in some lists to look for people who say something, no, wait, it's more like censorship, because even if you say that a person works in information for the kremlin, you have to show the curators, the money, the darkrooms, if you say that these people are preparing, for example, to bring out some groups there that should imitate this maidan 3, well, these same groups should be somewhere. well, these provocateurs, who are huddled in a crowd, and will be, so the kremlin needs to do something like that, maidan 3, where are these people, where are their names, well, that is, in this case, it it looks absolutely strange, and even i do not agree that it is similar to the plan of the connecting rod, which we were told there, because we were told by the connecting rod that the essence of all these narratives is to shake the unity of ukrainian society, there was no one there did not foresee the disturbance of the masses. and

here is a mass disturbance that no one saw , no one investigates, the names of the saboteurs are not named, the names of the curators are not named, but theses are named that cannot be said, and why not, well , many people in the kitchen will sit and say, that zelenskyi is illegitimate, many people will sit in the kitchen and say that zelenskyi is a martian, many people will sit and say that zelenskyi is not a zelenskyi at all, but that he is putin from the refrigerator, and what should we do about it now, well, that is... some strange story , the impression that our government is more interested in who says what, and so that they don't talk , instead of taking some actions, understand what actions of the government can stir up public concern, bring people to the streets, this should be done, it should focus on actions and not in words, that's the problem, that we actually have the impression that we are endlessly playing some kind of political technology, forgetting that we live in a time where we... or inaction

in some other nuances, which can lead to those or there are a lot of other disturbances, and we understand that this is definitely not a phrase about the illegitimate, or perhaps the illegitimate zelenskyi, what can bring people to the streets is the collapse of the front, this can be a problem, and we must do everything to prevent this from happening, but instead of telling us about some cranks, well, me in general, let me remind you that in our country, parliamentary elections should already have been held, and when they did not take place, or rather, before they did not take place, there was already an attempt by the russians to launch similar theses, and that we are one of them none of us noticed at all that these theses were launched, no, because they did not diverge in any way, no one reacted to them, and you know, i have the impression that if the attention to these new kremlin theses was not so much, it would simply be on them ... if

the president's office was not focused, then we would not have noticed this b the russian campaign, because it is just , well, it goes through telegram channels somewhere , something else, that is, well, this is not the reality that is really disturbing, you wanted to add something, yes, sergey, yes, yes, well, i i just want to remind you that during the large-scale invasion, there was also a calculation that there would be a disturbance inside the country, but there was a calculation... that the authorities would make some kind of compromise with russia, unacceptable for a significant mass of ukrainians, well for example, i will recall, i reminded the wall street journal about the istanbul agreements, which either were they weren't, well at least now putin is brandishing them, but then, of course, it could cause a disturbance, a disturbance of the people, well, i don't think that a disturbance of the people... or the question

is how legitimate, legitimate is zelensky? let's, you know, let's go to a break now, and just what you started to say, yeah, we, we 're going to talk about it right there, so let's just take a break now and come back to this conversation after the break. greetings, this is svoboda live on radio svoboda. we have already come to the snake itself. the following shots may shock you. news from the scene. drone attacks kamikaze, political analysis objectively and meaningfully, there is no political season, exclusive interviews, reports from the hottest points of the front. shot! svobodalai is frank and impartial. you draw your own conclusions. so, let me remind you about our poll on whether people's deputies should be limited to workers. trips abroad during the war,

phones you see, call, yes, no, your answer, and let's continue what oleksiy mustafin himself began to say about this story. it is the newspaper the wall street journal claims to have gained access to of the draft agreement between ukraine and russia dated april 15, 2022, these are the glorious istanbul agreements, and this is what she writes, well, first of all, how she characterizes it all is quite interesting, she says that the contours of the agreement between, the contours of the agreement which probably wants the russian leader, can be seen in the draft peace treaty developed by the russian and ukrainian participants in the talks in april 22, according to the wall street journal, the document demonstrates what deep concessions the ukrainian negotiators were ready to make sides in the first weeks of the war and to what compromises ukraine can incline russia to ukraine, russia now, too, well actually she

