nato, ah, for the military component of nato forces. at the meeting, when he was coming to kyiv, i asked him: ah, what will nato do if france sends troops, decides to send troops to ukraine, will it block, will it, and will it help, will it to do, that is, nato will do it together with... france and under the umbrella of nato, relatively speaking, well, it should be added here that bauer's positions are not exclusively military, military-political, and he politically evaded from the answer, but it is also telling because he didn't say no, he didn't say it's impossible and we won't allow it and and and and and it will never be a. and first of all, i think

for two reasons, still the national army is subject to the national decision first of all, that is, it is not the decision of the alliance, they cannot prevent france from making decisions about the use of the army, but again, the lack of direct a no answer also suggests that such options are being considered, whether under the nato umbrella or without. nato, but again, it is possible that national countries are national governments will be able to make such decisions independently. another long-suffering issue is taurus missiles, yes. we will say that we have been waiting for a solution to this problem for months, unfortunately, it is not solved, for us, ukrainians, these missiles are, relatively speaking, necessary, needed, our defenders need them all the more, in this regard. case, in your opinion, should we expect

this, should we not expect it, is the position of olaf scholz today, it is so principled that, conditionally, by the end of his term, we should forget about taurus missiles and not even to mention this, but to concentrate on something else, whether this compromise will be found, whether ukraine and the leaders of other states, in fact... and the coalition will convince him that , after all, ukraine needs these missiles in order to move forward and to , to eventually move towards ukrainian victory. hern question, it's almost been a year since we first talked about taurus, i absolutely remember that day when we had a meeting with the german delegation in luxembourg. from

the bundestag, and we had already received leopards at that time and we spoke with my colleague from of the defense committee by markus faver about what else germany can help with, and actually then he said that they still have taurus, these same long-range missiles, we raised this in the public space, for the first time, then the ministry of defense officially made a request on these missiles, but... they relied on scholz's position to somehow correct this position or push him to make this decision, a lot of different actions were taken at different levels, at the level of the president, of course, and at the level of the government, our parliamentary we are equal worked with all factions of the sovshesta coalition, nevertheless they voted one way or another on these long-range missiles to be provided to ukraine, and even the faction...sholtsa in

the parliament voted, that's how they called the word taurus, but they described it in this way that it was a different option cannot be included in the resolution they adopted with an appeal to scholz himself. we have worked a lot with the ministry of defense, and behind the scenes they also speak for us. the decision still remains with scholz, and it seems that the only person in a country in germany, which is against this supply, these supplies, this is exactly what scholz scholz is afraid of, is it his, is it his personal position, or does he really have substantiated facts, why missiles cannot be supplied to ukraine? the arguments he makes honestly don't stand up to any criticism, every time he came up with something new we broke those arguments down very simply. initially, the story was that these are too long-range missiles, because even in... they don't talk about the final range where

they can reach, they say 500 km - this is guaranteed, further this is closed information, and we ... and that these missiles should be limited in use, it is meant in the radius of use, which does not withstand any criticism, because these are not ballistic missiles that fly on a curve, these are maneuvering cruise missiles that can make maneuvers there for 500 km that will and should bypass the enemy's anti-aircraft systems, terrain reliefs, and so on, so in a straight line it... can be 300 km, but with all these maneuvers, it could be there 400, 500 or more. second, well, to accuse us or, you know, not even to accuse us, to suspect us of the fact that we can hit the territory of the russian federation with these missiles, well, this is

absolute nonsense, because we have already proven in two years that we use all western weapons exclusively on ukrainian territory. the third argument was, we also refuted it, the third. the argument was that it is impossible to quickly replenish the stocks of these missiles, and if they are transferred to ukraine in any significant quantity. i was at the production of taurus rockets at the mbda company, and i spoke with managers of this company, they say, tomorrow, if an order for these missiles is placed, we will launch tomorrow, and within a few months we can deliver them. well, maybe something last from the fact that i remember the argument that they, scholz’s office, or scholz himself spoke about the fact that in order to operate these missiles, german military personnel are needed here on the territory of ukraine, and this can lead to an escalation there and a direct

confrontation with the russian federation, this is also nonsense, it is not a sinecure, because the same the managers of mbdi manufacturer, they say, we don't need to send our troops. or specialists in ukraine, your military comes, we train them, and they go to do whatever is necessary for themselves, so all those arguments given, they cannot withstand any criticism, the real, real reason, i think that he really, as a person, which grew up in such a pacifist paradigm, even if there will be 1%, maybe less than one percent. problems of escalation due to the transfer of such missiles to ukraine between russia and germany, he would rather refuse such a transfer than take any risk regarding escalation with germany and russia. well, the last question,

