well, now at 9 o'clock, let's observe a moment of silence to honor the memory of those ukrainians whose lives were cut short by russian aggression. let's observe a moment of silence in memory of the ukrainian military and civilian citizens of ukraine who died in the war started by russia.

biden called zelensky putin, and his vice president trump, you definitely saw it in all the news feeds and social networks, but not only the excuses will remain in your memory afterwards. jubilee summit of nato, however, ukraine still wanted an invitation to the alliance last year, it didn't happen, this year the goal was to erase all the red lines, and it didn't happen, but nato gave ukraine another brick to the so-called bridge to membership, what result did kyiv actually get and what prospects opened up after this meeting in washington, the nato summit is progress, or still running in place. this is svoboda ranok, my name is kateryna nekrecha, and we are starting. support

for ukraine was documented by 23 countries and the european union signed a document on support for ukraine and it is called "ukrainian compact". this collective agreement is called another concrete element of ukraine's bridge to nato and future membership in the alliance. voice of america writes about this. in the document , the signatory states agree to fulfill their obligations under bilateral security agreements. and this ukrainian compact remains from. open to the accession of other states. it states that the states undertake to support the needs of ukraine in the field of defense, in particular , the provision of military equipment, training of the ukrainian military will contribute to the acceleration of the development of the armed forces of ukraine. and in the event of a new russian attack on ukraine, after the end of the current hostilities, the signatories should meet at the highest level for consultations on supporting ukraine. without deadlines. before joining,

but with promises, the anniversary summit of nato in washington ended with tangible results for ukraine, this is the strengthening of air defense, strengthening of weapons, but the answer to the question of when ukraine can join the alliance was never heard, zoryana stepanenko worked on the sidelines of the summit, and then her report from washington. there is a noticeable contrast to the previous year's nato summit in vilnius, where president zelensky criticized the allies, and they were angry in response. we are pleased with the results of the washington summit because the language of the documents is really strong. we see that the alliance has taken real steps forward. i think the next stop... in the final

declaration of the summit, its path to nato was called irreversible and praised for reforms, promising to support ukraine in them. they also agreed on a forty-billion-dollar aid package from the alliance for the next year. all these elements is a bridge to nato membership and a very strong package for ukraine. the future of ukraine in nato. i welcome your progress in reforms and. as long as you continue this important work, we will support you on your irreversible path to membership in the alliance. in the communiqué, russia was called the most significant threat to the security of the alliance, and president putin, as the allies repeated, will not force them to turn away from ukraine. he cannot weaken us, and ukraine, not russia, will win this war. today, on the battlefield, russia works hard, but does not break through. and

ukraine is causing huge losses to it and undermining russia's strategic capabilities. the us president's security adviser says that the picture on the battlefield is different now, compared to the spring, when... the country lacked western support, and therefore lacked weapons. the need for it remains, and there were many announcements about new packages on the sidelines of the summit. one of the last in the white house. ukraine will receive $225 million worth of weapons from shasa. in the next aid package from the united states, which biden announced while hosting zelensky, the patriot system. on armament of ukraine, it will become relatively fast. the military equipment within this package will be supplied directly from the warehouses of the us army. however. they are not ready to expand the geography of the use of their weapons in washington. after the onslaught of russian forces in the kharkiv region, the us allowed to strike military facilities in russia, but not in the hinterland, but only along the border, to prevent escalation. ukraine has its own weapons, with which it

strikes where it deems necessary. we said there are some restrictions on our ranged weapons, we want this one weapons were used where they fit best. in washington fought for the absence of red lines. at bilateral meetings, zelenskyy explained to his colleagues that if distance restrictions are canceled, many lives will be saved. we have received very good messages from the leader of great britain, and i hope that we will get such solutions. again, if we really want to have ukraine on the map, not putin. that attacked half the planet, then yes, we need to take very specific and fast steps. among the countries who supported ukraine's right to strike targets on the territory of russia, and those who lead the so-called air coalition and provide ukraine with the most

