this is a basic agreement as a security, as soon as some nuclear country applies anything nuclear, this whole concept will collapse and in the next 5 years we will have 20 more nuclear states and attention, including ukraine. they will understand all this, i am telling you once again, listen carefully to my words as soon as russia tries to demonstrate something. in 5 years, all these countries will have nuclear weapons, and once again, including ukraine, so no one wants to allow such a development, that is, they will not allow it, and in the first place, it is not necessary for russia, because then they are theirs they are losing all their leverage. and for a moment, they have not only the front, uh, our uh, with ukraine, they have a large perimeter, they have a large perimeter of the south , they have china, they have a lot of things, uh, that is

why, in principle, the military is there we understand, let's not think that they are after all, they may be unfreezing, but they are definitely not stupid, and it is clear that these decisions are primarily political by this group and putin, and not by the military, because but i think that in the event of a nuclear attempt there, the military will have their say and they absolutely will not be delighted with the performance such a team, because you mean mr. valery, that all the performers who will be in this chain, who are from putin and to the person who will press the button to send the missile, that they will still stop uh, this frenzy and attempts, let's say, to destroy the balance of what was after the second world war in the world, there were already such cases in history when political commands were issued to use nuclear weapons, and uh, intercontinental ballistic missiles were uh. this

story is well-known, and it is not the only one . this the button is already the last, all the commands. imagine that all the commands above him were given and only he had to actually turn the key at the end, he didn't do it, that is, at the moment when the clock was already ticking there, if he had to answer, he pulled as a result. well, it turned out that it was false activation of the system is very dangerous, then actually these lines were installed because about such an activation, it’s all the same, it’s the same technique, it can be anything. that’s what i’m afraid of more than anything, there is a danger here if there will be something like that, that’s rhetoric discussions, see what is happening all the time, the discussion is beginning to be discussed as if it were some ordinary matter, it is very dangerous , it affects everyone, those who make decisions, not

those who implement decisions. that is, there should be a simple taboo on this during the soviet union, there was fear before that, that is, and that is why this major or lieutenant colonel, i don't remember, he lived in the usa even after that, he didn't do it, violating everything that can be violated, all the orders, he violated everything, but saved the world from this use of ballistic missiles, i am sure that it will be too difficult to convince them that it is necessary, yes, with a 99-99 probability, because there have been tougher situations and fires in history, and with tactical weapons, there is a danger , because it is still a different, different type, if only the consequences are the same strategic, just there are fewer charges. well, unfortunately, the concept is russian, it ’s soviet, they have it, it’s a weapon of mass destruction, not destruction, that is, they consider it

as a battlefield weapon, that is, that it can be used. well, i’ll tell you simply without going into details for that to be supported there there are some big points to attack, uh, there are 330 km , let's say it's not one, not two, and not even 10 nuclear charges. you understand that they have a completely different concept. they are t-55 tanks and the following ones from the times of podernsk . -e to this zone and i’m just saying t-55 60s , you understand for a long time. of the caribbean crisis by this application of the chain so he is the same uh, i'll tell you. yes, it's the same. i think many people make the mistake of seeing from journalists that tactical nuclear weapons are much easier to use . there, it's just automatic than strategically. nothing

like that is possible without political decisions, and without political decisions, you wo n't be able to move . its application to this howitzer or missile or the missile will not be able to be put into a combat position, that is, the same chain is complex , but it is not the main fuse, the main fuse, the inevitability of the response, that is, already in the period if it was in february, march, when russia could blackmail so openly, it ends now, they were told not to chat, not just, but don't chat about it, that's why i think they are chatting at the nearest level, well, at least putin will stop chatting, well , baidy already said that eh- there is no need to start it - it is impossible to win a nuclear war, it is better not to start it at all. i think that he said it quite accurately, the position is wrong. i think,

well , my opinion. gramyka is the former minister of legislation of the soviet union. but i believe that i told them this in a word, that is, some things with russia must be done harshly and they did not do it in advance. it was never very difficult to knock out lethal weapons from them. it was very difficult to explain that if they show strength, putin will advance. well, you see the result. well, everyone makes mistakes . the statement that the nuclear apocalypse will not stop the use of tactical nuclear weapons is not the right answer, because i say it again, it is completely different. for the consequences in terms of volume are complex, it is difficult to understand, but believe me, well, i will say yes, of course, it is difficult to understand in our conditions, but even

the use of tactical nuclear weapons will not be a disaster for ukraine and for the people who will die there, yes, it is very very it is a difficult situation, but it will not be difficult for us to deal with it, we will not leave. 40 million people are all from ukraine, that is unrealistic, then they want to take over the country as a whole, but where do we go , that is, we have no choice. rockets should also be extended to any use of chemical, tactical, nuclear , biological weapons by russia for decisive action. well, i don't want to suggest that the americans know very well what levers conventional weapons they have, i know very well that they have types of power weapons, well, much more accurate and powerful, which