actually in the international bloc, concerns nato. nato, in fact, we will have such a big, relatively speaking, jubilee summit in the summer, yes. at which certain decisions may be made, but, judging by what the american and european press is writing today, unfortunately, as far as i understand, we cannot expect to join nato, to be invited to nato. what can ukraine, if at its maximum, do? to achieve, can get as much profit as possible from this summit, what is the goal we set for ourselves, in the end... is it nato membership with a requirement for this summit, or is it possible some other guarantees that we will need, at least in the near future , we do not replace membership with guarantees, these are

parallel processes, and we talk about the fact that we need guarantees for the time when we go to join nato. as for the summit in washington, it's still too early to say... what we get, what we don't get, it a constant process in which positions change, and i will tell you that over the past half a year, maybe eight months, i have heard that no, there will definitely not be a political invitation, we are looking for a formula, how to rephrase it correctly, and we for our part we are doing our best to convince our partners and key partners in the united states and germany. and other partners, so that they, on their part, push these two countries, ah, we will not stop, we have such an advocacy tour planned for these countries, and we will continue to persuade, after all that we need a political invitation that does not start the process of ratification in

national parliaments, that is, does not start the actual process of the entire accession, we understand that we will be able to become members of nato after the end of this. war, but to reserve this 33rd seat for us, in principle, our partners could, moreover, and this would send a signal to the kremlin that it does not influence... events and decisions within the alliance, because if the next step is not taken after the vilnius summit after those decisions that would bring us closer to nato, this will mean that the alliance is really weak, it really does take into account the position of the kremlin and the position of putin, i also say this to our partners that... there will be no step forward, it will mean that it is a step back . well, well, another block

of issues is very important, which concerns the actual internal policy of our state, the internal situation in our state, and probably no less resonant, the actual bill, this is the bill on mobilization, what we are already talking about, discussing , probably at least a few months, and that's it in principle already almost a year of time. the bill on mobilization, as far as i understand, as of today it is almost ready, or 100% ready, and according to the speaker of the parliament, mr. stefanchuk, sometime in the near future, maybe next week, maybe in a week, it should be brought to the meeting hall of the supreme council of ukraine, is it so, is it 100% ready, is it possible that there will be some other changes and... most importantly, are the people's deputies ready to vote for this draft law, will there be 226

votes, yes or still, conditionally speaking, will have to postpone this issue again, which is no less important for our country than the allocation of funds, than the help of our international partners, and it is too early to talk about 100%, 100%, i think it will be after the signature of the president under this law, that the law that has entered into force will be 100 percent, now we have already passed 4,269 amendments, which were submitted by our colleagues, and we are working, and tomorrow we will work on committee amendments, and there will not be so many of them, but they will be basic, essential that there are changes to balance this bill. after that, i think it will take us a day or two, no more, after

that the final table is prepared, after that it is voted on in the committee, the committee's conclusion is made and it is already sent to the conciliation board, and the conciliation board puts it in order day in the hall of the parliament, i think that in principle we are, we are moving at such a pace that this draft law can be tabled at the next session, if something force majeure does not happen, and when it will be voted on at all, it is not here it is possible, it is impossible to say, because there are 4200 amendments, each of the deputies has the right to put his amendment for confirmation or for voting, or simply to speak, and it may take time, i hope. i hope that our colleagues, i am asking them very much, and we are currently negotiating with them, so as not

to delay this bill that our country needs, which was developed by the ministry of defense at the request of the general staff, and we tried to balance it as much as possible , so that he still answered the requests of the army on the one hand, with on the other hand, still understanding the needs and problems of society. and some kinks that were in the first version, but i hope that our colleagues will still vote for this version, that is, conditionally speaking, somewhere, if everything goes well, it should come into force on june 1, well if everything will be fine, i hope that even earlier, i don't know how long it will take again 400 amendments, and i very much hope that not every deputy will... in each amendment, there will be a minute for a speech, plus a minute for voting,

plus the speaker's announcement, that is relatively speaking, three minutes for each amendment, so we will sit for a very long time, and i and i , unfortunately, we had examples when we voted for some draft laws in which there were 10,000 amendments and each amendment was passed in this way, now i don't see such a need and such readiness, let's say so, of our colleagues, so some of them will be part... to raise and discuss their amendments there, but i hope that we will manage in weeks, in days, but not in weeks , that is, about 400 edits, if we start there in the next... or week consider, then in about two weeks, maybe we will pass this bill. and the last block, which we should talk about today, is the work of the parliament in general, many experts, journalists, politicians say that today we have a parliamentary crisis, that is, there are not enough votes, the relevant