f-16 fighter jets. on the sidelines of the summit , the prime minister of kudania asked radio svoboda whether the permission to hit russian targets with them extends to its entire territory. you cannot ask this question and expect a simple answer, because everything depends on the circumstances, it must be in accordance with international law, but it is also possible to achieve goals outside of ukraine, yes. the us president does not yet see the need to further lift restrictions on strikes on the territory of russia, he said, there is no sense in being able to strike the kremlin, and he sees no reason to talk with vladimir putin. he's not willing to do much in terms of adapting to any changes in his behavior, but there's no world leader i'm not willing to deal with, i'm not willing to talk to putin until putin is willing to change his behavior. the war in ukraine

dominated the agenda of the summit, but the attention of the allies is now also attracted by the events in the usa, where there may be a change of power. in the capacity of joe biden to defeat donald trump, who is considered a nato skeptic by the sad. even the closest associates of the current president, all because of the tv debate, which is believed to have become a failure for biden, at the summit he again gave a reason for talking, slandering several times, vice president harris accidentally called trump, and volodymyr zelensky putin. ladies and gentlemen, president putin, president putin, and you will defeat him, president zelensky, i am so focused on defeating putin that we have to worry about it, mr. president. "i am much better, you are much better closing the summit with his press conference, biden told reporters that he is in good shape, the same feedback about him was given by the leaders who met with him separately. what to expect from trump in the event of his return to the white house, no

one can predict from washington , maria zolkina, head of the democratic initiatives foundation, joins radio liberty. thank you joined good morning. ukraine has been hoping for an invitation to nato since last year. in vain. there was a plan b, this is permission to hit western weapons on objects in russia, also in vain. is it a bridge to nato membership, is this really a good result for ukraine based on the results of the summit, or is it still a stomping on the ground? well, there are good results, but they definitely do not reach... the ambitions that ukraine set for itself, at least a few months ago, this is not an unforeseen situation for ukraine, we expected what the results of the summit would be, unlike the vilnius summit, the content of the declarations and offers of assistance to ukraine were known not only a few weeks, but also

a couple of months before the summit itself, and unlike the vilnius summit, the ukrainian side understood that this time it would take public steps to change the text communique. it is not necessary to influence the course of the summit in any way, and we remember that this may have been part of the motivation to meet with the leaders, in particular with biden. in continental europe almost a month ago on the fields of the big seven, then volodymyr zelenskyy met with the leaders during the celebration of the anniversary of the landing of the allies in normandy, well, in one word , it was known that we would receive, and ukraine understood that this time we conditionally agree to it, because it will not be possible to receive something else, well, more ambitious so far , but in general the results of the summit can be considered a sufficiently serious argument in support of ukraine and for future persuasion or even

pressure of ukraine to negotiate with russia and for changing the coordination of support for ukraine in the event that trump is in the white house, for example, instead of biden in six months. are you saying that the result does not meet kyiv's ambitions, but meets real challenges and real threats? well, it's just ukraine's ambition to join nato, and here too it is clear that we are resting on the position of the two capitals. so far, the key one is washington, the second one that could change its position is berlin, it could change if washington, the white house changed its position, but to the real challenges, well, it's difficult to assess, i think it's big enough a step forward, this summit, from the point of view that nato finally, how the organization undertakes certain obligations, they are not legal, it will all lie in... whether nato members are ready for this or not, ready to give money or not for the

long-term support that was signed and next year, for example, no less than 40 billion dollars has been determined, will they be ready to provide weapons, are they ready, what is happening now at the bilateral level, coordinated in the ramstein format, and now it is proposed to be coordinated at the level of nato, that is, nato for despite all russian propaganda in... the information space of nato until literally the washington summit, until yesterday, in general, as an organization, institutionally, with its structures, with its political pressure, it did not take part in supporting ukraine, that is, the umbrella of nato, it was actually, well, very symbolic, everything was done on a bilateral basis, and if the european union, for example, made some collective decisions, let them be declarative, as, for example, by the european parliament, they did not directly end in concrete actions, but they symbolized

