after 1991, after the famous budapest memorandum, that is why it is a really important document, and it is of course being discussed at the expert level and at the level of journalists, despite the fact that the near east overshadows ukrainian news, it is so, it is so , it must be stated, but of course the agreement is being discussed and already now, for example, i see in the english-speaking segment of twitter that discussions have begun about whether it is safe. agreement, are these security guarantees, or are they just assurances of safe in safe, so to speak, interactions, because the agreement is called an agreement on cooperation in the field of security, which means that the discussion continues on the basis of the words guarantees and assurances, that is , if the agreement gives security guarantees, it is a 100% guarantee that if ukraine is in...

for example, in a difficult situation, great britain will help it , and assurances is more like the smoothed wording that was used, by the way, in the budapest memorandum, it is as if promises to ensure security, but not guarantees, and actually, if we talk about the word guarantees, then european diplomats joke and do not joke about that the only real guarantee of security is the fifth point of the nato charter, that is, if one state is attacked, all other states join the war, everything else is still more more well, but, but this also applies to those who are part of of the north atlantic alliance, we are not a part of the north atlantic alliance, but no one forbids great britain to stand up for ukraine outside of nato's guarantees and outside of great britain's obligations regarding nato or not, oleksiy? no,

not like that, because if britain gives any other country, not a member, not a nato member, guarantees such as are in the washington treaty on the creation of nato, this will mean the entry of this, the actual entry of this country into the circle of nato countries, because if an automatic attack on this country will mean an attack on britain, then in accordance with washington. an attack on britain is an attack on all nato countries. this is the main problem of these interim guarantees. of course, this is an unprecedented step for ukraine, perhaps even for europe, but let me remind you that a similar agreement was also concluded with finland and sweden. with finland, it actually ceased its operation with the accession of finland to nato. sweden is in a very similar position, it is still not there.

did not become a member of nato and it still has signed agreements concluded with boris johnson, agreements, more precisely, about the eyes, well, it is not mentioned in the text about guarantees, it is precisely about cooperation in the field of security. thank you oleksiy, olya, president zelenskyi said that if such guarantees had been achieved in 1991, in particular with britain, then... the war would not have started, he said, is it possible to speak so categorically, considering that what the war with russia or russia, russia's war with ukraine, one way or another was sooner or later, but the final point in russia's confrontation against ukraine, or rather, in russia's desire to destroy ukraine, was still not set in 91, and. .. now we understand that this

war, which did not happen in 91, it was simply postponed in time, well, from my point of view, it is absolutely, well, not pointless, and it does not make any sense to revise the events there 30 plus years ago ancient times, what could have happened in 91, but did not happen, could not happen in the 91st. year, because, if we remember , the united states, and the vast majority of european states, in principle, perceived ukraine, well, as some kind of nonsense, a part of russia that seceded, maybe in a year or two, they will unite with russia again, that is, at that time

it seems simple to talk about... any serious defense agreements, alliances, and even more so to talk about it today, if it happened then. if theology does not pass here, but this thesis, which i share with all my heart, is that our war with russia, unfortunately, it was inevitable, with at the very beginning of the formation, when independent ukraine appeared after the collapse of the soviet union, of course, it would be very cool if during these years... during independence, our state could receive some certain guarantees, in addition to that piece of paper of the budapest memorandum, but again, we are revising something that cannot be returned or changed in any way,

that is, i propose to sincerely rejoice at today's event, of course, this is not an ordinary event, a serious event, but for me, you know, there is still... such a marker: how does russia react to this? well, of course no one takes medvedev seriously, but today's reaction made me sincerely happy when he said: "and these arrogant british, if they allow themselves to send their contingent to ukraine, it will mean that they are practically at the stage of war with russia, you know that putin has a problem." medvedev is on the tongue, accordingly , we can state that today's event , which happened in kyiv, it will be analyzed in moscow, well, what is it called, with a health checker in hand, very carefully, and they

will measure it by all means and methods, what it can mean for them in the future. and i do not rule out that they will wait for some further steps from the following states, but less so, we have to wait for that first. britain has set an example, it will be very cool if it will be followed, well, we will not say who, but developed european countries will join today's initiative. literally half an hour ago... i had retired british army colonel glen grant on the air, and i asked him about this aid package that was announced publicly by the british prime minister, what would be there anti-tank shells, that there will be more air defense

