attentive guests of the studio: the events of the day in two hours, vasyl zima's big broadcast, a project for smart and caring people, espresso in the evening.

this is what the stormshedov cruise missile will look like soon, ukraine will be able to hit deep into the territory of the russian federation with them. at least this is what the guardian claims. for example, great britain decided to allow the use of these long-range missiles for strikes on russia. when it becomes possible, how

will such strikes affect the situation on the battlefield and how will russia respond? this is a transition red lines? we are talking about this today, my name is iryna sysak and this is svoboda live. a long-awaited decision for ukraine, the authorities of great britain allowed to hit military targets in russia with storm shadow missiles. this is reported by the british publication the guardian with reference to sources in the government. journalists claim that the decision was not made publicly and most likely. in general, it will not be announced. missiles can reach more than 250 km. at the same time, as sources assure the guardian, if there was no permission to strike, then a joint visit the heads of foreign affairs of the usa and great britain, anthony blinken and david lammy, who were received in kyiv yesterday, would not have taken place. by the way, the us secretary of state said the day before that the issue of long-range strikes was discussed with ukrainian high-ranking officials. with this discussion he will return to joe'. biden, as early as tomorrow

, friday, the us president will discuss authorization to strike russia with british prime minister keir starmer, whom he will meet in washington, although, according to the guardian, the authorization will not be announced as a result of the meeting, but according to journalists, during a briefing in kyiv , blinken hinted that the white house is also going to lift restrictions on ukraine's use of long-range radio-guided missiles. speaking on behalf of the united states, from day one we have adapted and adapted to changing needs, to changes on the battlefield, i have no doubt that we will continue to do so as the situation evolves, with the secretary of state, with president zelensky, with by his entire team, among other things, we discussed long-range shots, as well as a string other issues, i'm going to take this discussion back to washington to brief the president on what i've heard. and the fact

that the white house is finalizing work on easing restrictions on the use of weapons provided by the united states on the territory of russia, politico reported from its own sources. the expansion of the territory inside russia, which ukraine can hit with american and british- made weapons, has been discussed in washington, london and kyiv in recent days. the details are still being negotiated, this article says. at the same time, according to the bloomberg agency, the decision of the event to relax restrictions on strikes against russia will be announced before the meeting of leaders at the un general assembly, which will take place at the end of september. now, as journalists note, the usa and great britain want to better understand ukraine's plan to use long-range missiles. blinken's joint visit to allami was intended to hear zelensky's plan to strike deep into russian territory and to discuss his long-term strategy for the coming year. this involved, in particular, the desire to get better an idea of ​​what kyiv wants to aim for and... why? how the permission to strike deep into russia

with western weapons will change the situation and whether ukraine even has these missiles, we speak with dmytro snigirov, a military analyst who joins our broadcast, sir. dmitry, good evening to you, good evening, thank you for the invitation, thank you for participating, let's start with the fact that if there is such a decision on permission, then ukraine will be able to use american atakams ballistic missiles and british-french storm shadow cruise missiles, what these rockets are like that important and where in the russian federation will they be able to reach? the attack range is about 300 km, but the main thing worth talking about is the combat part. a cluster warhead that makes it possible to hit targets in an area the size of a football field, that is, relatively speaking, if an atanks with a cluster warhead has worked on russian airfields on the territory of the russian federation, then this disabling is not a single target,

accordingly it will be immediately destroyed , or seriously damaged several sides of the russian vks, this one itself. and is afraid the russian federation, and, please note, to the question regarding russia's response to the permission from the united states, great britain, britain, for military purposes on the territory of the russian federation, piskov gave some not quite clear answer regarding the fact that the very nature of the so-called special military operation and is the russian federation's answer to these so-called red lines, but let's talk about... that all attention is focused on two capitals, london and , respectively, washington. instead, i would draw attention to the solution, historical, without an exaggeration of the decision that was made in another european capital, namely amsterdam, it is about the fact that the netherlands