will strike russia in return, a tangible blow, even with minimal human casualties, but definitely in the heart or, i don’t know, in the body of this monster, that is, they know how to do it to me too the only big request is that they should do it more publicly, because these are all statements. we have catastrophic consequences. there is something else, well , the indicator is not enough, but they are not yet a warning about the sheremet of large-scale invasions and the consequences of sanctions, so far nothing has worked. they have to take a step forward, make a public stopping statement, it is waiting for time, i understand they will do it, but they are still waiting for russia to weaken, they do not want russia to further weaken this strategy , but what they are ready to give is not just rhetorical

yes, a very specific military answer, i have no doubts, friends, we are working live on the espresso tv channel, as well as on our social networks on youtube and facebook. if you are watching us now live on youtube, please like this video and subscribe to our youtube channel. under this video you can see the sponsor button, you can become a sponsor of our youtube channel, there are small amounts for donations. come in, please, support us, we will be grateful to you, we work for you 24 hours a day seven days a week, read our news on the espresso tv website, mr. valeriu, is already the person who now governs the crimea, and he is under the control of russia, serhiy aksyonov said what goals the

pseudo-referendum pursues, he says that the new status will make it possible to hold them, according to him in its territories, not specifically a military operation, but a counter-terrorist operation for the people, the most important achievement is the determination, let's hear aksyonov how will the family determine the point of no return, all this will already be the russian territory for the people of the last answer to the main questions is that what is further is a full-fledged sublyk of the russian federation. well, accordingly, the rules that our side will take to protect the twilight of the traditional federation are already fighting for our territory, that is, this is also not ours. from the first day they will not leave, of course , that is, as if for the encirclement, it is necessary to undertake certain shevelas at the front, but nevertheless, that is, clarity, therefore, the determination for людей это самое главное достижение

коротье получится от решеду предендула, russian sources write that the so-called dpr, lpr, part of the kherson and zaporizhzhia regions may enter the crimean federal district, along with the peninsula itself, after this pseudo-referendum. well, they already say that the new er the representative of the president can become the former lyceum of the prime minister as well as the head of the space agency dmytro rogozin why why am i actually mentioning crimea and this possible federal district that they are trying to draw now because it is different it is difficult to say, there is no referendum in these territories, the sociology that they give even there, 80% passed the vote. this is a lie, and in the conditions of war, no sociology works. moreover, under the muzzles of automatic weapons, why did i mention crimea? in 2014, you worked as a deputy head the administration of president poroshenko well, then they worked in the united states of america as the extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador of ukraine

. the annexation of crimea began this aggressiveness with which the russian federation began to seize ukrainian territories almost with impunity, don't they think then that they made a mistake by not intervening in the situation around the crimean peninsula? of the president after eh, i mean that all the time my personal reaction was in the organization on march 5, 2014, that is, at the site even then near the square of the ukrainian crisis media center, which immediately gave the world information about the real plans of russia

and that we need to act more decisively, so i don’t want to say if i was at that meeting of the national security council where there were those who made decisions at that time about crimea, that is, for me to do it, i only know that i need to have all the information here. but yes, we are very dissatisfied everything that er ukraine then er did not carry out a full-fledged defense for various reasons. that is to say, it is true and, well, you can remember in hindsight , i was very surprised at that time, to be honest, knowing our previous actions in the crimea when mishkov was sacked by tsikal once upon a time, and i was working at that time i was working then together with those people executed by yevhen marchuk when in 1995, in three nights, that is, when the crimea branch was like that, alpha sbu came

in, units came in, they cut off all the water supply there, as if the electricians came in, arrested all the instigators of these pseudo-presidents, isolated them, then sent them to russia in general and everything was suppressed by force. i thought that we also had the opportunity to have the same planes of the landing force, which of the pskov landing force, which landed simply openly in the crimea, that they could, well, at least not allow this how was the landing done in gostomel? by the way, you did it. we did it now in gostomel. well, by what means? well, in gostomel, too, there were the same regular weapons that were there. there was nothing new , mistingers. we didn’t have anything in gostomel, that is, everything was done. also, i was surprised that they were allowed to land there, but uh, well, that's all , that is, my entire impression from that time, uh, now,

are there any conclusions in america that it was a mistake, well , another administration came, then joseph biden passed, who is in the administration obama's bar was occupied he still called for a different position, as far as i know, for more decisive actions, therefore, in principle, this is already history, and you have to draw conclusions from it. well, look at our possibilities at that time, i will simply ask you a counter question, if we all criticize that time well, the fact that we didn't do a full-fledged, maybe we threw everything we had at the defense of crimea, everything we had, uh, we didn't have much. unfortunately, yanukovych collapsed, that's why we are like this, after how many years we allowed the occupation of kherson from crimea why did you allow egress from crimea? mariupol for the whole week, we already knew everything, we already knew what to do, we can't. we need defense