talks a little about the same concessions, there it is about not joining nato, well we know that, we knew that in principle. and in april 2022, but perhaps what we knew a little less is that russia demanded that the size of the armed forces be limited to 85 thousand people, 342 tanks, 519 artillery shells, while russia wanted the flight range of ukrainian missiles to be limited to 40 km, well, that's how it is for you now, to explain, it's us in general even... they would not be able to protect their front if such a restriction were in effect now. well, according to this document, the ukrainian side at the negotiations demanded 250,000 military personnel, which we also now see as completely unrealistic to defend ourselves with 800 tanks and 1,900 artillery pieces,

it’s ridiculous to say, well, the crimean peninsula itself should have been recognized as occupied by russia and it would have remained under the influence of moscow, well , somewhere there... putin and zelensky should talk separately about the fate of the actually occupied donetsk and luhansk regions, such the contract and they talk about it as something that we can talk about even now , this is the impression, and actually oleksiy has already said that yes, i absolutely agree that if such conditions became known in april of the 22nd , it caused a disturbance and caused, apparently, even mass demonstrations. we all... understand this very well, because we remember what happened when the minsk agreements were signed, in which there were no such restrictions, remember, simply did not exist, also larisa already said about what is obvious, which would cause collapse of the front certain disturbances, and

serhiy, from your point of view, are there really , well, such opinions that were made public there, that talks about illegitimacy... can cause some disturbances, is this at all a real reason for causing any, any disturbance of the population and some mass demonstrations? against this background of what we heard now, well, first of all, i return to the previous topic, because it is fundamental, the shatun plan was not designed for any mass actions, to discredit ukraine. government, the same as reported by the same group, you they just assumed it, they say now that the maidan 3 plan is not aimed at mass actions, that is, it is not the maidan that was, but rather at discrediting, with the demand to hold early elections, i don't remember whether it was gur

or danilov, because danilov was the first to voice this topic, but it was like this, my friend, answering your question, olya, i don’t know why now... there are questions, yes, about this text of the negotiation, about what back in april 22- of the year mr. podolyak in ukrainian pravda, i have a link, i can find it, i i kept it for myself, but made it public in fact, well, from my own words, but about the limitation of our numbers, our military, and about the negotiations, yes on donbas, other, so to speak, theses... of this document, that is, i did not see anything new here , and to be honest, i am sure that even then there would not have been a maidan and active resistance, because the population then was in a different, so to speak, orientation, yes, that is, then we had

resistance mainly in the russian federation, ah, not even today this publication of this text, well, in principle, it does not affect anything, me i think, to be honest, again, nothing new, i read this material, nothing new at all, and i did not see there, the only thing i want to say is that i do not agree with the journalists of the journal that... putin still wants this , i am absolutely sure that putin wanted this when he saw the resistance and when his plans to hold a victory parade in kyiv in three days failed, because then he was afraid that the war would not go according to his plan, he agreed to such compromises, today he no longer agrees to such compromises, he wants much more more, believe me, because today he believes that the initiative of the russians is at the front, he believes that... the problem there with sanctions, they solved it, he sees the support of many

countries, moreover brics, and china, and other countries , yes, where does iran, north korea , where do they get their ammunition from, that is, i am sure that today, if putin talks about negotiations, then this text will be, well, simply, simply wonderful, yes, compared to what putin wants today , therefore... but in this regard, i do not exactly agree with my colleagues from the pollzhornal, i would not agree with zergiy, because we cannot say whether he agreed or not, because we know that he did not agree, his appetites were much, much bigger then, this was, so to speak, the option that supposedly brought the ceasefire, by the way, remember, it was simply about stopping fire along the active front line. yes, mydinsky brought it from istanbul and was

