well, artillery, vehicles, you can't always have all these different systems that you have gathered, these things are related to interoperability, standards, this is what we can do together with ukraine, in the direction of securing a political solution, that is, we are doing everything to get as close as possible, so that... it is ready when the political discussions reach an agreement. i want to return to russia, practically russia violated international law and started a war against independent ukraine. and ukrainians, with the support of the event, stand side by side in defense democracy and, but the fact is that the russian dictator, in my opinion, putin again.

reassigned and in his last speech he again raised the issue of nuclear weapons. he threatens the world. he tries to shake the saber. speaking about the fact that russia has nuclear weapons, can threaten anyone, and that russia , in quotation marks, is going to defend its territory with the use of nuclear weapons. my question admiral, how do you rate? the russian nuclear threat, that's question number one, and question number two, how do you assess the state of russian, of the russian military, compared to the russian military prior to the large-scale invasion, i think it's important to distinguish between the rhetoric of the political leadership, including putin, and also understand what we've seen and ... over

the last two years and what actually happened. to date, we have not seen anything happening in russia regarding the possible use of nuclear weapons, if we had to change our position, it is important. i think that today, mainly from the point of view of rhetoric, the use. nuclear weapons, it differs from real things, that's good and that inspires us, that's the first, at the same time, we 're watching what's going on there very carefully, so far we don't see anything that would make us have to change our nuclear policy. secondly, we witnessed that the russian army learns from its mistakes. in result.

it has become stronger in the sense that it is more difficult for the ukrainian army to fight with it, this does not mean that it is an ideal army, it does not mean that they succeed in everything planned, from the point of view of coordination, from the point of view of commanding the troops, there they still have huge problems the very question of how they use artillery shows that they have no ability. to wage modern war and maneuver as modern war requires, so they use first of all so -called artillery barrages, this is a tactic of the first world war. of course, we should not imitate russia in the sense of reaching them quantitatively. doesn't mean we have to make better use of our grenades.

that we can be more quantitative in our answers, it's not about quantity, it's about quality. we know that russia can do a lot to produce more missiles and weapons, and we did not foresee this. this is exactly what we witnessed in the last six months, 7 months. in the alliance and... we are seriously discussing ways to help ukraine, but we ourselves should increase the production of weapons, i would like it to happen faster, because with an autocracy we are different in that we do not have that ability to command, obviously we have shortcomings, it is about the fact that we have to convince private investors, specifically to invest in...

the defense industry, this particular industry in a certain way was destroyed in recent years. by our governments, we must understand this policy, i emphasize this all the time, that in the last decade, the budgets of our countries, of all members of the alliance, have increased, it is not about defense budgets, it is about our response. i think governments need to think about a change in philosophy, western governments have been prioritizing for the past 30 years. efficiency and of course from the point of view of ensuring that everything is subject not only to efficiency, but also to clear accounting,

so we must now add accountability element of efficiency in ukraine, no one speaks or asks questions. do you know how much one patriot missile costs, we need more and more, and in our part of the world, we talk about this all the time with finance ministers, can we get away with other methods of defeat, so it is only about using effectively our production methods are about fit and proportion. demand and opportunities, not in order to launch new production lines, new factories every year, you understand, when it comes to toilet paper, that's how it works and that's not how it works with the defense industry, it's about

relationships and values, these negotiations are going on, as for last month , we saw the negotiations in germany when talking about a new factory. for the production of patriot missiles for patriots, but two years have passed, i am not saying that it is too late, i am saying that it is being done late, the pace should be increased, other countries understand the lessons learned from these two years, we are talking about what we are saying about prices and goals of sustainable development, which should also include. defense development industry, and there are functionaries who do not accept such language, we must understand that we do not need to interfere with the private sector, in general, including the financial sector, must become part of this conversation, conversations

not only about finance, and about money, and about prices , in our part of the world, in the last 10 years, no director, manager... because the head of the work did not think that this could happen, what happened in ukraine in the last two years. in this way, safety was taken for granted, something given, but it turned out that they did not think about the whole range of problems. the strategic interest of private industries lies in the fact that it is just right for them to invest in such production. such production should increase the pace. we... we have everything, we have the financial resources, we have 50% of the world's wealth, more than 50% of the world's military power, those who say we can't do it are lying, it's about prioritizing,

and that brings me, mr. admiral, to the last question, you are absolutely right that the western... world, the rich world, has enormous potentials, and the way they helped us two years ago, it was unimaginable, and it inspired us a lot, that's why ukraine survived, after all, and now we are in a critical moment, this is a moment that will decide the future, you are right when you say, that pessimists do not win the war, and i know... 100% that the realists win the war, what do we see realistically on the front? the ukrainians lack neither weapons nor personnel, but the ukrainian army is holding out, we are strong, the question for us is when we