common position of the member countries, then there was nothing like that in nato, and moreover, nato did not institutionally in any way act as an umbrella that would coordinate actions specifically to support ukraine. now it is changing, and i believe that in principle i see the reasons for this, that it is quite logical, maybe... you know, but in the current conditions it is quite a logical step. what is the weight of this declaration of the alliance that we will continue to support ukraine on its irreversible path to full euro-atlantic integration, which includes membership in nato. this is something that can be done grope there, grope, is it something concrete or just a declaration? i am very calm about this wording, to be honest, i do not understand the enthusiasm that is in the comments of many. experts diverged after the united states agreed, because they

did not immediately want, particularly biden to include the term irreversible nato membership, then agreed, but it is the same as in all other nato declarations, we must understand that this is a confirmation that that ukraine is on its way to nato. the fact that it is confirmed to us, but without invitations, without specific terms and generally believe that it is not timely, frankly speaking, when it comes to the same. washington and some other politicians among nato leaders. well , it somehow seems to me that it is more important from an analytical point of view than the fact that a new term appears in the declaration itself, even if it is encouraging enough. what is important, why this term is really important, is not to confirm that we will one day be in nato, but because it is a kind of fuse for the fall of 24, when many who is not unreasonably expecting a possible ... probing of the soil and a possible start in one or another form of negotiations, most likely not

direct, but perhaps in some indirect form with the russian federation, and we clearly remember and understand that russia has one of of its formal ones, this is not the only and not the main one, but russia's formal demands begin with the fact that ukraine should renounce nato membership, and the expert community last year, including myself, insisted that the vilnius summit was a political moment to give ukraine nato membership was much more favorable than, for example, it is now, for the invitation, but this decision was not made about... the invitation even, precisely because this map of nato membership, political leaders, including the president biden, they postponed it for the future in case it can be useful in the negotiations with the russian federation, because it is a cornerstone for russia, and you can play around it, and if you have already invited, then it turns out, there is nothing to agree on, here there is no space at all

for diplomatic games, let's say this, but now it is a fuse that... even if there are contacts, they will be the degree of this tension around nato, around the topic of nato, it will be reduced, but not removed, because it is a declarative position at the summit, in the declaration of the summit, it can deny the actions of the alliance in the coming years, it can deny the actions, contradict the actions of the ukrainian authorities at a certain moment, i am not saying now that we will see a reversal from the euro-atlantic perspective in the coming years, but... but everything lies on the level decisions, political decisions, of the state that aspires to join nato, and of the states that give their approval unanimously for its accession, therefore the declaration does not impose any obligations, does not impose any obligations, i understand that after all there is such a moment that it was recalled that ukraine also changed its course from nato , including at one time, and this

is an argument for western partners, perhaps it is such a warning that there is no need to hurry with this invitation. i would say, this is just an argument to remove self-responsibility, because it is absolutely clear that the situation in ukraine is qualitatively different from 2010, ukraine needs collective defense and to participate in some, some format of collective defense, and nato is the only international organization, now, which can this collective defense, this principle should be given to ukraine, and some nato members will not give it to ukraine. sign relevant commitments at the bilateral level until nato and ukraine are united by ukraine's own membership in the alliance. therefore, it is clear to everyone here what if ukraine did not try to sign as many security agreements as possible. we should also mention the so-called security

compact, which was also signed at the washington summit, actually unites declaratively, in coordination, but... unites all those countries that already have bilateral security agreements with ukraine, plus the european union, this by the way, it is very important, for me, this signal is perhaps more important than for nato, than for other nato documents, because the european union, in which there is a common security and defense policy, allocation for it funds is the weakest part of common european policy, he joins the idea of ​​providing support to ukraine precisely as an organization, like the european union. union and not simply as members of the european union. so, no matter how many of these bilateral security documents we sign, they all have one weak point, precisely because ukraine is not a member of nato, so far, precisely because of this, none of these member countries, neither great britain nor poland, nor the united states, with the united states is one of the weakest agreements, by the way, they