stunned by what putin said, what he is doing, what, what, that this is unacceptable for russia. it seems to me that we, we, we don't have to guess what putin wanted, what he wants, he wanted as much as he wanted, and he wants only one thing: destruction of ukraine, as a general phenomenon that exists in the world, or the creation of something from ukraine. what suited him, that is, another russia, so to speak, so it seems to me that there is no need to get attached to it at all, but as for what the russians are counting on, if they really want to shake up the situation in ukraine, then it is really so, i wouldn't say that i wouldn't have reduced everything to this paper, which really doesn't have any meaning in the sense, it wasn't an agreement, it was... a draft, as the wall street journal itself writes, and in in principle, uh, they are interested in the fact that

there is a conflict within the country, and the best way to provoke a conflict is wrong steps on the part of the authorities, attempts to destabilize, so to speak, widening this ee gap between the authorities and society, and therefore, if the government does not want to allow this, then it should first of all take care of... a reasonable policy of its own, which would correspond to the national interests, which would not cause disturbances in society, this is the best best against poison, against any plan, against the connecting rod, against the maidan thirdly, against maidan 95, for any plan to destabilize the internal situation, well, you know, i partly agree with serhiy, partly not, well, partly because i also remember this publication, about which serhiy says , and there really was a lot of what... here they wrote now, it was, maybe it wasn't in numbers, but it was definitely there, then we already

knew that it was about not joining nato, and the ban from the use of western weapons, and well , in principle, it was clear to anyone who read it then, the ban on the use of western weapons, it is to leave the country unarmed, so it was necessary to put a tere so easily and say why the country remains unarmed, you just capture whoever wants, that's one thing, but i do not agree with the fact that the connecting rod did not have. when, well, now we simply recall the events of the 15-16th years, that there were no mass actions planned, just there mass actions were planned, moreover, if anyone remembers, mikhomaidan was one of the parts of what actually and was shown as part of these mass actions, these were mass actions, this was an attempt to block the streets, this was an attempt to stand under the verkhovna rada, it was an attempt to put some kind of tent there. point , it's just possible that it has now been slightly erased from memory due to the fact that it

did not achieve any results and was quite, well, limited in its actions, but it was such an attempt, but i have a little something for larisa maybe on the other side of the question, now we see all these publications active, old plans, and you see, publications of this plan, well, they were not started by the wall street journal, they were started by putin, he started talking about these plans, first in one interview, then in another, and then... they hap, and suddenly the wall street journal appears unexpectedly , and it is not the first time that what putin says appears in some wall street journal, and somehow it reminds me. some strange movements, and yet what is the purpose of these publications, let me put it this way, what is the purpose of all these publications, all these plans? the fact is that in psychology there is a very good study from the american 50s, where they took a group of people, they showed it to them there, that is,

they told them about a situation, showed them a film, they wrote down for themselves what and how they saw, they wrote down the plot of the film for themselves, after that these people scared them that you are wrong, that they said, listen, everyone else thinks differently, that is, in principle, what happened, that , whom, the experimenters, one person thought that he was in the group, all the others were, so they were like himself, that is, also such studies, in fact, all of them were bogus, and then it was discovered that, in fact, a person. able to change her memories just in front of the experimenter, if she is frightened by rejection, if she is frightened by something out there, that she will, for example, be kicked out of the group , that she will not be paid, because she alone blocks the entire company, the entire team, and everything disrupts the experiment and so on, that is, under the influence of fear, under the influence of negative feelings,

the person in front of her eyes simply rewrote, not just agreed, but... the equipment itself showed how these neural connections are rewritten in her, she perceives as something that did not happen, she perceives it as a real event, so i am reminded of exactly this, because we are now being told that there was with us in the 22nd year, they tell as some kind of revelation, although in fact, we, i agree with mr. oleksiy here, and with mr. serhiy, we knew about these plans because, remember, in istanbul on march 29. the current minister of defense umiraf came out, they all read these points as a ukrainian proposal, moreover, it was said that ukraine insists that it does not join nato, but there must be preliminary guarantees from the country, there was an appeal to the united states and there of the budapest memorandum of the signatories, then