declared that they are not against the ukrainian side using the types of weapons that the netherlands handed over for the needs of the defense forces of ukraine, and here most interestingly, we this is about the fact that the netherlands is one of the first countries that announced the transfer of f-16 aircraft to the ukrainian side. and the latest statement of the minister of defense of the netherlands and the prime minister of the netherlands shows that they are not against the use of the f-16 in the skies of the russian federation, the fact is that the f-16 can be equipped with cruise missiles, air to ground, igm. 158, so, depending on the classification, the range of hitting ground targets with these cruise missiles is from 400 to 1000 and more kilometers, it is worth talking about it, that is, several european countries were pioneers at the time of the transfer of means of destruction and permits

to kill military targets on the territory of russia federation, and i believe it is no coincidence that it is the day before. the visit of blinken and the minister of foreign affairs of great britain, at one time, great britain was constantly a pioneer and gave impetus to the united states to transfer certain types of weapons to ukraine, the same, first stormshedel, then we saw atakoms, british challengezher tanks, then tanks respectively abrams of the united states. at the moment, we have the permission of amsterdam to use the f-16, and i do not exclude myself ... air-to-ground cruise missiles for military purposes on the territory of the russian federation, respectively attacks, and what, and what can these goals be, mr. dmitry, we are we talking about airfields, are there any more any objects that these missiles can hit?

there are many military targets, and note that austin exclusively positions, well , let's say this, the issue of ... the transfer of attackers with strikes on military airfields, moreover, the refusal of the united states or a pause in granting permission, he argues that 90% of the aircraft of the russian federation have already been relocated outside the area of ​​influence of atakam citizens. so this missile, in principle , has the same characteristics as the storm shadle, that is why the danger of its use for the russian side, it can work respectively for ground targets. moreover , we are talking about long-term, say , enemy defense points, and moreover, a combat unit of 450 kg, this is remarkable, and the main thing that we can work on: field warehouses with bc, places

of permanent temporary deployment of personnel, places of accumulation of heavy armored vehicles, etc., and the main thing, let's not forget that after the successful nature of the ukrainian counteroffensive in the kursk region , the general staff of the armed forces of the russian federation had to go to the creation of two additional tactical. bryansky groups bilhorod, which, according to the russians, should cover the ukrainian-russian border and prevent the recurrence of the kurdish scenario already on the territory of the bilhorod and bryansk regions, the number of personnel of each tactical group is from 20 to 30 thousand, that is, military targets, even in the area affected by the same atakoms quite a lot, mr. dmitry, i want to ask you this, and what do you think, even if ukraine receives this permission to strike with long-range weapons on the territory of russia, do

you think it will be necessary to agree on these goals with partners, have you already mentioned simply the position of lloyd austin regarding russian airfields? i will emphasize, we have already received from our european partners, this is, as they say, the first swallow, and it will now be quite difficult for the united states to explain even to the internal voters the positions of the biden administration regarding the possible refusal to strike at ... legitimate targets, military facilities on the territory of the russian federation, why is the united states currently trying to put pressure on ukraine, this is, in my opinion, an appropriate ban on strikes on energy facilities on the territory of the russian federation, respectively oil refineries and oil production plants. do you remember the scandal that took place at one time, when a representative of the pentagon stated that she considered it inappropriate to carry out ukrainian strikes on ... refineries on the territory of the russian federation, because it seems that this could

lead to an escalation of tensions in the world market against the background of the presidential race in the united states states. so these warnings will most likely be red lines regarding strikes on the territory of russia, i.e. the ban will apply to energy facilities and, accordingly, fuel, well before oil refineries. mr. dmitry, what about russia, about shooting down these missiles, does the russian air defense have the resources for this? can you rate? well, let's talk, if, accordingly, ukrainian drones already fly to the allenia airfield 1,800 km murmansk region without obstacles, and according to tatarstan, 1,500 km along yelaboga, 10,500 are working, then we can talk, express great doubts about the possibility. russian air defense actively counter ukrainian weapons. moreover, i

