provoke such an increase. pressure on our country from those countries that later signed the budapest memorandum is a difficult question, if ukraine kept nuclear weapons, there would be many problems. however, even if this were to be allowed, the story would have gone completely differently. if you look at russia, yes, they have weapons, but at the same time it is clear that nato never intended to attack them. so to speak, it was never planned to occupy russia, and moreover, that is, yes, we can say that the presence of a nuclear weapon is secondary. does not give, that is, and gives this, to carry out, that is, to wage this war, so to speak, with ukraine as the only enemy, but what does this have to do with the security of russia? i think we all are let's agree that russia would be in a better position if it had not started. from various angles, i see no signs that russia's security situation has changed since february 2022, or even since 2014. since the fourteenth year, since the annexation of crimea, that the security of russia somehow and the situation of russia in general somehow became bet

provoke such increased pressure on our country from those countries that, well, then signed the budapest memorandum, and then immediately started hostilities? this is a difficult issue, if ukraine kept nuclear weapons, there would be many problems. in a completely different way, i will say this, i don't really think that having any nuclear weapons makes any country safe. if you look at russia. so yes, they have weapons, but at the same time it is clear that nato never intended to attack it, so to speak, it was never intended to occupy russia, and moreover, we can say that the presence of nuclear weapons allows russia to invade ukraine , it will carry out this invasion and that is, it does not, that is, it does to carry out this war, that is, to wage this war, so to speak, with ukraine as the only enemy, but what does this have to do with the state of security of russia since february 2022 or even since 2014 has become the best year or even since 14 years since the annexation crimea, that the security of russia somehow and the situation of russia in general has somehow become better, it all goes, so

principles, and if to long-term security guarantees for ukraine, because, as we can see, the budapest memorandum did not work, what needs to be done so that this situation does not happen again, well , i think the first lesson we can learn is that russia does not respect international law, and now, it it is very important that we can protect such principles of international, international... peace and security, because it is also important for the security of the whole world, so i think that first of all it is important that ukraine wins, but also in the future we have to protect ukraine and europe, europe, and also we need to deter er, aggression of russia, and this should be er, a goal for security guarantors, and are there any agreements between ukraine and the united kingdom, regarding the security, security of these guarantees, yes, now the process is starting, so we are already in discussion, regarding security guarantors, and what is your position regarding ukraine's accession to nato, how do you see it in the future and when ukraine can join the alliance? well, the position of our prime

350 million dollars, there would be, of course, no paper guarantees for ukraine, i mean the budapest memorandumine was a full member... of the european security system, a member of nato. all this, if absolutely it was clearly spelled out in the decisions of the verkhovna rada of ukraine. despite the fact that , taking into account the chernobyl syndrome, society had a negative attitude not only to nuclear weapons, but also to nuclear energy as such, the decisions of the ukrainian parliament gave a very clear path for ukraine. to nuclear-free status and that ukraine should receive in return, in particular, point number one: ukraine will move towards nuclear-free status not instantly, as it was done , and gradually with the provision of financial assistance and technical assistance to ukraine, and most importantly, with the provision of legally binding security guarantees to ukraine, which, as you understand, are the european security system, that is, membership of the united nations. in 1992, the united states of america, the state department, er, spoke about this very clearly and proposed such

provoked such increased pressure on our country from those countries that, well, then signed the budapest memorandumand then started hostilities anyway, well, here is the question, somodele очень сложный, поротум что история пошла бы ukraine somehow would have kept nuclear weapons, there would have been many problems, but even if such a thing were allowed, history would have gone in a completely different way, but i will say this that i really do not think that the possession of nuclear weapons gives any country , indeed, provides some kind of security, and that is, well, if you look at russia , then, first of all, it is clear, well, yes, russia has nuclear weapons, that is, and - but for sure it is also clear that no nato, so to speak, was ever intended to occupy russia, and moreover, that is, yes, we can say that the possession of nuclear weapons allows, allowed russia to carry out this invasion. and that is, he does not allow, that is, he allows this to be carried out, that is, to wage this war, so to speak, with ukraine as the only enemy, but what does this have to do with the security of russia

