front, let me remind you, it is now 1,300 km. this is directly the hottest area and we are trying restrain the enemy and

for now we are trying to stabilize the front line, that is, in fact, we are still reacting to the offensive actions that the russian federation is carrying out today in the most fierce areas, that is lysychansk directly and the zone around the bahmut and of course the zone from the raisin where the gate is also trying to move towards our territory to what extent this strategy is perceived in the countries of e-e natos of the united states if we hm po po carefully observe the publications in foreign publications, in particular in the leading american publications one way or another , we see that on the one hand it is noted that the ukrainian army is really putting up strong resistance to the russian army, which, using its advantage in artillery, is pushing in certain directions, and with

on the other hand, we can see that the scenarios that foreign experts are beginning to describe are quite restrained, which to me, to be honest, raises certain questions, in fact, in particular, just a few days ago, or rather yesterday, there was a publication where the reuters agency was gathering the conclusions of the manager of the us central intelligence agency and in railgates, which described possible scenarios for further hostilities between ukraine and russia, she said that at least three options for the future, the most improbable of which are being considered, are a protracted conflict with step-by-step gains of the russians, but without solving this key goal that putin set for himself - this is the

capture of all of ukraine directly, the second option scenario - this is serious breakthroughs by the russian federation, and the third option - this is the stabilization of the front line and the achievement of tactical successes of the ukrainian army, possibly in the direction of kherson occupied by the russians or other places in the south of ukraine, in fact, in these scenarios there are those where for some reason the scenario of the victory of ukraine over russia is not included federation or the displacement of the russian federation directly to the borders on february 23, this indicates that, relatively speaking, there is a feeling that directly in the united states, which today is the main sponsor of our military operations, the main country and our partner in the introduction of military actions against the russian federation have two wings, each of which has its own vision of how

far we should advance in military actions against the russian federation, on the one hand, it is, relatively speaking, the party of war and the party of justice to which i attribute directly to the pentagon and the state department and the state department, whose leaders are directly determined to ensure that we quickly receive the maximum amount of military aid and, one might say, such a moderate party among the conditional peacekeepers to which we belong, to which it can be attributed directly to the national security council of the united states and perhaps even representatives of this central intelligence who make such forecasts, who set up for such a slow, moderate perception in these hostilities that ukraine is conducting today. by the way, if we we recall the central intelligence of the united states on may 110, the same head of the e-e spoke in

the congress and made a somewhat similar prediction regarding the nature of the future actions between ukraine and the russian federation in- she spoke of the fact that, relatively speaking, a war of attrition is beginning, it was just in uh, in may, when we actively expected help from the united states and hoped that this help would come quickly, but as we can see, caviar is only now arriving, although it could have been done much earlier, what she said then 10 in may, she said that putin has not changed his plans, he wants to ensure complete control over ukraine and control over the northern belt along the sea to odessa, the enemy does not have enough strength. this was said in may. and now we see that the russian federation has problems with personnel

that lead to participation in hostilities, now absolutely all the reserves that they can pull up are being used, and at the same time, heinz warned that when there will be a conflict in the russian federation between ambitions, that is, to seize all of ukraine or to achieve victory and the possibility of m.m. that somehow it is necessary to restrain the offensive of the ukrainian side, then this can lead to unforeseen consequences, in particular, even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and this topic regarding the nuclear weapons of the russians is still in such an expert-analytical space as one of the options for the fact that it is necessary not to annoy russia, if, relatively speaking, we provide a lot of weapons to ukraine and it can quickly push russia to the borders of our state, then this may just cause

such an inadequate action of the russian federation on the one hand, i think that this is an exaggeration, but when such statements are made directly by the heads of the central intelligence agency, then it has the opportunity to restrain the provision of military aid, in particular, by representatives of this relatively moderate party in the ranks of the united states, when we talk directly about other states that, hmm, also assess the prospects of the consequences of our war, we have already mentioned directly and about germany and about france, which have been trying to negotiate with putin for a long time, i think that the influence of these financial, political, industrial lobbies in these countries, which are trying to return to business as usual, may also have echoes for the policies

implemented by these together with the security of ukraine, how do we get out of this situation when, on the one hand, the alliance makes decisions that are quite important , they are positive from the point of view that they support the unity of the countries of europe in countermeasures of the russian federation, but on a practical level , such a new fortress is being built directly on the territory of a nato country, and the issue of assistance to ukraine is emphasized as important . interesting paradoxical solutions, because you can say that the president of ukraine spoke at the nato summit, addressing the leaders of nato, that we want

to receive a guarantee of security in wartime, of course the main guarantee of security is effective assistance from countries such as the united states, but there are also separate auxiliary solutions that can be perceived and promoted by the sound side, in particular, if we are talking about the fact that britain and poland are countries that are trying to implement separate policies directly related to strengthening of ukraine in view of the most effective aid and even before the war after the war there were decisions that this separate block of countries where poland and britain will help ukraine within the framework of a separate union these initiatives as well. i think they have the right to life, and when we talk about poland and additional security guarantees directly within the framework of nato and in poland, that is, i held

. receive further from the united states so that they, conditionally speaking , take over part of the zone of responsibility directly over ukrainian territory, perhaps this causes such different expert values, but it was an important element of interaction of the security forces of ukraine and nato countries and it would be a good sign that the alliance is really ready to invest forces and means to solve the most urgent and complex issue that ukraine faces today - closing the airspace from enemy missile strikes. it is also important to talk about the fact that nato countries can to provide ukraine with a significant amount of e-e intelligence information, such measures are already being implemented on the basis of receiving satellite images received by the ukrainian army, but the united states and

nato countries have such powerful resources as aircraft advance, which are on duty in the air, where reconnaissance planes have the opportunity to assess 500 km deep into the territory of the enemy. what is happening on the battlefield, and this data is absolutely necessary for the ukrainian army to conduct defensive and offensive operations, in fact, all these e approaches can be expanded so that there really is an overlap between the capabilities and capacities of the alliance as a whole and the capabilities of ukraine itself . thursday and the adoption of the decision already directly in the newest concept of nato, they are really quite historical because for the first time the russian federation is recognized as a threat to nato, the

risks posed directly by china, which is also noted for the first time in the nato strategy, and the adopted decisions that will require the european of countries absolutely more drastic decisions, this is an increase in defense, an increase in the number of their own armies, conducting completely different approaches to the organization of exercises, and a completely different goal, i.e. to ensure that the threat is not reflected, that the threat is not reflected , that the russians do not even want to touch any of the nato countries, given the capabilities that nato will have from the point of view of quick response to the threatening actions of the russian federation. so, let's hope that all these decisions will be implemented in a specific project program, and there really won't be a certain

dispersion, let's say, in the ranks of nato itself, because for a long time there was a discussion directed at the fact that, in particular, there is only a small part of the alliance countries spends sufficient funds on defense needs exceeds that this indicator of 2% of the waste member of the product . to provide defensive actions in critical situations , this actually happened and it was true before, but we see that now the format of the threat has completely changed and now all countries have to show their e-e real e financial technological capabilities so that the construction of security in europe was much stronger in view of the behavior