will recall a vivid illustration of helplessness russian anti-aircraft strikes were carried out on engels airfields in the saratov region and olinya in the muran region. these are airfields where strategic bombers are based. one of the components of the nuclear triad of the russian federation. that is, we are talking about the fact that the world has become convinced that russian air defense is not capable of covering even nuclear facilities. triads, but at the same time, together with the authorization of long-range strikes on the territory of russia, you need to have something to beat, because the other day cnn, citing an anonymous high-ranking official , stated that atakams missiles were transferred to ukraine are almost over, and what information do you have, does ukraine still have these long-range missiles in its arsenal? well, i will not comment, respectively, can we assume? can you assume, i could assume that not the entire arsenal of atacoms

was used by the ukrainian side, this is again one of the levers of political pressure on the american side, but i emphasize once again, i did not accidentally mention amsterdam, you remember the last decision within the framework of ramchstein, the netherlands comes out and says: we give to the ukrainian side another package of military-technical assistance in the amount of 80 million dollars, but we are revealing what exactly we are transferring, we can only say in general that it is, respectively, military equipment, that is, missiles and guided air bombs for f-16, tactics - technical characteristics, i have already given them, by the way, if i have already mentioned the guided air bombs that can be and will be used from f-16 aircraft, they have a range of 130 km, but the main thing we have to talk about, no one did not become those distances regarding the use of f16 in the sky over russia, this is not the american

side, that you can shoot 100 km and fly deep into the russian federation at a distance of up to 500 km, but a guided air bomb, it has a speed of 960 km and a flight range of 130 km, that is, relatively speaking, we can hit the military objects at a distance of more than 500 km, even controlled by aircraft. bombs, and this is already essential, the change in the situation on the line of combat and the possibility of the russian side using its own territory as an accumulation base, that is about... this is worth talking about, i emphasize once again, europe has worked unexpected for the united states and instead quite convincing for the ukrainian side. mr. dmytro, as for russia's response, what could it be, because back in august, russian minister lavrov called the discussion of the possible use of stormshed missiles for strikes deep in russia a game with fire. what

do you think the reaction will be if this permission is granted? he already got it. i will emphasize once again, when this has not been publicly announced yet, it is only, publicly, you know, i am generally surprised when they talk about it, but publicly, there would be statements, you and i should not be concerned about the public nature of the statements, we should be concerned about the practical side of the issue, that is, we will see the results already, i am right, absolutely, and the first to comment are not the representatives of the british side or the ukrainian general staff , and the russian side, that military facilities on the territory of russia were affected by storms, correct, why? to discuss, there was permission, there was not, we will hear it soon from the russian federation, what will be the reaction, i already answered, piskov said that the svo is the appropriate reaction of russia to the possibility of transferring weapons for strikes on the territory of the russian federation. all. thank you, thank you for your thoughts. it was dmytro snigerov, a military analyst.

svoboda live is on the air. thanks. permission for long-range strikes is discussed not only in the west. and in ukraine, this issue also worries high-ranking officials in the kremlin, there they traditionally do not hold back from threats, the day before putin's press secretary piskov said that moscow will not leave unanswered the probable lifting of restrictions on strikes on the territory of russia, and it will, i quote, be corresponding the speaker of the russian state duma , vyacheslav volodin, said that in this way, in his opinion, washington and other european states are becoming participants in the war in ukraine. and recently the minister of foreign affairs of the russian federation serhiy lavrov warned the united states. states not to joke about russia's red lines when considering the issue of supplying ukraine with long-range missiles. since the beginning of the great war, russia has been constantly talking about red lines, although these threats do not seem to have any effect on ukraine's allies or ukraine. i hope no one does it will occur to me to cross the red line with

russia, and where this line will pass, we will determine in each specific case, ourselves. these. the words came from the mouth of vladimir putin in april 2021, less than a year remained before the full-scale invasion of ukraine, but tensions between russia and the west were already at their peak: russian diplomats began to be expelled, and sanctions were imposed on russia. until february 24 , 2022, russian officials will repeatedly talk about red lines, but the most important of them is ukraine's accession to nato. imagine ukraine. is a nato member, the flight time from kharkiv or dnipropetrovsk to the central part of russia to moscow will decrease to 7-10 minutes. is this a red line for us or not? but putin did not wait for ukraine to join nato and launched a full-scale invasion. one of the reasons, he mentioned , was precisely the expansion of nato to the east, although, since then, russia's border with nato has increased significantly.