. and what did we allow again, so you know, let's leave it for historical analysis, because now there are concrete threats today, we'll deal with the past later, the americans... they made their conclusions for many years, we had to convince them that only decisive action would stop putin, it all started with the provision of lethal weapons to us, a little at first, a persian counter-strike, then an order, then they moved on from the 19th year it became obvious to everyone that not from the 19th from the 22nd from the 19th there was just a kind of reassurance that it started again we canceled the programs we had already developed for helicopters and anti-missile defense systems we followed this path a few years, and unfortunately it all stopped from the 19th to the 22nd. and now that russia has already attacked, there is no illusion in america, politics is completely different. we

could not imagine how quickly the general approach can change. we can say anything that is not enough, there is no help there the involvement of countries on our side in the war is true, but to imagine that the world around ukraine is consolidating like this. well, honestly, very few people could. and the fact that the preparatory work of the 14th year was carried out for many years without this preparatory work is unlikely to do anything if we were to work now, we might have received the same crimea, but due to the fact that this was not the first time and there had been eight years of training, the armed forces of ukraine were actually created in a new way, and now even the offensive operation showed that it is of a completely different level uh the armed forces are something that is not in quantity but in quality, this is already western standards, that's why i think that it is necessary to

look into the future, not to make mistakes, to understand that three things, first, politicians must create the conditions for the effective operation of the armed forces, which according to the constitution are in conditions of war -e have an obligation to defend ukraine, the first is the second - the hopeless interaction of the rear and all the mobilization of all the forces of society with such large nuclear countries as russia, well, it is difficult to win, and we are confident of our victory, but it can only be after combining all efforts and third, we must continue to work on consolidating support for ukraine in the world, now the new task is how to turn the so-called neutral countries into countries that will definitely be on our side. this is our task today, and in this

regard, to maintain the support of countries like italy at the same level where the elections were held and there will be a slightly different coalition, that is, to prevent this coalition from developing in accordance with the sanctions supporting weapons is our task, and in this regard, putin is very serious about helping us now with his crazy statements. does it make sense in this situation to appeal to the budapest memorandum, or in principle, in the current situation, it can be said that countries other than russia, which guaranteed our security , are now helping us? i have i mean in the context of ukraine's possible acquisition of the status of a nuclear power in the event that the scenario we discussed with you will lead to 20 countries receiving nuclear weapons in the future. well, i it's a paradoxical thing, but until today i would say no. well, it really didn't work and there was

no result. but after these statements, i think that yes , we should appeal. why did everyone prove to us? well, i'm telling you this. as a former deputy minister of foreign affairs, i myself prepared letters to all these countries that they confirmed their guarantees, they confirmed, uh, the usa, britain confirmed the guarantee , france, china, they sent somewhat similar notes, somewhat weaker, but in fact, also confirming that they confirmed negative security guarantees. what is this it means that they themselves will not attack with nuclear weapons, that is, now it turns out that there are five nuclear countries and only one nuclear country attacked us, but not with nuclear weapons today, while others say we guaranteed that we will not attack me, we attack, we guaranteed you that in in the event of an attack, all these things are there, there will be consultations, there will be support. we are helping , but at this moment we need to raise the issue, after all, yes, in the budapest memorandum,

there is no prescribed reaction if one of the countries uses or threatens, and how all the others act, but all these things they are written in the un charter, they are written in the relevant conventions against nuclear terrorism. well, one question must be asked in these countries. there must be some kind of joint statement by the countries participating in the budapest memorandum, including china and france, that is, britain, the united states, china and france, or they, but although would these things that nuclear threats are impossible, i.e. against ukraine, because there are such obligations on the part of russia. well, although all this is the first, the second, we must put before them, put this document political, although it is unfortunately political well, they really didn't have the right to write down the guarantees . but it's all the same to the people who didn't. and now they offered us neutrality. and now oleksandr chalyy and the whole

group are offering some guarantees. they pushed for a signature, that's not making a mistake, we need to talk about something else now with our allies, the nuclear states, position one, what will we do after the de-occupation of the territory, what kind of security umbrella will there be in ukraine, well, it can take a long time there i believe that there should be a system of collective defense and not self-defense with the help of how we are currently promoting collective self-defense - this is the entry into the organization of the north atlantic treaty in europe. well, and the second thing that should be said is perhaps about other mechanisms, which others are the signing of a bilateral agreement with britain that it can be done in principle already during the visit of the prime minister of great britain to ukraine in the coming weeks. there should be an agreement, not a framework agreement, but an alliance agreement on mutual protection and defense, this agreement should be