in ukraine, we gave our word to ukraine with the budapest memorandum. get invadeand give all their nuclear weapons we would be them for them. without question, israel is our best ally in the middle east. we have said that over and over again. they're testing our resolve. don't think for a second that hamas isn't funded completely by iran. the weapons that they're using have come from iran. the weapons that iran have given them have come from north korea. then you have china that is constantly checking our resolve throughout the economic downturn, throughout the world, they're checking our reserve to see if we'll be there for our allies and plus constantly threatening taiwan. they're testing to see what the american people will do. we have to stand strong, period. regardless in it's in ukraine, in taiwan or if it's in israel. >> neil: there's many of your conservative members -- i'm not saying all of them that say enough is enough. many of the presidential candidates themselves on the republican side have been echoing that. does that worry you? >> it doe

guarantees of the territorial integrity, inviolability, and security of ukraine according to the budapest memorandum, they remember this, by the way, at the level of the committee on national security, defense and intelligence, discussions are also taking place with our partners in the united states of america, recently there was a delegation, and it's included politicians and former military and former cia chiefs, and they understand the level of their responsibility, and i think , you know, the domestic political course that the united states of america is taking today, which is bipartisan and bicameral support, with a small, or rather , in the senate we have, well, a much higher level of support than in the house of representatives, but at the same time, both there and there, the level of support for ukraine is very high and even among of the republican party, we have a very clear such coalition, which is included in this freedom caucus and they continue to convince and even under... after these situations with the shakedown took place, a commercial was launched on the channels of the united stat

you see in ukraine where we have the budapest memorandum from 1994 that said if ukraine were to give up their nuclear weapons, we could stand with them in case they were invaded by russia. and right now they're seeing if we are going to stand with their allies. and you see them ak tha-- attacg israel and they are funding this through hamas and they're wanting to say are we going to stand with our allies and we're seeing some that are saying that we need to de-escalate. none of us would be looking to de-escalate if they were to attack l.a., if we tor attack new york again, if they were to attack miami or washington, d.c. we would be doing the exact same thing that israel is doing right now so the last thing we should be saying is de-escalate. so what we're seeing is through the intelligence committee is we know theres would going to be a coordinated effort to test our resolve. we had no idea it would be to this magnitude. >> understood. the u.s. is currently without an ambassador to israel. president biden nominated jack lu to the role. that happened back in september. considering wha

persuaded them, the budapest memorandum signed by those countries with the commitment to protect theirtory. we made a commitment. second, our president has said as long as it takes. third, we have expanded nato. nato has new members who are incredibly capable and i think that means strategically putin has failed. why the wagner group marched on moscow out of frustration to achieve their aim and out of frustration at the corruption and inep thy thud. who is putin meeting with? kim jongun. we are making progress. so it is hard to say that on a 1-10 i put this at an 8 or 9, i would. we are no resolution to this war unless putin says there is no way out. we need to be committed as long as it will take. and it will take less long for putin to conclude he cannot win. >> the prisoner swap between the united states and iran, especially in the context of global leadership. the united states continues to engage adversaries in this way. senator rubio: these are tough issues if you are an american citizen is unjustly detained. you've paid money for it and we gave concessions in venezuela and made

the budapest memorandum signed by those countries was a commitment to protect their territorial integrityre lawyers. jim tends to weigh this around and say, we made a commitment first. second, our president has said, as long as it takes. third, we have expanded nato. nato now has new members who are incredibly capable. i think that means that strategically putin has already failed. but let's take a moment to look at why the wagner group marched en masse a -- on moscow. out of frustration to achieve their aims and out of frustration at the corruption and ineptitude of the russian military. who is putin meeting with? kim jong-on, why? to get a resupply for artillery. when he has to go to north korea to get artillery for his war, we are making progress. it is hard to say that -- up to attend, i would put this at eight or nine. the signal it sends. we are more likely to see a resolution to this more when putin concludes he can't wait us out and that we are determined. it seems contradictory to say we need to be committed as long as it will take, but when we are, i think it will take less long