are not ready to undertake joint military missions with us to... defend ukraine in a greater way than they protect, help it now, and the only problem is that ukraine is not a member of the same alliance and, accordingly, will not be able to to use article five of the washington treaty, according to collective defense, when we will have collective defense, according to our status as a nato member, then believe me, and the documents we have signed now, for 10 years and so on, with individual nato members , they will also change, because... there will already be a principle of participation in a joint defense alliance, we can say that the nato summit was not so focused only on ukraine, this is also important in principle for biden in the election race, two such , two such moments very actively, that biden confused and called zelensky putin, and also confused and

called his vice president trump, and there were such two excuses, and here is serhiy sydorenko, the leader of economic truth. wrote on his facebook that this is a catastrophe, that it is political leaders too often lose their sense of reality, the sense of the moment when it is necessary to go becomes unattainable for many, for biden this time has not just come, but has remained somewhere in the past, but he does not understand it at all. do you agree with this assessment? well, we are not ukrainian voters, we can evaluate the energy of president biden as we like, let's say, but we also don't know, i would agree here, perhaps not only with serhiy, but also with another ukrainian journalist, vitaly portnikov, who often says that actually, at the moment end of term, we do not know in what condition, physically, etc., the tram will be. because they are practically the same age as biden, but what is the key for us? the key for us is to maintain bipartisan relations with the united

states and to maintain ukraine's support from the united states, regardless of who will be the president, if biden remains the president, we understand that all those documents that were signed at the nato summit, for example, they will find support in congress, which, despite recent problems, still has support ukraine and voice. there will be further financing, that is, we have a certain certainty, we may not be satisfied with this certainty, because it is cautious, limited, do not strike with long-range weapons, we do not know exactly how much the next packages of financial aid will be, we must be careful with russia so that it does not start destabilize, so be careful where and how you shoot, well, there are many such limiting factors, but we understand how the biden administration will act, so... for us, this option is clear, what will happen with we don't understand trump's presidency yet, so for ukraine, we need to prepare for the worst, because we

already understand the other scenarios in principle, they are familiar to us. regarding negotiations, and joseph biden has said that he does not see a reason to talk to putin now, there is not much he is ready to do in the sense of changing behavior, but there is no world leader with whom i am not ready to interact, this is an important point, i mean, still . it seems that the interaction is allowed somewhere, he, mr. orbán's peace mission 5:0, i don't know whether it has been completed or not, but he already met with trump, before that, we remember, he was in ukraine, he was in russia, he met with the chinese leader, after all, and you also said about the possible preparation for negotiations there, he can play some key role these journeys of orbán in these negotiations, do you still allow that during this year or at the end of this year. the parties will actually sit down at the negotiating table, either there through mediators, or this issue will really be discussed at such a serious level. i allow that there may be

indirect formulas, for example, the second peace summit could use the mechanism that brazil used in the first summit, for example, it was not officially a participant in the event, but it gave its delegate observer status, and everyone else agreed, contact, me. .. i admit that there may be a format that was used to sign the grain agreement, when there were also no direct bilateral agreements, even tactical ones, but an agreement on how the parties, russian and ukrainian, were to act through the mediation of third parties of the un and turkey, so this is the format of indirect contacts, i consider it absolutely realistic, more threatening, i think if there will be contacts already directly between the two parties, with moderation, of course, it will not be otherwise, but with involvement, directly already from the direction of representatives of the delegates, well, as it once was in istanbul, for example, or on

the territory of belarus at the beginning of the 22nd year, with the renewal of ukrainian, the russian side, yes, i believe that this is realistic enough, because the situation in the west is changeable now and including in the united states, the desire to negotiate and that's it. to decide, and , accordingly, there is no such strong pressure on ukraine yet, and it is unlikely that there will be before the presidential elections, but to decide and agree, for example, on the so-called truce, which, i apologize, many politicians dream of, they call very good for ukraine's motives are that we need to stop, rearm, that we need to rest, mobilize new people, that this is also good for us, but they do not understand that a truce is neither a tactic nor a strategy. exit from this conflict, and it can actually bring many negatives, and ukraine will find itself in an even worse situation, because russia will not receive a truce, but negotiations will take place, i