will receive weapons, admiral, my question it looks like, can the free world actually... you give us the ammunition and the means we need to win this war, can we expedite the supply of those... means, i said the simple answer is yes we can to achieve, but it is about priorities, when we talk about financial, public wealth, we talk about concrete results, and this applies to everyone, as covid affected everyone, whether you are a director or you are a simple worker, we can all be affected. not this patient, it is about mobilizing support to find an answer,

as it was with vaccines, there were governments, huge amounts of money were invested in the response, and then the industry began to do, there were incentives here, i have already said that it is not only about money, it is about the first step, about the direction, about the movement, i repeat. if we actually invest in a real way, the defense industry will do better, but that will also mean setting priorities, it will also mean an impact on our social institutions, you know now that war affects everyone, whether we like it or not, it's about people, about people, not about new grenades, not about new bmps and new tanks. we need and we need new soldiers, soldiers die,

soldiers are injured, and then it is about conscription, all aspects that are currently being discussed for nato, this is an important and difficult problem, it is not only about technical means, it is about people, about support from the whole society, it is not only about the words and actions of the chief of the general staff, it is responsible. general, as it is about your country, if we in the west want to achieve greater security, it is not about action of the minister of defense, it is about the actions of the entire people and countries, i talk about this all the time , and i will repeat, we do not live in an ideal world, democracy has its flaws, we need to convince people, i see that changes are happening, i am aware of that. . that if there are people who are impatient, it puts you out of good

humor, that you think that we are behind, but we must all work together, both the military and the politicians, to reach a situation where we will talk to the defense industry, i i also take it upon myself, although it is not one of mine direct responsibilities, i talk to the private sector all the time, so anything is possible, but it is... i thank you very much for your visit, for your clear position, for your strong message, and most importantly, for your strong support for our country and by our righteous fight for the truth, thank you admiral, we will win. mr. yatsenyuk, i

would like you to stay with us for the work of the next panel. let me request a scene. ukraine is europe, this agreement is signed by all of ukraine. welcome to our first dedicated panel. anniversary of course our director and chairman of the ukrainian kyiv

security forum, prime minister of estonia in 14-15, tomi reibas, i sincerely congratulate you. online will join us. simply a wonderful composition of participants of our forum, we congratulate hermann von rompuy, president of the european council. high representative of the eu for foreign affairs and security policy in 2009 and 2014. i congratulate

you, i sincerely welcome you to the kyiv security forum. so, this discussion will be retrospective, 10 years ago, we have already heard from the time of the revolution of dignity, which took place here in kyiv and throughout ukraine, millions of ukrainians took to the streets to defend their right to democracy and their own choice, their freedom, hundreds of people. died, we honor them, we know about the heavenly hundred, but none of us even imagined what, what would be the important and high price that still had to be paid, and we did not yet understand that this was only the beginning, so the question i will ask to the participants of this discussion, this is what, what was that

revolution of dignity, if you look at it now? retrospectively, what was on the map, in fact, did ukraine make the right choice then, given the cost and the price that ukraine is paying now, i want to ask if mr. rampoy is with us, if not, then i will put this question to mr. baroz, please. good afternoon everyone, i am very pleased to be with you at this forum, unfortunately i could not be physically present with you, as i was here on business, it is very nice to see mr. yatsenyuk, the former prime minister, with whom i have a lot years cooperated, and also ms. ashton,

who was the vice president of the european committee, i also welcome the many friends who are... in this room now who will be speaking today. thank you for the invitation, as it will give me the opportunity to answer this question and share my memories of those times, and i also want to refute some of the lies spread by russian propaganda. first of all, answering your question, i want to say that it was really worth it. for that, since ukraine is waging an existential struggle, actually fighting for its right to exist, no more, no less, and that's exactly how it is it looks, and putin made a huge strategic mistake, he never

emotionally, politically, and psychologically perceived that... there is such a state as ukraine, he considers it as part of greater russia, so the map is not some small question, a question in therefore, does ukraine have the right to be a national, independent, sovereign state, and to have the right to self-determination, and absolutely integral and inviolable, of course, it is worth fighting for, i agree. other parts of europe, my country already exists for about 900 years, like state, and other countries have also existed for centuries, but they had to fight a lot for this independence, so the answer is yes, it is worth fighting for, my