and that there will be long-range weapons, i asked him, i say, does this mean that great britain has decided that now... ukraine can use long-range missiles, well, long-range missiles are either crimea , or towards russia, that is, those that fly at a much longer distance than the missiles we have now. he said, well, you're right, because i don't know if they're going to talk about it publicly, but we'll obviously see what happens in the armed forces. of ukraine, how they will use this weapon. tatyana, i have a question for you, the issue of these long-range missiles is such a cornerstone of all these negotiations of ukraine with countries, with our western partners,

because it is clear that ukraine wants to destroy the russian invaders not only on the territory of the ukrainian state, but and in the territory where the aggression comes from, that is, where there are military airfields. where there are logistics warehouses, where there are military facilities, where there are factories of the military-industrial complex, and what are the europeans so afraid of, that will fly to europe from russia and putin is now in such a condition that he is ready like medvedev to get his rhetoric about nuclear weapons again, because just two days ago the deputy chairman. he again threatened the russian security council with nuclear weapons, although he said in the context of ukraine that we have tested all types of weapons in ukraine, except for nuclear weapons, so far, he said. in fact, yes, in fact, the european leaders, and i think

the american leader as well, they will fear this very moment of direct involvement in war, that is what the russian medvedev, without... the indirect participation of british soldiers on the territory of ukraine, but russia can interpret the participation of western countries in the war in the same way, if their weapons attack the territory directly. russia , as they believe, they consider crimea to be russian territory, and if ukraine begins to attack crimea with russian long-range and western long-range missiles, this can be interpreted as a question of the fact that this western state, which provided these missiles, is directly involved in the war, but how olga remarked, britain was always ahead, britain was the first to give us tanks, britain was the first to give us lethal weapons, and if britain... is the first to somehow give permission to ukraine to use its long-range weapons, for example, on the territory

of russia, there in the hinterland on the same airfields from which fighter jets take off to bomb us , then i think that after this , other states will start to change their point of view, just like before, germany itself, we will see, and i would also like to add that the agreement that was signed today still has a certain number of secret applications, and... it is possible that there are also written some next steps, how ukraine will receive new weapons, how it will use them, so we will really see everything in practice very soon. oleksiy, in recent weeks, even in the last few months, leaders, european leaders have been talking about the fact that europe needs to prepare for a confrontation with russia, german defense minister pistorius talked about it. the former commander-in-chief of the swedish armed forces says that sweden needs to prepare, the baltic countries too

they are constantly talking, because they already know what russia is, what the soviet boot is, they are well aware of what to expect from russia, finland also knows what to expect from russia, poland also knows what to expect from russia, according to you everyone knows, what to expect from russia, in principle, well, that is, the russians once reached the lomanche. so in principle, well, i wanted to ask you if it is possible, can we expect that the russians will go to the english channel again, because you can expect anything from the russians, because there is probably no point in predicting the actions of the russians, to draw historical parallels, especially since you are a historian, i think that this is exactly what you can do perfectly? the question is, what do i think is worth in the west. to realize the falsity of this thesis that if something happens , russia will raise its stakes

, use something , etc. of what is happening, so it seems to me that it is already time to archive it, on the other hand, we see that russia is not wants a conflict... a direct conflict with nato, well, this reminds me, speaking of parallels, when britain found itself alone with hitler, then churchill did everything so that, let's say, if they don't want to come to his aid, then hitler himself would have attacked there, or the soviet union, or he would have done something to the united states so that they would be forced to intervene, but in principle ukraine understood. that in ukraine in fact, despite the fact that we are of course great pacifists and believe that

it is better to avoid a world war, but of course we believe that we are already waging a war, that in principle the war is already underway, and the sooner the west realizes this, the better, on the other hand, the fact that if britain really provides these long-range missiles, this seems to me an interesting turn, because. .. you know, if one of the allies gives, but the americans can say no, although there is a discussion about the same attack, the question is how russia will act, will it declare war on britain, or who, who will provide these weapons, on the other hand, well, it absolutely seems to me that we should not pay attention to this rhetoric, that here is russia considers crimea a territory, its territory, therefore the use of weapons against crimea. or against russian territory, uh , it will change the situation in some way, it will not change in any way, russia

values ​​its, its territory, excuse me, kherson, which they surrendered and zaporizhzhia, which fortunately they could not occupy, so it seems to me that here, from the point of view of russian legislation, there is no difference, so it seems to me that if this is such an intrigue that the europeans, relatively speaking, provide these weapons, the americans do not, then it will be ... interesting let's see how russia will react to this extension, although, of course, the europeans are not very keen on this, for no one provides, so far, it is the british. russia actually considers its territory not only occupied regions, because they constantly talk about русский cities, kyiv, odesa and dnipro, dnipropetrovsk, they say, and kharkiv , that's why they in general, it seems to me, that's all their rhetoric, it is built on the fact that what

