in 15 minutes we will return to the studio, we will have people's deputies of ukraine, mykyta poturaev, andriy osachuk and rostyslav pavlenko, stay with espresso, we will meet. israel is calling on dozens of countries to impose sanctions on iran after a massive drone and missile attack. but will it stop? started only on this, whether a bigger conflict between the countries will unfold, about it the next 15 minutes of the bbc broadcast, in the studio of london jeferu. so israel is talking about the beginning of a diplomatic offensive against iran. minister of foreign affairs of israel, israel-kats reported that it has already written to 32 countries, calling for sanctions on the iranian missile project, and the islamic revolution guards corps is an autonomous unit.

by the way, israel's ally the united states already did this in 2019. so now israel is looking for an answer to iran's attack. western countries, the united states and britain, which helped repel the iranian attack, are calling on israel to exercise restraint because of the threat of an escalation of the conflict. so as israel weighs how to respond. more on that later. how to answer this hundreds of drones and missiles launched the day before dawn. the destruction on the ground turned out to be insignificant, which cannot be said about the much more serious threat to regional stability. at an airbase in the negev desert that was hit by a rocket, israel's chief of staff vowed to respond. iran will see the consequences of its actions. we take our answer. tzahal

remains ready to face any threat from iran and its terrorist henchmen. israel says only a small fraction of the rockets got through its air defense system, but this direct the confrontation with iran, the first on israeli soil, brought the middle east out of balance. what struck israel during this attack? not so much the damage done, but how it happened? a massive attack by drones and missiles launched directly from iran, and what these strikes destroyed is not about infrastructure, but about iran's fear of direct attack. there were many signals before iran attacked. the iranian government warned israel's allies about the strikes and said it was punishment for killing in syria and that iran now considered the matter closed. our advice to all supporters of the zionist regime,

allies who demand de-escalation the israeli prime minister, under the pressure of the situation, is discussing with his military cabinet what this price should be. a former diplomat with knowledge of iran says military action is only one option. our military capabilities are far more... diverse than the iranians', and frankly, the iranian attack was a show of weakness, not strength. the answer can be different, not only military. israel is already at war with groups supported by iran, c the gaza strip in the south and lebanon in the north. a much weaker adversary delivered a major blow on october 7, and israel's challenge now is to restore the fear of war to its greatest enemy without provoking war. and we talk more about this

with vira konstantinova, an expert at the center for middle eastern studies. greetings, viro. what options does israel have to respond to iran's attack, what can it do, given that the military cabinets and israeli society are divided. the last one a survey by the hebrew university of jerusalem found that 52% of israelis opposed a military response. well, look, first of all. we understand that the answer will be in what form and in what format, this remains a question and a mystery for analysis. at the same time, i would like to draw attention to the fact that israel now has, well, let's say, many options, and indeed the military is not only one of them. i have a kind of opinion that in the near future we will see sanctions pressure from israel's partners, we will see sanctions pressure. to iran, to iranian

leadership, including the islamic revolution guards corps. at the same time, we must understand that sanctions are not... a solution to the problem. iran is indeed not just a regional problem. considering the war in ukraine, iran has become a global problem. and including the countries and regimes that support iran. and here we come to the key point. currently, with the support of russia in the un security council, the imposition of sanctions on iran or the strengthening of these sanctions at the international level is quite problematic. at the same time, therefore , the israeli side, it seems to me, absolutely rationally says that all options should be used, will the israelis strike at iran's military facilities? i think they will, but when, how and where,

we will find out on the battlefield. well, the problems between israel and iran are not new, they have actually been around for a long time. thank you faith, let's listen to our correspondent's analysis together now... the israelis are trying to convince the following now, yes, you have reason to worry, yes, you were attacked, but now everything is under control, look, iran was embarrassed, but for the israelis, not everything is so simply. i think they feel a great need to send a clear signal, a very strong signal, that iran has not intimidated them in any way. the eye will ingrain in israel's dna that it must fight back, that it cannot give up and act on the principle of an eye for an eye, at the very least. but the question here is how the other side will react, because the iranians insist: "hold on, it was self-defense." we did this to show that