bills are not being passed. as an example, the fact that during march , the verkhovna rada of ukraine produced the minimum number of draft laws, the minimum amount of work in general. mr. yehor, does such a thing really exist now? the crisis of parliamentarism, why very often we see an empty hall, why very often there are not enough votes, we have to, relatively speaking, look for these votes in order to vote for important bills, how does the parliament work today in this case, is it really a parliamentary crisis, or is it really such a problem now in verkhovna rada? of ukraine, which essentially affects the life of the country. it is difficult for me to speak on behalf of all colleagues, to be honest, we in the defense committee work every day to consider these 400 amendments for several thousands of weeks, if not months. and we gather, and we have a quorum, and

there are enough people, and we vote, but what about the empty ones. hall in the session hall of the parliament, then the issue here is what is being considered, it really does happen sometimes, and the last time i was also in the session hall when there were no votes, but there were no votes due to the fact that the resolutions blocking the previously voted ones were being considered draft laws, and in principle, there is no need to clamor for them. let's say so, because these are blocking resolutions, and we are quite clearly not voting for them such resolutions, i speak from the servant of the people, that is why there were actually no people there, and maybe the picture looked like this, that it is like this, that the parliament does not work, but i explain with a concrete example that there was no need, it our position was because,

for example, bill 10313 was blocked, which allowed for... to combine databases, well, different databases in order to simplify the work of our army and to understand in general how many people we have, how many mobilization mobilization reserve we have there is, but for some reason some opposition parties decided that this draft law is not what is needed, and the resolution is blocked, it is their right, it is democracy, but our right is not... to vote for such a resolution and actually not to be in the hall because of such resolutions that, in principle, only take time and block again this draft law, which could already work. i think that's all, unfortunately we have a certain time limit, i thank you very much for visiting our studio, for being with you extremely important things were discussed, including

international politics, the law on mobilization, and, in principle, parliamentary activity. in our country, this is something that extremely worries our citizens, and well, then we will see you next time with new guests, with new topics, and let's hope that the questions that were today, the urgent needs that are in to our state that they will be resolved, and you and i will continue to move towards ukrainian victory. thank you. glory to ukraine, dear tv viewers, on air tv channel, studio zahid program, we will analyze the most important events of this week, in particular, we will talk about the russian-ukrainian war and certain new trends in russian imperial politics, we will also analyze the situation with our

domestic ukrainian political kitchen, our guests are mark fegin and oleg rybachuk. mark feigen, a figure of the russian opposition in emigration, a former deputy of the state duma, and a famous video blogger, will work on the espresso channel. glory to ukraine, mark. glad to welcome everyone. well, patrushev voiced a new version and a new, so to speak, strategic direction of the russian federation, that is, they are ready to appoint despite all the evidence, despite all the refutations, despite the entire islamic state, they are preparing to sew with such threads the ukrainian trail to... what happened in crocusit , yes, but i can say that it is not necessary to seriously discuss the version of the ukrainian trail at all, not only because it was obvious. march, that there was a window at the border, everything was already discussed here, there was no window at the border

and the car with the performers was moving in a completely different direction, towards the belarusian border, statements about some cryptocurrency accounts that are connected to ukraine, this is very funny, but you know, for me, the publication of the second of april in the washington post played a significant role, it reported , which turns out to be together... however, without denying the information from the american special services to the russian side two weeks before the terrorist attack, which contained not only an indication of the organization that was going to carry it out, vilayat khorasan, a network cell and dil, as her place was called, stepped into city hall. the russian ministry of foreign affairs reacted, saying it was a throwaway. shut up, if it's rubbish, you show the documents, refute it, give some kind of confirmation that there were no instructions in the materials provided by american intelligence. and if there is no such proof of your purity on the part of the russian special services, then many questions arise, how is it so, you knew the organization,

the places, who prevented you from blocking all these places in moscow? do you lack the strength and resources, that is , you wanted this terrorist attack to happen? did they allow it to happen, did they want it use its results to blame ukraine? i don't say anymore. about the fact that they say that the west is behind ukraine, that is, it should also be responsible for this terrorist attack, so why should the west, which is behind ukraine, supports it in the war and is an ally, inform in two weeks where this terrorist attack will take place, no , from the point of view of law, nor from the point of view of criminology, nothing can be explained, but they are not hovering, mark, there is a feeling that they are not hovering, the so-called formal or healthy logic no longer works there, that is... zakharova outlines that, what to her i want to see if there is what they tell her to sketch, patrushev unfolds the scenarios, so to speak, which one was pointed out to him, or which he sees, well , we understand, that is, everything is already happening to them somehow according to