finland and sweden joined the alliance in 2023 and 2024. in accordance. conducting a special military operation is not the answer to overcoming these lines. in september in 2022, russia outlined the next red line: the transfer of long -range missiles to ukraine. if the usa decides to supply kiev with longer-range missiles, they will cross the red line and become a direct party to the conflict. despite russia's warning, ukraine received the missiles, and in june 2023. in 2016, the then minister of defense of russia, sergei shoigu, stated that, according to his data, ukraine plans to strike crimea with hymers and stormshadow missiles, but called such actions an involvement of the united states and great britain in the conflict. application of these missiles outside the zone of conducting a special military operation will mean the full involvement of the usa and great britain in the conflict and will cause

immediate strikes on decision-making centers on the territory of ukraine. the same applied to f-16 fighters in... in the expert environment, the transfer of aircraft to ukraine was also called a red line of the kremlin. however, the first batch has officially arrived in ukraine. and already in august, the beginning of the kursk operation showed, i quote: the naivety and illusory nature of the concept of red lines in relation to russia. ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyi believes so. olga armyanyshina, radio liberty. maria zolkina, a political analyst at the ilko kucheriv foundation for democratic initiatives, joins our broadcast. good evening to you, i congratulate you, maria, permission to hit russia with long-range weapons, this is another red line for putin, which he is scaring the west, what do you think? i believe that putin takes advantage of the fact that in the west they tend to create these red lines, because they are often born not from the rhetoric of even the russian authorities and

putin himself, but from the rhetoric of our western partners, and this was the case with almost all types of weapons that are critically important for ukraine, and the same is true now with the issue of the actual use of weapons by our partners for military purposes on the territory of the russian federation, absolutely. but this situation looks wild, if you know how western weapons are used in other international conflicts, where our partners, the west, also support one side or another, and such restrictions as on ukraine, in most cases, and in particular, when, for example , applies to long-range missiles, is never superimposed at all, so i would say that russia is taking advantage of the fact that in the west there is a fear of escalation between and nato countries, and russia successfully plays on this weakness of the west, but is there something behind these threats and red lines, or are these just diplomatic

words? in my opinion, the logic of the actions of the russian federation rather suggests that nothing will happen, if it did not happen because of the fact that ukraine finally began to be supplied with battle tanks, in particular the same one. germany, if nothing happened with the start of use by ukraine f16, if nothing happens in in the sense of the escalation between russia and nato, after numerous, successful attacks by ukrainian drones on the objects of the critical infrastructure of the russian federation, i see no reason to threaten russia in the case of the use of stormshadows or attackcams, where they are currently being used, produced in ukraine. drones to make these threats a reality. i believe that nothing will change in the balance of forces and it

will not lead to any escalation between nato and russia. another kurdish operation can also be added to this list, but the discussion about authorization to launch long-range strikes in the west has intensified and has not been as intense since the united states confirmed that iran has transferred ballistic missiles to russia. blinken and lemmy mentioned this, by the way, the day before. heads of foreign departments of the usa and great britain. in particular, david lammy emphasized that it is putin who is escalating the situation. let's listen and continue the conversation now. it was putin who escalated this week by sending ballistic missiles to iran. and we see this new axis. russia, iran, north korea. we we urge china not to link its fate with this group of renegades. in your opinion, did this supply of missiles to russia really become the impetus for accelerating the west's decision on long-range strikes on the territory of russia? i would

say that rather the air attacks, the intensity of which has increased sharply in recent weeks in ukraine, it was more of a push to intensify the discussion and with the aim of actually reaching some kind of compromise, at least, let not all restrictions be lifted, but at least. there will be a certain compromise regarding which objects this will be possible to apply, because what russia has arranged, the terror, which was again on the front pages of all western publications, which again shook the western political debate, because let's remember, until recently, before the kurdish operation and before the terrorist air attacks of russia , the opinion prevailed in the west, that we have reached a dead end in this war, when none of the sides can advance anywhere, and in principle everything is predictable, from the point of view of the capabilities of the parties, and then it turned out that ukraine organized an unpredictable kurdish operation, russia begins to terrorize various

