[000:00:00;00] appealed the us president between hamas and putin, the president repeated it several times, can we say, in general, that well , this speech, because of such comparisons, can become a certain new starting point in, i don't know, relations between the united states, russia and ukraine between by them? i would like to start with the fact that the current ukrainian authorities, in particular the president of ukraine zelenskyi, have made considerable efforts to convince the world community that the current political regime in russia is terrorist in nature, and that this the regime, i mean putin's, it poses a threat not only to the existence of ukraine, that it poses a threat to the existence of the civilized world in principle, and in this respect it is really not much different from hamas, hezbollah, al-qaeda,

the islamic state, well if we are talking about all terrorist groups and to the great regret of certain states, well, in particular the same iran or north korea, because these states and these organizations, they absolutely openly, without hiding, declare their unwillingness to put up with the existing world political order, and that they want to destroy it, and what's more, and just like these states and organizations... the putin regime in russia also uses, resorts to frankly terrorist methods in order to achieve its political goals, so this parallel, it is not really contrived and it is not exclusively if an element of propaganda, it is simply a sober assessment of what is happening in the world today, and the president of the united states of america , as the president of a country that is a global

leader, that is one of the cornerstones stones of the current world order, not the beneficiaries, i repeat, that is, it is not the united states of america that has benefited the most from the current world order, but also the billions of people who, thanks to this order, have come out of poverty, out of an absolutely, well, barbaric dangerous existence, well, mostly this applies to countries the third world, if it were not paradoxical, and one must realize that china became the current china precisely thanks to this world order, thanks to globalization, the international division of labor, international trade, cooperation, well, complex financial system, therefore, it is very surprising that there are still states that do not want to realize that their security also largely depends on how the war in ukraine will end and how it will end for hamas and similar terrorist groups, so

frankly... destructive actions, well, that is, behind these actions there is no constructive purpose that hamas wanted to achieve, well, a simple question , just to destroy as many israelis as possible, they literally declared that their goals were achieved, here it is also interesting, well, everything is okay, then there are no questions, that is, let’s then let's see which ones they achieved their goals, well, it’s the same, by the way, as the goals of the so-called special military operation, the russians have been endlessly adjusting them for almost two years , yes, that is, everything always goes according to plan, that is, the kres was flooded according to plan moscow, according to the plan, these two triumphs were destroyed by the security service of ukraine, according to the plan, the armed forces of ukraine already destroyed, well, i don’t know, hundreds of thousands of russian soldiers, well, thousands of pieces of equipment, well, according to the plan , the crimean bridge was destroyed, but they already have it there they are probably tired of rebuilding, according to the plan took their fleet from crimea, well, sevastopol, to novorossiysk, again because of the same drone attacks that we have seen

lately. the so-called, well, everything is going according to plan, well, it's the same with hamas, everything is going according to plan, and the plan is very simple, to produce darkness, to fuel this darkness, to fuel instability, and to show that we will behave as we want to behave , there's no way you can stop us, they 're wrong, and biden's speech made it clear that the united states of america, as the leader, i repeat, is global, clearly aware of all the threats that humanity faces today, and in particular the states, well, there is a concept, global problems of humanity, what are global problems of humanity, these are the problems that affect everyone, not a single state, not a single ethnic group, not a single region, they concern all humanity as a planetary civilization, and the second aspect is that they cannot be solved only by the efforts of a single state or

a single nation. therefore, yes, this is a global problem, countering global terrorism, opposition to such patterns of behavior is simply a global necessity. we'll also hear from bohdan ferenc, an expert on international affairs, he's joining us, mr. bohdan, in his speech, president biden drew a direct parallel between hamas terrorists and russian dictator putin, can we say that the united states is getting closer to , in order to recognize russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which they have not done so far, well, i think that a certain phase, as the erosion of the world order that you just discussed, is really coming, they will encourage, at least, more discussion about this issue within the political community of the united states of america, because there are different positions, recently, by the way, mr.