the drum, so it has been like that for a long time, but here the matter is already serious, they are trying to get some profit through the attention with sympathy of some countries that sent telegrams in the name of putin, also calling him a president with sympathy for russians and russia. for example, a way out of isolation or a diplomatic trick they can pull off with help consequences of this terrorist attack. they nullify this possibility by continuing to accuse the west and ukraine of complicity in this or even complicity in the terrorist attack. then it is simply impossible to continue the dialogue. the minister of defense of france spoke with the minister of defense of the russian federation shoigu. they emphasized once again that ukraine has nothing to do with the terrorist attack. in general, we realize that putin and patrushev know that ukraine is of no use here, of course they know. they cold-bloodedly decided for themselves, yes, we don't care,

we need it for our utilitarian purpose, let's say that there is a ukrainian trace. but it works only inside russia. they say that there is some kind of revival in the military, like 16,000 applied for a contract, and this figure. it is impossible to check, no body, official department will report the true figure, whether there is really a large influx or not, but in domestic politics, yes, there is a survey, almost 50% of those surveyed in the russian federation believe that ukraine has something to do with the terrorist attack, and from the point of view of the west, and that is where the main interests are now directed to put pressure on kyiv so that he went to the negotiations, there precisely public rhetoric about the involvement of ukraine and the event in the terrorist attack will not help moscow. well, i 'm worried about these moments that they choose something that may indicate the need to launch a full-scale, even more

full-scale war against ukraine, that is, as far as i understand, they are still trying to maneuver now, but in any case, several very important signals, that came out of the kremlin offices, they indicate that they are preparing for a possible escalation, maybe it is still going on certain trades, do you understand? that the americans are still undecided, whether they give us 60 billion in military aid, whether they give us a loan or not a loan, and so on and so forth, that is, the story is being trampled on, because we feel that this is how putin outlines some scenarios, the americans see others scenario, well, the war goes on anyway. when we talk about an even more full-scale war than in these more than two years, we assume that the object of putin's interest is kharkiv. this is an understandable attempt. this direction is used in order for some big city, much larger than kherson, to take at least one regional center. this is a logical continuation of what

is being done on it. kharkiv was called odessa, but odessa is smaller, because the military landing and the rest look a bit fantastic there. if we assume that this is kharkiv, then yes, all efforts, all necessary resources are directed there. and even president zelenskyi, who recently spoke about conducting a new mobilization, on june 1 called the recruitment of 300,000 additional personnel in the form of the goal of capturing kharkiv. national advisor security of the biden administration, bet on negotiations. force, convince, persuade kyiv to go to negotiations. get some kind of pause until november, until the election is held, and god willing, it will remain biden,

although the result is not clear. then decide this issue after the elections, taking into account the situation that will develop at that time. it is necessary to buy time if everything can somehow be overcome in the four years ahead, even the blocking of the 60 billion aid law. of course, it will be possible on the wave of victory a lot to solve. and how to last until november? today is april, april, may, june.

in particular, the kremlin contributed to this, through the circles of trumpists and others. it's just that both parties, the republicans and the democrats, are trying to get some specific election dividend from this situation. the biden administration blames. why are we solving the issues for the benefit of the american taxpayers, the american voters, so let's combine these issues with the policy of illegal migration that the american taxpayers are not they want to foolishly give money to ukraine, so let's make an interest-free or open-ended loan, it does not make ukraine any easier,

ukraine is here in general. is a side that at least has something from it, and war does not like breaks and pauses. if both sides have come together in a political duel for the sake of winning the elections, then for ukraine there is no such resource, this opportunity, no spare time. because war does not tolerate lunch breaks. from this point of view , some other ways should be proposed, apart from ukraine's direct participation in the negotiations. then you solve a question. europe, with the pentagon directly. it is clear that ukraine needs to hold out until november. and if trump wins the election? does the us administration have a plan b? as i see it, there is no such plan, therefore, of course, ukraine is in a difficult situation now. if we take alternative scenarios, we understand that there is a so-called geneva track, the chinese will go there as observers, we understand that this story may not be strategic, but in

any case it has already started. to talk about what, in principle, no one would so strongly ruled out that putin or one of his emissaries would appear at the g20 meeting. moscow acts through many of its confidants and through open public players. china is like that, in particular. after all, what is china declaring now? that moscow must participate in the negotiations, that negotiations without moscow have no force. by the way, i'm in it. i am not sure, but if these were negotiations about ukraine's accession to nato, should moscow also be invited? the problem is not in moscow and not even in ukraine, the problem is in the west, what is he ready to do, what is he not ready to do? well. in in the swiss format, regarding zelenskyi's peace formula, which provides for the preliminary conditions of negotiations, this is the liberation of the occupied territories. moscow, let's say, would take part, even if this condition were removed,

let's say this.