there that ukraine will hold an all-ukrainian referendum on whether the ukrainians agree... on these conditions, if everything is like that, then it's fine, well, there was some kind of complex scheme, when it was obvious that whatever ukraine agreed to, it was impossible to implement it, but in parallel, that the most interesting thing is, first of all, putin did not sign it, and here i agree with mr. sergey, he then told the african leaders there that we already have agreements, but putin did not sign any agreements, moreover, on the 29th. the last meeting was held in istanbul, after which the ukrainian delegation left and read our proposals to russia, and these are exactly the proposals that we now see here in the wall street journal, but at this moment, literally a few days after march 29, when the last meeting was held, on april 2, i will remind you,

the ukrainian military entered bucha , and everything changed, even more... russia , according to research and observations from satellites , was killing and shooting people in buch, just at those very minutes, when negotiations were going on in istanbul, so the fact that ukraine did not agree is the result of that horror , which we saw in the kyiv region, and what's more, we all did too we remember the press conference of volodymyr zelenskyi, which he gave to ukrainian journalists, when i... natalka snisarchuk asked him about how it is possible to talk about something with putin after buchei, and he said: "you understand, i am the president, i have to fight". we all remember this scene, but bucha already sounded the argument of the impossibility of holding any negotiations with putin, and only after that the authorities said that there will be no negotiations, nothing will happen, the liberation of all territories. this vol street

journal for some reason forgot to remind that this is not was let's forget everything we know about the russians and suddenly, let's go back to the conversation, well , i think that this is actually the dawning point of the russians on this story, yes, rather they show that putin agreed, but ukraine for some reason, but putin did not agree , it's a draft from his side, and it doesn't have his signature, actually. yes, and now , it seems to me, this is also an attempt to throw in the same thing as an attempt, you know, let's talk about something again, thanks to my wonderful colleagues, oleksiy mustafin, larisa voloshina , sergey garman. i will remind you about ours survey, let's see in the end how our viewers voted, so whether people's deputies should be restricted from working trips abroad during the war, and what do we

see there, 70, i don't see, 76% said no, respectively, 24% said that yes, well, in principle, well, such and such an answer, she understood. and with you, i hope, serhiy rudenko will meet next week, i was very glad to see you, i wish everyone a good night and actually a good weekend, goodbye, welcome to the channel. today's topic is ours programs war and weapons - where to get new forces and resources in the war against russia? and there are several components here. french president

emmanuel macron caused a real storm this week, stumbling upon the possibility of introducing the troops of european states into ukraine. can kyiv count on such unexpected reserves? is it just unbelievable. although macron himself already after that high-profile meeting in paris with the leaders. 20 countries that help ukraine in the fight against russia, again emphasized that all his statements, including the dispatch of western troops, were carefully thought out, so what is behind it, we will talk about it in the first part of our program, and in the second part about internal reserves, which we do not take into account, but they still exist, i am talking about the fact that in fact each of our combat brigades is such a kind of center... the center of information power that connects and mobilizes society, as an example of the third separate assault brigade, and this potential depends not only on

weapons, so what kind of phenomenon is it, how to use it, scale it and what effect he can have my name is serhiy zgurets the director of the information and consulting company defense express, which now, together with the espresso channels, seeks to cover the most relevant events in the life of our army and... the security dimension, and now we have the first guest joining us, this is oleksiy yezhak, an expert of the national institute of strategic studies, mr. oleksiyu, i congratulate you, i am glad to see and hear you, in return, i am glad to see you, i congratulate you, of course, i would like to start with what i announced in the introduction to our program, how macron's statement and his actions should be taken to discuss the issue of possibility of sending units of either nato or the european union to ukraine and this is probing the positions of the leaders of the european countries of the alliance, because