commission and mrs. cashden, as a high representative of foreign policy. we have been discussing this agreement with ukraine for five years and many years and putin has never opposed this association agreement between the eu and ukraine. he has always said that in principle he is not against ukraine joining the european union, he used to say: "i am against ukraine joining nato, but not to the european union", and i at that time... we believed that we could not grant membership to ukraine, but we could grant the opportunity to sign the association agreement, to sign the political part, and also. the part that related to free trade, and we with several presidents of ukraine and prime ministers, including mr. metsenyuk, we discussed this issue in numerous

negotiations, so what happened at the last, last minute in vilnitsa, when i and when mr. rompoi and i met with president yanukovych, he told us that through russia he cannot sign this agreement, and precisely. this and after that came the euromaidan, the uprising of the ukrainian people, the escape of yanukovych and the seizure of crimea. regarding crimea, i was still working in the commission when the invasion of crimea began, and i discussed this issue with putin, and putin told me. that there are no russian armed forces there, which captured crimea

, it is the locals there, their relatives, who may have been joined by russians, ordinary people, to, to help, because he said, if our military were there, then we would in two weeks we took ukraine. "he also said this in front of the european commission, and i shared this information at the level of the 27 countries of the european union at the time, and there was a leak in the italian press, and then the kremlin disowned it harder, but they said that this phrase was torn from". context, but in fact he said that if we had done this with our armed forces, we would have captured kyiv in two weeks, so why did he then

resort to what he dreamed of back in 2013 , sometimes politicians, when they speak, they express freely or. some his hidden intentions and desires, even then he had a desire to capture all of ukraine, but he could not do it, and then in 2022 after syria, he felt that russia was strong, and he believed that the united states and the west in general they are weak, besides, he is today... and at that time two years ago , he already had a much stronger control over all of russia than he had in 2014, and

even the opposition is gone now, as you know, many of them were simply killed and therefore him, and he was driven to do what he did not do in 2014 in 2022, what is at stake here is not only existential. struggle for ukraine, and for europe, for the whole world. and i'll tell the world why. our friends in the global south in some of these countries that say they support international law and sometimes criticize the west for double standards, they actually resort to double standards themselves because they defend the right of nations to... russia

is a permanent member of the un security council uses his right of veto to further violate all the principles and postulates of the organization's charter of nations is a global issue, so we must unite. the whole world because putin is challenging the entire world order and we have to stand up to that, we in europe, if we accept putin's position and accept his success, it will absolutely encourage other dictators to do the same thing against other countries that he did against ukraine, because the same... arguments can be applied in the fight against eu countries and other countries of the world, i remember how we once had difficult discussions on issues. regarding

energy resources, and putin said to me: why you always defend ukraine, you know very well that ukraine is an artificial state that was created by the cia and the european commission, this is just a joke: the european commission created ukraine, just think, and he made these comments, and what proves that he really believes ukraine. an artificial state, but he can say this about any other state and use the same excuse if there are russian-speaking people in a country to take over that country. that is why the question of existential significance is on the map now, not only for of ukraine, not only for europe, but for the whole world. this is why we need to continue, determined, patient, and strategically patient. i

think we will. the european union, despite all the difficulties that exist there, will do it. i think there is enough, enough determination, but the european union is by definition slow, because it is a democracy, 27 countries, it has to be coordinated. i have to cut you short on how we're running out of time, but you've made a very valid point and given us a general context to discuss. this, how it all affects the wider world order, baroness ashton, i want. word to you, i

remember very well how 10 years ago you traveled between brussels and kyiv, repeatedly maybe we don't remember or see well, but please turn on the microphone. do we have sound? looks like we're having a little technical issue here, maybe we'll sort it out a bit later, in the meantime i'll turn to mr. rivas, very good that you can.

continue post-technical difficulties, your country paved the way that ukraine is looking for, since the late 80s, joining the european union, joining the euro-atlantic community, fortunately for estonia, for your country, it did not have to pay the price that ukraine is paying , as you can see. thanks for the question, i see a lot of similarities in terms of time, our time was more on our side because the soviet union was falling apart and we took advantage of that opportunity and we said very clearly that we

are not a bridge between russia and the west. and to the western ones values, in ukraine, later there was a certain manifestation of the free will of ukrainians, who demonstrated their desire to belong to the european union and these values, to the european community, not to hang somewhere in the middle, of course, what russia did... then maybe it cemented something, strengthened it these feelings, well, maybe someone can say that i look at it cynically, but she intensified these feelings by attacking a sovereign country that chose for itself to belong to the european family, i do not see how.