blinkin was asked this question, to which he replied that while they are discussing and do not rule out such a decision in in the future, therefore, of course, in order to radically respond... to those challenges to those serious problems that are currently flaring up, so to speak, quite intensively in different parts of the world, in particular in the context of the russian-ukrainian war and in the context of the hamas attack on israel, a different response is needed in some places, and indeed, in the speech of joe biden, it was noted that it was focused primarily on the americans, yes, on the voters, but also such signals and messages. and the global world about what the united states wants to continue in the context of solving those issues that threaten the west in general with its

liberal democratic values, by the way, mr. bohdan, again about the support that the united states will provide to israel and ukraine, recently, we remember how joe biden said in one of the interviews said, they say we, we, as the united states , are the most powerful nation that has ever existed in human history, and do you really think, he asks the interviewer, that we can't give aid to ukraine and israel at the same time. in general, yes, about these, billions, 100 billion, in particular, 60 billion, which they allegedly have, if congress agrees to allocate for ukraine, how much this project, this aid project has really proven, that the united...' will not leave ukraine despite conflict, despite the ongoing war in ukraine, their immediate military partner industry. the key message, which was also in the speech, in general, we repeatedly discussed on the air, that all this help, all this

support, it is primarily within the framework of the national security interests of the united states of america, precisely on this, in this speech biden focused, it is possible the understanding in the biden administration that, well, not always and not all americans are really oriented to where the expenses go, where their taxes are paid, that is, they are redistributed, that is why it is actually necessary to emphasize for the citizens of the united states of america that in within the framework of their doctrinal and security policy, support for ukraine is one of the key cornerstones, yes, stones, so to speak, and it is definitely necessary to continue in this context. another issue is that the elections, as well as the electoral races, they now interfere with quick decision-making, this is the first and second that after the by-elections, the democrats do not have a majority in the congress, and this is

sometimes used by a part of the republicans, who, that is, yes, understand that this internal political struggle, it is just necessary in some places to say one's own, for example, yes or no, regarding those or others issues, so let's hope that after the internal backstage and backroom agreements and consultations held first of all, a solution will be found in order to vote, and if it really happens, and most likely, both ukraine and israel, in one package, then we will wait for the positive. mr. valentine, what are the chances that this request from the white house to congress will turn into a specific budget document in the near future, given that there are a lot of problems with the election of the speaker of the house of representatives, in particular, it delays aid, delays the process, well, it delays, but does not make it impossible , and you asked about the probability, i will say yes

, it strives for 100%, well, that this issue will be positively resolved, and here it is also necessary to understand that this is the equalization of ukraine to israel is rather a plus for ukraine, the fact that we are going in a joint package is a plus. because in america it is no longer necessary to convince anyone why the states support israel, and israel is the largest recipient of american aid, well, it is necessary to understand that american taxpayers... taxes have long been to put it bluntly, they have come to terms and realize that indeed, israel must be supported, and now , when ukraine also appears in the same logical chain, it means that the issue of ukraine is included in a coordinate system that is understandable for ordinary americans, that is, they do not have to to explain why it is ukraine, they are told, this is israel, this is ukraine , they all understand why israel should be supported, so it becomes clear to them in principle why ukraine should be supported, if ukraine finds itself in one, strictly

speaking, this semantic , contours, therefore, support will still be there, and one important aspect must also be taken into account, which i have also repeatedly spoken about: for american taxpayers, all this international support provided by the government, the united states, to other countries, is actually meager, that is, it is very large in absolute numbers, it may even exceed the budgets of some... individual states, but in the structure of the american budget, that is, it is within the limits of, i don't know, 1%, well, you understand that even if you completely refuse this aid, it is unlikely or by redirecting this money there education or health care, it is possible to fundamentally change the situation in these areas, that is, it is not so significant, and in addition , one must also realize that all this aid, it goes back to the same