we are not to be messed with. in addition, the iranians also tried to prevent a large number of civilian casualties. because it would be aggravated the situation more. so israel now weighs everything in the same vein when deciding how to respond to him. the commander of the iranian armed forces stated the following: our attack on israel was limited, if israel responds to it, the repulsion will be much stronger. according to netanyahu, iran is the number one enemy for his country. many years ago he... told me in jerusalem at the bbc office about the then president of iran. ahmedi nejad is hitler, and we are now like in 1938. so, this is his old position. faith, well, we heard from jeremy bowen, he talks about

the principle of israel's eye for an eye. so, if they do follow that principle, follow that principle, what might... be iran's response? you know, let's think from a military point of view, and i see the first element here from the point of view of, for example, the iranian military leadership, what they did in this attack, they probed israel's air defense system. for now , to say whether iran's air defenses can withstand the israeli, israeli response, well, we do not have practical data yet. at the same time, or in what... way iran will respond, i am convinced that through its props, in the same lebanon, in syria, and what is more likely, most likely, a confrontation, escalation is possible there, for example, in the syrian theater, but again, now i see attempts

by the international community to avoid what is called a major war in the middle east, although let's be realistic, the war in the middle east... it is ongoing, in one form or another, intensive or non-intensive, and considering the shelling of israeli territory , which continue as at least since october of last year, that is , the war is still there, and the confrontation is still there, whether it will spill into, as they say, into a general regional confrontation, for now it is a question for me, but but iran with such statements about for... the protection and use of article 51 of the un charter there, the response to israel's attacks on the diplomatic establishment, i think this message is very weak. this iranian attack on israel had specific

objectives, and these specific objectives were not only for the iranian leadership. i think that in including, in the geopolitical sense, these tasks were set from the point of view of the nearest. iran's ally, which is the russian federation, and israel's response will most likely also depend on the united states, so please stay in touch, come on. let's listen to our correspondent in washington. it is known that some kind of iranian strike was expected, but the debate is now going on about what exactly was known about it in advance. the white house insists it had no idea when the strike would take place or what targets it would target directional. and all that was known was some inaccurate data from american intelligence. what the administration is trying to say is this: if you think iran was just sending a signal when it shot into the air and ... such an enormous amount of metal, you're sorely mistaken. they tried to cause as much damage as possible and

kill as many people as possible. to some extent, this is a veiled attempt to point out that iran's military capabilities are not what iran thinks they are, because israel and allies have been successful defensively, and 99% of all iranian munitions knocked down this is one component of washington's response, and the other is about what comes next. the white house is categorical here and says. this is israel's decision, they expect something, but they would prefer that any reaction be restrained, but it all boils down to this. the escalation that biden sought to avoid at all costs has already happened. for the biden administration, this has created many problems, including the fact that they were close to reaching an agreement on a truce in the gas sector, the release of hostages and an increase in humanitarian aid. now about it can be forgotten, because hamas will not soon sit down at the negotiating table. on the other hand, relations between biden and netanyahu have improved. because until thursday, when they spoke on the phone

about the impending iranian strikes, there had been no contact between them for 10 days. and the last time they spoke, joe biden threatened to end the sale of american weapons to israel because of its approach to the humanitarian situation in the gas sector. therefore, the level of cooperation on the weekend changed the dynamics. israel's greatest ally, the united states, came to its aid, as and other allies, france and and that, washington hopes, gives them more leverage over israel's behavior than it did last week. the united states, they are calling for israel's restraint, and whether tel aviv will listen is a very valid question, at the same time, the question is whether israel will defend itself or not, and of course, in the context of this... direction of development , then israel has the right to self-defense and will defend itself by all available methods,

but on the other hand, the international community is worried, of course, not only, let's say, for escalation, at the same time we monitored oil prices, energy prices, of course, there are also economic factors, israel's calls for restraint and a very wise response, but at the same time. again, i have no doubt that israel will respond to this brazen attack on april 14. the israeli leadership will already choose the methods. well, one of the methods is the introduction of additional sanctions against iran regarding its missile program. if this happens, how could it affect possible iranian supplies weapons in russia. very briefly. very briefly, i hope we close the gap. in those sanctions that are already in effect, and additional sanctions pressure, it is welcome, of course,