they do, they simply take their own, and also convince their own citizens there, well, but that means we don't have to pay attention to this - well, of course, we don't need it, i'm just saying that for russia there is no such thing as a state like ukraine, because they believe that everything that is there is ours, they only perceive it that way it's true, yes, it's true , and i completely agree with oleksii here, so what should we do now, and you with russian narratives, well, my god, my god, well... uh, they can do and think anything, yes, we have our own state, we know that we are defending, er, that this is the territory of ukraine, well, actually, we leave only from own, own interests, and on our side,

in principle, uh, the majority of the civilized world, if we will... analyze in such detail every time, and what is in the mind of putin and the russians, well, there is a high probability that we also have something my brain will break there, i wouldn’t want that, i agree with you, there’s nothing to say here, i just remembered their rhetoric, since i’m studying what they say carefully enough now, look at it, ladies and gentlemen, today volodymyr zelenskyi spoke... about the future law on mobilization, the next version of which is being prepared of this law, the cabinet of ministers is preparing, and zelenskyi says that he is in favor of making this law fair, let's hear what president zelenskyi said about the future law on mobilization, we don't have

this synchronicity, i will quote president zelenskyi, regarding your... question about the law on mobilization, he is answering the journalist, i know that the military worked with the deputies, i did not see the final version, for me the most important thing is that this law is fair, when i see all the details, then i will be able to say, olya , and what is c justice, here in this law, when it comes to the mobilization of 500 thousand ukrainians, additional and demobilization of ukrainians, that is, where... what, what kind of concept is this? fair or unfair? in the conditions of war, the state makes decisions that are necessary for victory in the war with the russian federation. should we talk here about this measure of justice? serhiy, i would like to respond with the words of my heroine, the heroine of the material i recently wrote about

mobilization, she is a ukrainian volunteer, olga garbu. we have known her for a long time pre-mayday times, and you know, this is a generation of plus or minus 30, it inspires me a lot because people are euro-oriented, euro-atlantic-oriented, they have raised themselves in the correct coordinate system, and it is very interesting to talk with them, in particular, on... justice and topics , how to connect the concept of justice to mobilization. so olga garbovska told me the following, that stating that society has a demand for justice is not enough, we need to

renew the unity that we had in the first months. a large-scale invasion, well, everyone those present will remember, of course, and how today its social mood differs from those moods that were at the beginning of the great war, uh, and in order to achieve this unity, uh, of course, that we, we killed a lot of valuable things , and maybe now... we need to do this with triple the energy, society is not ready for widespread mobilization, because... because it is disoriented by those messages for two or three weeks, 2-3 months and there will already be a victory, and when

it has passed two or three weeks and two or three months and victory did not come, then people rushed in depression in another, in another direction, which means that if we immediately spoke to society not as children, but as... adults, we would not have the current situation, weary of war, mother's flowers, who say that they are not born in order to serve, and there are those things that, well, which, the state, society should take care of them now, so that, this request of society'. justice and unity, which we need in order for the mobilization to happen, well, not in the same way as in

russia, several things must be done, persistently to give russian ipso in all its dimensions, to increase the media literacy of the population, and thirdly, one of the most important things, such... to eradicate from the military structures that sovietism, which in the army is higher than the roof, take my word for it, thank you, colleagues, then we can talk about mobilization, which will not be forced, which will not be pulled out of the yews half-dead , searched in the carpathian mountains, grabbed in minibuses, these are all not normal phenomena, normal, we spent a very, very long time just on the explanation, and it is these, well,

these words that i direct her to and for myself in the same way, since i the media outlet, and all the media outlets are present, we were involved in this, probably not enough, well , of course, the government men were also involved, probably in everything. anything, including corruption, and these things were despised, so now we have such, i would say, a tense situation within society: oh, everyone will be grumpy, but the rich will redeem themselves, and poor mykola will die to zero. thank you olya, colleagues, after a short break on our channel , we will return to our conversation, literally. a few minutes, every day, every hour, every minute we we get a lot of information. the most anticipated event of the year, what is actually happening at the front, what are the losses