taxpayers, because it is largely an investment in the american military-industrial complex. this means that new jobs will be created , skilled labor positions, that new uh, well developments, well in the scientific field will be funded, which can then be used on the battlefield, it's the same investment in education is also an investment in science, it is also an investment in e , foundry, roughly speaking, in metallurgy, in chemistry, petrochemicals, that is , jobs will be created there, people will get jobs, pay taxes, that is, it does not mean , you know, that's how they got into the pockets of american taxpayers and they became poorer, no, rather the opposite will happen, uh, so, well, my colleague correctly said that this speech was actually primarily aimed at american citizens, that is, he as president of the united states of america

appeals to his fellow citizens to his constituents and explains to them why the steps he is going to take are not only necessary, but why they are also directly beneficial to every citizen of the united states of america, well, i will end literally, we understand, that it was not necessary to explain to the average american during the period, i do not know, when the so-called iron curtain existed, and when this phenomenon of the cold war existed, it was not necessary to explain to ordinary americans why... so much money is spent on the national security sector and defense, no, everyone understood that there was a threat to their well-being, to their lives, that this communism was looming then, roughly speaking, and today, well, perhaps terrorism is not as powerful as this communist camp was then, but it is itself poses a threat, the towers and the towers in new york were not destroyed by the communists, you understand, but by terrorists, that is , they did what the communist

regime, by and large, failed to do at the time, and i think that what is happening to the americans now a certain sobriety, that's it the period of the end of history, yes fukuyama in the year 91, when it seemed that everything, now we will all move in the same river, it has passed, and today, in america, in the whole world, they began to realize that the world is facing new challenges , and these challenges are not less safe, less. dangerous than the previous ones, so i tend to think that in this context, more and more people in the world and political leaders, first of all, have come to the realization that it is necessary to support ukraine, and israel, and other things, a lot in fact there are political regimes that today are a kind of safeguards against the spread of this instability and hostility, and the desire to... the world order, and if the current architecture of international relations does not

cope with this task, as successfully as it coped, in fact with task after the second world war, to avoid this global conflict between the two blocs, well, this structure will either turn into a rudiment and atevism, the tail fell off, and the tailbone remained, so here yes, that is, the un will remain, well, actually, already climbing trees we are with him we won't be able to, metaphorically speaking, and it will be created... some parallel structures, but i tend to think, in this regard, i am still an optimist, that the un, and those states that play the first violin there, they will find for themselves and wisdom and courage in order to ... introduce this organization to new challenges, well, mr. valentin, we can devote, i think, more than one hour here to discuss the importance of reforming the united nations organization, about which the president of ukraine volodymyr zelenskyi has repeatedly stated, let's do it now let's go back to joe biden's speech and to help ukraine in general, anton shveits, an economic expert, a serviceman of the defense forces, joins our broadcast, mr.

anton, congratulations, congratulations, and if we talked about money, recently commenting on the financial aid for ukraine from tono, the minister of foreign affairs of ukraine, dmytro kuleba, explained why, recently, so often in the conversation about financial aid for ukraine, there is a thesis about corruption in the western media and among western leaders, in particular from leaders in the united states of ukraine, and indeed, we have started to meet it more and more recently in the zmii in speeches, and according to minister kuleba, it is connected with two streams, the first one is european integration. the path of ukraine and they say that the thesis about corruption aims to slow down the path or cause certain obstacles , and the second is really the elections in the united states, and it is said that those who oppose military aid to ukraine, in particular the wing that supports there is one of the popular candidates for the post of president

of the united states. so, mr. anton, v in the context of financial support for this corruption, which is constantly being talked about in the west, is being talked about in the west. to what extent these theses may interfere... in the future, or reduce support from the united states, well, look, to say what the political landscape in the united states will be, at the moment it is very difficult, no matter what happens, support for ukraine is so to speak , a two-party process, and in fact, those who consider themselves allies in ukraine are both in the democratic party and in the republican party, nevertheless, now in to the republican party, certain problems, so to speak, which some influential democrats even call a civil war, among republicans, all this is actually quite difficult to analyze, but it is not necessary, if you and i focus specifically on the analysis of bipartisan support for ukraine and on