at the same time, while there is no integrity and comprehensiveness of these sanctions, we must be very, well, very careful to talk about success. thank you, vera konstantinova, an expert at the center for middle eastern studies, was in touch with us. thank you again for finding time for us. so israel is now responding to the attack by iran, which launched more than 300 drones and missiles, calls impose sanctions against iran's missile program. so subscribe to our pages in social networks so as not to miss the most important news and analysis from our correspondents, we are on facebook, instagram and tiktok, on youtube you can watch our episode if you missed it on the air. well, that's all for today, more stories on the site, eh. we're back on the air tomorrow at 9 p.m., take care!

greetings, friends, live on the espresso tv channel, the second part of the verdict program, my name is. mobilization without end. the monomajority recognizes that the law on demobilization should not wait until the end. war, what effect will it have on society? information failures. in some places, the enemy outplays ukraine in external communications. how to counter russian propaganda? extremists everywhere. estonia may recognize the moscow patriarchate as a terrorist organization. why

has the uoc still not severed the spiritual connection with moscow. friends, we are live. on the espresso channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms, for those who are currently watching us live there. please put like this video so that it can be trended on youtube. well, take part in our survey. today we ask you this: do you hope that with the help of the united states of america, ukraine will stop the enemy's offensive? yes, no, everything is quite simple on youtube, if you have a personal opinion, a different opinion, please write it in the comments under this video. if you're watching us on tv, pick up your smartphone or phone and vote. if you believe that with the help of the united states of america ukraine will stop the russian offensive, 0800-211-381, no 0800-211-382. all calls to these numbers are free, vote, at the end of the program we will sum up the results of this vote. i would like

to introduce the guests of today's studio - they are people's deputies of ukraine, mykyta poturaev, chairman. committee of the verkhovna rada on humanitarian and information policy, vice-president of the osce parliamentary assembly. mr. nikita, i congratulate you. thank you for being with us today. good evening. rostyslav pavlenko, people's deputy of ukraine, member of the verkhovna rada committee on education, science and innovation. mr. rostyslav, i congratulate you and thank you for joining the broadcast. thank you, good evening. and andriy osachuk, people's deputy of ukraine, first deputy chairman of the committee of the verkhovna rada. on matters of law enforcement, mr. andrii, i congratulate you, thank you for being with us today. good evening, thank you for the invitation. so, gentlemen, since we are asking our viewers whether ukraine, with the help of the united states of america, will be able to stop the russian offensive, let's take a blitz poll, i will ask and you, you will be short and concise, i hope, mr. nikita, it depends on

what kind of military-technical assistance will be, eh. it is absolutely clear that, unfortunately, retired american soldiers are saying this out loud, today a fresh column by general ben hodgers appeared in the ukrainian media, and there it is absolutely clearly described what weapons ukraine needs to stop, and then inflict painful defeats on the russian army , up to the point that she starts to leave ukraine herself, but if that happens, you know, that's it aid that is only for, as they say, well it is, so the concept in the united states, unfortunately, in my opinion, is wrong, escalation management, so if it is again aid that is for escalation management, in the sense that in order for us not to lose and not to win, it is clear that we will continue to remain in a difficult, difficult, difficult situation. thank you, mr. nikita, mr. rostislav, i believe that

the aid from the united states is usually critical, it is obvious that the arrival of aid will significantly help in stop the enemy, but it really depends on the quality of the aid, well, here we will have to work with our european partners and independently to establish both drone technologies and electronic warfare technologies and the production of ammunition on our own, and then help is absolutely necessary, will add to what we can do ourselves. thank you, mr. andriy, maybe you will be surprised, but i will quote president zelensky, who the other day in... the union said that without american help we will not be able to win this war, and although i i like to say that we will not be able to end this war on ukrainian terms. so, of course, there are a lot of details, but it is clear that europe in the state it is in now, technologically, militarily, it is not able to compensate for what we can get from the united states of america. well, obviously, we