at first it looked like such a certain absolute impossibility, but then the minister of foreign affairs of france spoke about the fact that nothing can be ruled out, and the prime minister the prime minister of estonia also spoke about the fact that western leaders should not rule out the possibility of sending ground troops into ukraine there. that is, as for me , it is still such an interesting new trend in certain political currents, it has several components and layers for you to pick out from these statements, why is it important, what are the consequences of this? maybe it would be too loud, but i will still say, i believe that such conversations, such and such a discourse is actually the beginning of practical negotiations. conditions of ukraine's membership in nato, but this is in the same vein as, for example, our discussions with our neighbors regarding the farmers' protests, this is actually

the beginning of negotiations on ukraine's accession to the european union, on the conditions of this accession, on what conditions, which actually, well how it will actually be take place, what rights, duties and all that, now regarding how real it is, it's real, it's... and i would say natural. whenever we see a situation where the united states changes its attitude towards europe for certain reasons, and now such a situation is happening, there is now a conflict situation regarding aid to ukraine between, ukraine between europe and the united states. always in such periods, france takes political leadership. she took such political leadership now in order to... unite, unite europe for certain goals, and at the same time, why it is important, because in the leadership that is now in

europe, in france and which. there has always been france and germany, in this leadership the roles are slightly different, in france it is political leadership, in germany it is financial leadership, and there is also an element that france would like to pool european resources in the vision as it sees it , because it is enough to say that, for example, the fund that everyone knows about, 100 billion, the german fund for modernization. and the change of weapons, this is still basically the f-35, american, france has a different vision, that is, i want to say that, in principle, it is natural, what was said, how realistic it is from the point of view, and what it means for the security of ukraine, i would, it is clearly not about nato troops fought instead of our troops, this is not...

about the replacement of the law on mobilization and everything related to it, it is rather about the agreements that ukraine is currently concluding with europe, about the automatic reaction of our partners in case of danger for ukraine , this is that presence, we are talking about such and such forms of presence, which make reactions on the part of nato countries automatic, it is not only a military presence, it is also an industrial presence, it is also a different financial one. and political presence, but here i will remind you that in order to fight for ukraine, you need, well, you need such a large presence, and the constitution of ukraine, article 17, paragraph 7, seems to say that on the territory of ukraine it is impossible to create foreign military bases, that is, such forms are impossible, now such forms, when there is a certain territory, the flag of another country hangs there.

military personnel live there under the laws of another country and there is a special agreement on the status of foreign forces, no, i am not talking about that, it is about the fact that the military presence can be different, it can be special forces, it can be consultants, advisors, it it could be the crews that service the equipment we receive, it could be the engineering various divisions. all this can be, and from my point of view there is not, it is not enough that it is possible, it already is by and large. it is now about which countries are ready, ready to increase such a presence and are ready to undertake the following additional obligations regarding an automatic response in the event, well, in the event of danger to ukraine and threats

to ukraine. well, of course, this... discourse is also for us, we also have to decide for ourselves, and are we ready, as a country, well, let's say, a nato country, are we ready to host foreign troops on a permanent basis, essential such and such the presence that will be, with which, well , our common defense will be embedded, this is also an important issue for us, that is , they actually said, it is such a certain paradoxical a situation that is not ukraine. goes to nato, and nato comes to ukraine, and then , in fact, our military-political leadership should probably then stimulate this process, identifying the most promising, most necessary areas and creating conditions for changes in these areas to take place as quickly as possible, and this will be just the impetus for the activation of those areas that are currently stagnant, because as the french said there, it is necessary to implement

cyber protection measures. demining production of weapons on the ground, some of them may need presence on ukrainian territory , without crossing the border of hostilities, that is, in fact, this is what you said, explaining the possibilities of actions of nato countries, but what should we do now to activate this process, what can be the recommendations for our authorities, well, i i would like to say that what we are saying has already happened. or in the baltic countries , what i mean, in general, our vision, our understanding of what nato is, that we give divisions, or more or less, and put under the command of unified nato structures, in a large war, it remains so, it remains on the agenda, but from the 14th year , a different process began within nato, when they saw what was happening, which, as organized...