that we stand on the defense, as it would not sound strange before, but now it does not sound strange to britain. in the event of an attack on britain, ukraine then enters the war on the side of britain and britain is now going to war, or in the event of further threats, the deadlines for the introduction of this document will be recorded, and the same is true of the united states, and the step that needs to be taken now is very fast work on our missile program . it has two internal components - this is the budget to which the budget will now be adopted, the funds should be allocated and reoriented to the missile program, we have the right to short-range medium missiles , that is, we will start with 500-1000 km and have the right to 5.5 thousand the treaty that restrained russia and the usa has been destroyed, and ukraine has never had obligations under this treaty, we fulfilled it so morally. that's why we need non-nuclear

deterrence weapons, these are missiles that reach the main european territory of russia as a factor of deterrence even of nuclear weapons, high-precision missile non-nuclear weapons and we have to get a good one. let 's be honest. before, no one, even in their imagination, wanted to allow us to do this, including our allies. now we have to solve this issue politically. due to the new circumstances, mr. valery, at the end of our program, i wanted to ask you about the partial or full mobilization, for sure no one understands what is happening there, because we know that russia declares one thing, does another, signs decrees about one thing, a completely different thing is being done. volodymyr zelenskyi says that russian mobilization is a constant stream of cannon fodder. russian society is not aware of the brutality of its government

in relation to its own people. of the most cynical murders of their own soldiers, when we see this, when we see these offensives, we are once again convinced that the russian mobilization is a frank attempt to give commanders on the ground a constant flow of cannon fodder of a different meaning in there is simply no russian mobilization, they felt that they are losing and are simply trying to delay this moment to ensure at least some activity at the front, to put at least someone with a weapon in their hands in place of the dead, unfortunately, russian society is not yet aware of all the cruelty of the russian government towards its own people. but we have to do all so that every citizen of russia recognizes that his own state is

depriving him of the most important right to life. mobilization in russia, they are quite calmly and very well received in different countries in the same georgia , the americans said that they will consider the applications of those who will flee and, well, give some kind of definite answer, what to do with the country that is in in principle, it is a country for terrorists, but some people flee from there, but they do not flee because they do not agree that russia is at war with ukraine , because they do not want to be mobilized . i think it is eternal

russian problem. they always run away from any situation. they run away. and you are not surprised, because they fled from russia before, they did not want to fight internally, now we have many russian journalists in various positions, russians work 175,000 russian citizens in ukraine, you are not surprised that they fled earlier, when they could leave as nemtsov gave his life, a politician gave his life, called a spade a spade, called putin a terrorist, a murderer , when everyone was afraid to say that word, that is, putin killed him, but the politician, well, there are russians who fought. that is, we know their names. and those who fled , including those who fled to us before, well, i have the same attitude towards them as i do towards those who are now fleeing. well, the thing is that other countries put them one by one like refugees somewhere the level with ukrainian refugees is a strange situation, in fact

, that is, a very paradoxical situation will emerge, well, these are countries, so they will, in principle , do this in a dosed manner. the same georgia will close the border because it is a danger that for them, a lot of people can infiltrate there, and then they will within uh, from the same georgia, georgia will still have great consequences from this resettlement of russians to them, it will have great negative consequences, america will do it selectively, taking those who are beneficial to them and then also preparing there uh for intelligence agents against that is, russia. well, let's say that, in principle, each country is pursuing its own consequences here. in general, from the point of view of morality, it does not hold any meaning. the answer is difficult. well, that is, it is some kind of double standard, you understand, and that georgia is pragmatism, that is, i don't know. in this way, someone will replenish their human resources,

someone will achieve other things about mobilization, it is more important, it is not already visible, full mobilization in russia, because in part we mean reservists . in waves, the numbers will be those that will be possible , they will now collect as many as possible. i think that the point is well, hmm, in principle, without weapons, just collect them, they can collect up to a million but we need to understand that this it is not an easy thing, we need to react to it, but we need to understand one thing. i will end it with this. the mobilization of russia's defense is no longer the mobilization of a further attack on ukraine. thank you valeriy for the conversation. years, politicians and diplomats, friends, those who are currently watching us online,

please like this video so that it moves forward in the trends. please do not forget to become sponsors of our youtube channel, those who watch us now on the youtube channel, see the sponsor button, please go there and support our broadcasts. it is very important for us. and read our news on the espresso tv website, we are working for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week , i will leave a dot here, we will see you tomorrow as usual at 1:00 p.m. goodbye greetings dear tv viewers, this is the news of yana yava melnyk, who, together with the espresso team, will tell you about the most important thing on this