biden's speech , then we can say that, in fact , he refutes the populist accusations of certain circles of the republican party with his speech, in this speech he uses theses that were used by roosevelt, for example, biden called america the arsenal of democracy, as roosevelt once called, it is about the fact that the aid system for ukraine , as well as israel and even taiwan, is something that america should do in order to...' its position in the world, moreover, biden about it says even more broadly, yes, he says that first of all, most of this money never gets into ukraine, weapons that are made in the united states and also in countries that are allies of the united states get into ukraine. second,

biden is hinting that if america withdraws from solving problems across the board world, sooner or later these problems will become so huge. that america is going to have to deal with them anyway, and has already dealt with, the war-makers personally, and that's actually a very big problem, so we see that even during the political crisis, and before the election campaign that's going on in the united states right now, a lot of people understand, well , influential people, i mean, understand that support for ukraine and taiwan is the systemic activity of the united states to support democracy around the world. exactly is that why biden talks about the arsenal of democracy? yes, taiwan, ukraine and israel will fight separately, but the united states will stand behind us and

support us. and in fact, no one refutes this thesis, even among influential republicans. sir in the united states , it has been emphasized more than once that they have enough resources to support ukraine and, and ukraine and israel in parallel. and secondly, will support for ukraine grow even more in connection with the election process in the united states, because the ukrainian theme is actively used, for example, by democrats and some republicans. that is, can we count, thanks to the american elections , on even greater and greater support for our state? let's answer the first question, well, i believe that the context that currently exists in the united states of america

requires this state to make quite such tangible decisions, one of the tools that the usa has always used its potential, yes, military and financial and economic, these are the two whales on which the policy, foreign policy, and positioning of the united states of america are built, and the third is soft power, that is, yes, let's say, a means , an instrument of such culture, spreading its values, which has always also played a key role. in fact, the allocation of financial aid to both ukraine and israel is a decision that could be made very quickly, if it were not for this particular pre-election context, there spikerids and it demonstrated, after, for example, yes , statements, speeches, instrumentally, how the united states of america strengthens

democracy in the global context, helping ukraine, therefore, of course, with the potential, the one that this country has, they are able, yes let's say, to manage these processes that require at the same time, yes, support and answers. on complex issues within the framework of the russian-ukrainian war and directly the situation in the middle east. the second question, regarding the popularity, so to speak, yes, the question of support for ukraine and elections in the united states of america, i have rather mixed feelings here. i have also repeatedly said and emphasized that some, perhaps forces, some, politicians in america, may question the support of ukraine.

use in an unacceptable way, that is, yes, make it a conflicting topic, in order to internally stimulate certain divisions and prepare, for example, one or another part of american society for confrontation, it is possible that such a plan is in certain forces, not only internally the usa, for example, and there, we know, from the previous ones elections, the aggressor state russia was included in the domestic political context in the usa, therefore it is not excluded that such risks will continue, and we can already partially observe them, therefore it is extremely important here that our partners, in the united states of america, react directly as well internally to these certain threats, to destabilize the political situation within the framework of an increasingly increasing confrontation between key political forces and candidates, it will be unambiguous, as well as

the polarization of the electorate within the united of the united states of america, and this i would rather consider as a risk for us, unfortunately, and we also need to try to work with this, although we understand that, well, we do not have and should not have any influence on what choices americans will make , and in their democratic elections. mr. valentin, the kremlin reacted so interestingly to this speech, they were so offended, so piskov said about what he said, such comparisons, it is unacceptable to compare president putin with hamas, and so on, listen, and from which ones at all, since when russia is worried, in general, what about it they say nothing good lately, here suddenly yes, no, why, in fact, they always have this... happened, just what did it lead to? well, yes, well, they say, yes, they react in some way, but it never stood in the way of their