still consider this scenario realistic, it is tactical, not strategic, tactical negotiations, but yes, and precisely in order to avoid talks about a strategic, so-called end to the conflict, i consider it correct for ukraine that the wording about the inevitability of ukraine's membership in nato appeared, because at least at this stage of the... negotiations definitely won't thank you, thank you, maria zolkina, head of the regional security and conflict research department of the democratic initiatives foundation and a researcher at the london school of economics, and we were talking about the results of the nato summit. in the comments, for now , share your impression, in your opinion, what will be the political consequences of this anniversary nato summit held in washington, security agreements, additional packages of military aid and calls for the authorization of retaliatory strikes on the territory of russia - this is what succeeded reach during of negotiations between ukraine and other countries participating in the 75th nato anniversary summit in washington,

the aid package announced by joe biden, in addition to the ppu, also included... artillery shells and shells for hymars missile systems and anti-tank weapons. this will be the eighth package i have approved since we signed the homeland security act. the minister of defense and we can talk about the details of all this. i signed it yesterday, last night, and we are working with our nato allies to ensure that ukraine receives f-16s as early as this summer and we show the world that we are with ukraine, both now and in the future. jake the us presidential security adviser said that after the russian attack on the okhmadit children's hospital in kyiv, russia should expect a response with force and allies are working on it, while nato secretary general jen stoltenberg stressed that ukraine has the right to self-defense and called for easing restrictions on strikes on military facilities on the territory of the russian federation, which the russian army uses for attacks on ukraine. volodymyr zelenskyy called on allies to allow such

blows of course, if we want to win, if we want to prevail, if we want to save our country and protect it, we need to remove all restrictions. oleksandr kovalenko, a military observer of the information resistance group, joined our broadcast. congratulations oleksandr, thank you for joining. congratulations. why are nato members so afraid that ukraine will cross those red lines, which, in fact, they themselves have determined. well, and from where? i don't know, i'm not a member of nato, in principle, they call it escalation, but we have already seen repeatedly that any the red lines that are set even by the russian federation themselves, they mean nothing when a step has been taken to cross them from the side of ukraine, and western means of destruction are already being used on the territory of the russian federation, but with restrictions, the removal of restrictions

will not change anything. will not only expand the capabilities of the defense forces of ukraine to stop the enemy in order to destroy his military facilities, but at the same time such a rather slow bureaucratic process is taking place, which they are trying to cover up with all kinds of methods the threat of any escalation. by the way, this is not the first time that we have heard from biden that if ukraine is given such permission, it will attack moscow, the kremlin, although the ukrainian side has publicly explained more than once why this permission is needed. in your opinion, the western partners do not trust ukraine and really think that the armed forces will immediately start hitting the kremlin there, or do they simply not understand the purpose of the defense forces of ukraine? by the third year of the war , it was already possible to make sure that we do not attack civilian objects, or if we do, then only in that case

if they have a direct connection. with the russian occupying forces for their provision, placement, and so on, because the russians often use civilian objects in order to house either troops or warehouses with ammunition or fuel and lubricants for the occupying forces, and therefore all these excuses , they are worthless, this is very good, everyone understands that we will not take any blows, but... but the most interesting thing is that even if we receive permission for full use deep into the territory of ukraine, then deep into the territory russia has the same atacoms missiles, then the atacoms missile does not reach moscow, that is, again , some kind of incomprehensible manipulation. uh, but could it be that, in principle, you know, the seed is laid and it will sprout and just somewhere with the f-16, when they will be in ukraine, there may still be a relaxation in these issues,

that is, what would it open ... prospects for the defense forces of ukraine, if these red lines were really removed, and the f16 would already be used by the armed forces. f-16 have a fairly wide range of weapons, which is long-range and highly accurate, it is like an air-type weapon to destroy air targets, first of all we are interested in the destruction of russian russian aircraft, before they come into position to strike ukraine, either with missile weapons or dropping their modified air bombs , as well as the f-16 range includes cruise missiles, gm-158 jasm, which can be used not only on the territory temporarily occupied by ukraine, but also on the territory of the russian federation to strike at surface, specifically for military facilities. and