of personnel and equipment on the battlefield, how does the international community evaluate our successes, and what is moscow lying about? from the stream of news coming from all over the world, we single out the most important ones. the tweet is closely monitoring whether there will be weapons for ukraine and what, and about what? the russian occupiers are hanging around behind the backs of the commanders. news, summaries of the week - this is an overview of only important events, important, reliable events, this is analytics, fact-checking, professional comments. that's about it many more in the release today. about important things, in simple language, available to all viewers. greetings, iryna koval is in the studio, and these are the results of the week on the espresso tv channel. news, summaries of the week, every saturday at 21:00 on espresso. friends, this is the verdict program, we work live on the tv channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms. throughout our program , we're doing a poll asking you if you

think the office of the president is overstepping its authority. yes, no, everything is quite simple on youtube, vote or write your comments, what do you think about this. if you are watching us on tv, pick up the phones and vote, if yes, 0800-211381, no, 0800. 11382. all calls to these numbers are free. let me remind you that my colleagues olga musafirova, oleksiy mustafin and tetyana vysotska are on our broadcast today. we already started talking about this bill on mobilization, which was announced on christmas, then some kind of discussion continued for two or three weeks, it is absolutely unclear who, who communicated this bill, commented. fell, people some people ran to the notaries to transfer the property to their wives, someone there started looking for opportunities to go abroad.

oleksiy, here... from the point of view of a communicator and a person who works with information, like us and everyone else, here olya said that we, we did not finalize, including so that people understood what mobilization is, how to carry it out and what kind of impression it would have on people, i would just concentrate, olya said very nice and correct words, i would like to say about the communication of this very law, er... start as a historian in rome, which for us is such an exemplary, exemplary approach to law, each law had its own name, that is, there was a law, conventionally speaking, er, cassia, law, horace, and so on, that is, the legislator always fixed, the one who proposed, so to speak, this

is a bill, he recorded that it was his... bill, that's the main mistake from the point of view of communication with this law, that we still don't understand whose this law is, formally it was submitted by the government, but after it was submitted , the minister of finance said, well , the law is good, but let the military explain to me where i will get the money for this the law, you are the minister of finance, you should have participated in the discussion of this law, the president now, it seems to me, repeats the same mistake, he says... "let them bring the law, i will get acquainted with it, and then, and then i'll say my opinion, it's fair, others, well , actually the president has the right of legislative initiative, actually he could take responsibility and propose the law that he considers fair, that is, it turns out that we don't have a russian proverb in the family of nannies with eyeless children that no one wants to take responsibility for this law, it is clear that

the problem is very important, controversial and so on, possibly dangerous from the point of view of the electoral prospects there, but we started talking about the electoral prospects too early, uh, again, the main problem is in the fact that for certain norms, for the law , according to the idea of ​​the bill itself, someone should take responsibility, when this responsibility will be taken, then it will be clear that if it is a presidential bill, then... it is unlikely that the members of the pro-presidential the factions will not vote for him, but then it will be, then it will be clear, and so they can submit a bill today, tomorrow we will withdraw it, and this can go on for quite a long time, you know, and then the head of state will come out all white and say: i believe that this is not unfair, that is, if we want to pass this bill on time, then we need

to... well, have a mature conversation and at least take responsibility for the answer, well, zelenskyi could not just submit it, he had to do it, so that he is the supreme commander and to present this bill, including about communicating, telling people what this bill is, that there is no other way out, here you have little choice now in ukraine, yes, but we, but we know these, well, no one has seen them, maybe this is obvious, but we have information that there was an order by the faction not to communicate this issue, the question is that let the military communicate, the military are not politicians, they are, as zaluzhnyi correctly said, i am a consumer in this case, how much do i they will give stiga soldiers, the more, the better, that's why the draft law political responsibility should be, well

, again, this issue is not... not only for the government, the opposition can introduce a bill, but again, take responsibility for it, and then, when they vote, it will be their bill, well, simple it must be said that during the war we have power , general power, that is, there is the opposition or those who have a monopoly, well, it is still power, one way or another no one will understand, but you cannot, but you cannot spread the responsibility on everyone, i agree with this, we see it, we do not see it in non-combatants. in in the united states , what does this lead to, you know, when no one wants to take responsibility, i absolutely, i absolutely share your opinion, you, tatyana, can it not happen that another version of the law will become a victim of this political responsibility, when the bill is passed like hot potatoes from hand to hand and they say, well , listen, it's hard work, and it's not, maybe there will be a whisper, but it's not.