destructive activities, for some reason piskov did not react to the fact that placards were hung in the gas sector, and with assad, putin and this leader of hamas, that is, this piskovo was not offended in any way that hamas put putin in the same row with its leaders, it was okay, absolutely not offended by the visits of the taliban, for example, yes, absolutely no offense... and they don’t despise heitzbolo’s communication, that is, it’s all okay , and then suddenly he was so surprised that he was put up by others, well, it really looks very funny, if biden came up with it, yes, roughly speaking, he actually had contacts between russia and hamas there was no, and there were no visits to moscow, there was no rampage of russian propaganda in the first days, and this, well, i don’t know, completely barbaric invasion of hamas into the territory of israel, well, of course, one could be offended that we were not did, but you put us in the same row with him, no, you started with them in one row, and others have noticed this and are simply stating the fact, and you have a choice, that is, either

you continue to move with them, or you have to leave and how to get on the other side, but it is clear that putin's regime is absolutely incapable of this , and most likely he will continue to be the leader of all the destructive forces that exist in the world, and i am saying both at the state level and at the level of individual terrorist organizations, but this is not news, we must also pay attention to is that this is a practice in which, well, since the soviet union, that political... regime was quite successful, and here i would like to add something else to what mr. bohdan said, that in fact the americans were, as they say, very reluctant, yes, very reluctantly, and they got involved in both the first world war and the second world war, well, that is, they tried to retire, and even to withdraw, because these are european problems, they don't touch

us, we don't want to, then everything changed, and there is one more nuance, just the day before. war, it was mentioned that in the speech biden took a well -known phrase of roosevelt, but it is known to everyone to american schoolchildren, because they also have a certain set of knowledge that is universally mandatory, so on the eve of the second world war, they also had elections, and america then clearly declared neutrality and it was very popular, but at the same time it was maturing not awareness of the need to support democratic regimes in europe, which at that time stood against nazi germany, and the candidates reached an agreement among themselves that the issue of the participation or non-participation of the united states of america in support, at least, we did not talk about war there, but in principle about neutrality or neutrality will not be an issue of the election campaign, and in principle roosevelt won that campaign, so i agree with mr. bohdan that such risks

definitely cannot be discounted, but i tend to think that, after all, the level of responsibility and the level of maturity of the american political and, above all, economic elites, or what they like to call the deep state, and most importantly , the experience, and even the response to similar situations, is sufficient to not turn the issue of support or non-support into of ukraine, and i emphasize, it is not just about supporting ukraine or not israel, it is about supporting... those factors that ensure stability in the world today, or removing them from supporting these factors, and this is indirect support for those factors that affect destabilization in the world, but i am inclined to think that they are obtained after all, especially since, as my colleagues rightly pointed out, the watershed is not between, not along party lines, that is, there are different views among the democrats and there are

different views among the republicans , but on today we see that it really is bipartisan support, that is, a consolidated position of both republicans and democrats , well, in terms of support for ukraine, there is one thing, well, unambiguously, yes, not unanimously, but unambiguously, this is definitely the second point, let's remember another speech by putin, when he said that the supply attacks on ukraine were a big mistake, because when now , if ukraine is defeated there, then the states will also be defeated with it, and the state will no longer have the opportunity to say that we lost because we didn't provide something normal, you kind of lost completely, with your full participation , i think in washington you heard this phrase, you have to understand that today our relations with the states are by and large allied, and it cannot be that we we lose, and the states allegedly wash their hands, nothing allegedly happened for them, let's even remember the story with

afghanistan, well, when the americans were reproached that they were talking about... war there, although they clearly stated that they did not set themselves the goal of building afghanistan, they set themselves the goal of eliminating a certain terrorist there groups, and they coped with this task, so when we talk about today's situation in ukraine, it must be understood that in ukraine the issue of acceptable or unacceptable models of behavior in the international arena is being resolved, and any scenario of the end of the war, which will be based on the limits of current international law, what about...' is reflected in this peace formula, zelensky , well, it will mean, as a kind of carte blanche, that those states, those pillars of the current world order, well, by and large, could not ensure compliance with this order by all participants, this is opening pandora's box, i further, what is further, further will be, so in this context, after all, with each subsequent step, between us and the united states

, a stronger and stronger bond is being built,