civilian cities and directly hits residential areas at any point in ukraine, in the center in the west, it seems to me that this composition of factors actually moved, it allowed to move this discussion from a dead point, because back in june, at the beginning of july , there was simply complete... understanding between, on the one hand, the kyiv point of view, between the ukrainian authorities and the view from berlin or washington on whether to give ukraine such permits. i want to clarify, however, regarding the transfer to iran, iran's ballistic missiles of russia, it seems that western partners are too worried about this fact, because blinken also spoke about it, and other western officials, which may be affected by this transfer, because they say that iran in this way already... is also becoming a participant in this war, getting more and more involved in it? well, i think that here is a fairer assessment of the ukrainian ministry of foreign affairs, which was more than a year and a half ago. officially

accused iran of directly participating in hostilities through the beginning supply of the infamous shahed drones, which are really terrorizing ukraine. our western partners are worried about this supply of these new portions, in particular of ballistic missiles, primarily because they understand that iran has capabilities, despite all the sanctions that this country has been under for several decades. they have the ability to produce weapons quickly enough, and there are certain accumulated reserves, but at the same time, our western partners have not developed a system of public procurement from private companies even after 2.5 years weapons manufacturers to such an extent that it would be enough to supply ukraine in the required quantity, and at the same time to replenish the reserves of its own armed forces, since the problem arose that

the reserves were exhausted separately in those countries that helped us the most in eastern europe, as well as the same poland. mrs. maria, a meeting between joe biden and the prime minister of great britain, keir starmer, is expected tomorrow, and there they will also discuss the issue of permission to strike with long-range weapons on the territory of russia. in your opinion, should we wait for the public announcement of the decision on this permission, because the western press, in particular the guardian, say that they can give permission without public statements about it. and the previous expert also said that the permission seems to already exist, but it will not be announced. what do you think? well, understanding somewhat the british context in this sense, the british are really taking a certain political primacy again and trying to break through some, some this political taboo that the western countries impose on themselves, but really i am also inclined to think that loud official statements are not quite

we don't necessarily have to wait. is it tomorrow or tentatively the day after tomorrow, since the main thing is the impression of the targets, and in this situation the most important thing for the british is that the united states supports them politically, if even the united states does not allow ukraine to hit targets inside the russian federation with its attacks, they can politically support a similar decision, the cancellation, or rather a similar embargo on such use by great britain, the main thing is that this... great britain is a key partner from the point of view of political interaction, a key partner in this part, in this part of the world for the united states, and britain is oriented towards this transatlantic unity, so even without really loud statements, and the main thing is to get support at least for the british decision, and then see if maybe it will be a certain test period, to look at russia's reaction, which washington is so afraid of, and if this

reaction... will not fit into the worst scenario that washington fears about escalation in a hybrid or some other form between russia and nato, then maybe permission to use attack cams will also be granted. huh, so you're suggesting that we shouldn't expect the united states to allow long-range us weapons to be fired anytime soon, am i right? i believe that the chances of obtaining a public, well , officially announced or... non-publicly announced permission from the british side are much higher than from the american side, but as a result , in the coming months, i believe that we will be able to convince washington as well the need for such a step, a special house, it seems that they are already talking about it, about the expansion of the territory on which ukraine can strike, writes the western press. yes, there is directly, but it is directly discussed, but it is directly related

to the events. last month, back in july it was a complete dead end on this topic. by the way, do you think the leaders of the usa and great britain will discuss the potential possibility that nato countries, for example, poland or romania, could shoot down missiles in the sky in the west of ukraine, because andrii sebiga, the new minister, mentioned this yesterday of foreign affairs of ukraine during this press conference, and apparently this issue was also discussed the day before? well, this question is very actively discussed behind closed doors, especially behind closed doors. and the problem is that there is no agreement between nato member countries, that is , poland, which theoretically, having received political support from the united states to shoot down these missiles and guarantees of possible assistance from the united states for, for example, strengthening the air defense of poland itself, poland theoretically, she could agree to it, but approve...