will not be able to win this war if we do not create new approaches to mobilization. during the recruitment of ukrainians to the armed forces of ukraine, and today president zelenskyi signed the law on mobilization, which on april 11 the verkhovna rada voted, there were a lot of discussions, however, all the amendments, 400 amendments were not supported by the session hall, to put it mildly, but to put it simply, the servants of the people simply did not vote, can you explain, mr. nikita, why this was so the concept... of the majority that all the amendments that were introduced by people's deputies and they worked on these amendments for so long that they were simply voted non-stop in the regime. such ee, how to say, correctly, in the mode of the printer, is not a lack of perception that others are folk the deputies did not understand, but why did it actually

happen like that? well, it must be understood that what we voted on is a so-called article-by-article vote, the vote concerned the revisions, that is, the article-by-article committee, and in these revisions, in fact, many proposals were taken into account, but... it is clear that such a law, it you know, it belongs to those where there are no decisions that are pleasant for anyone, but there are difficult ones, and there are completely difficult ones, and it is clear that the committee was guided by state interests, the committee was guided primarily by the interests of the front and the army, and the committee did not have any other criteria in of my colleagues from the committee, by the way, i believe that absolutely all representatives of the fraction of groups present there, or almost all of them, worked well there. er, and so to spend time discussing the 400 amendments again, i personally, as well as most of my colleagues, did not think absolutely, well,

we did not see any sense in it, because we clearly knew that the committee created such a text, which is the only one, the only one that can be supported, that's really all, in the text that was created by the committee, many proposals were taken into account, but to sit and mocking and... over, well, you know, all of them going through 400 amendments, and such a criminal amount of time was spent on these 4 thousand, among them there were good amendments, and they were included in the text of the law, but there were some that were just, well i don't know how you can characterize the presentation of such amendments, absolutely populist in wartime, but you are talking about the fact that time was used criminally, and will not time be used criminally, if starting from december 26. from 23 to april 11, 24, this law would be possible, well, if, if so a vote was taken and these amendments were adopted or not adopted, it was

possible to speed up, moreover, there is a war in the country, so wait, everyone insisted on their amendments, the committee was working, people gathered there at 10 in the morning, finished at 12 at night, i am now i'm not even exaggerating, or i'm exaggerating, you know, maybe for an hour and a half, because there are just a lot of my friends, by the way, from different factions of the groups. in this committee, i know how people worked, so sure, well, you can't blame them for wasting time, they passed honestly 4,000 amendments for all four. thank you, mr. rostislav, your faction did not vote for this law, and you have a special position, your own position, please explain to our tv viewers why you did not vote, well , it would seem that everything has already been said, but will it change... the law about mobilization without the norms you insisted on, particularly regarding demobilization? well, first of all, it would be possible to significantly speed up the work on this law on

changes to the conditions before mobilization, yes, let's speak correctly, because the law on mobilization has been in place for quite some time, mobilization is taking place, and it was discussed that it is necessary to strengthen some norms, and among them we believe that the release of military personnel according to the time of service, the so- called demobilization. as it came to be called among the people, it would give additional motivation, because it is not tomorrow, the committee worked out, as it seemed to us, a very successful formula, that it is in 36 months, provided that the servicemen have served at least 18 months under combat orders, that is, in the combat zone, performing combat work, and thus it would give time to prepare a shift and motivate this shift, that they do not go on unknown not a deadline, but clearly known conditions and rules, and in the end the committee initially, with its amendments, remained in this position, other positions were also taken into account, but literally overnight

this position was replaced and it was canceled, moreover, we expected that the president, as the commander-in-chief, he really could introduce this bill at the end of last year, declare it urgent, explain the logic, because he, as the commander-in-chief, is probably the only one in the country who knows absolutely all... information from diplomats, from the economic bloc of the government, of course from the military, and in this way to significantly speed it up and remove a large number of questions that caused discussions there, it did not happen, we heard that the questions were addressed to the deputies and the military, and as a result we got the process that we got, we introduced as a faction the actual bill to return this norm is precisely called demobilization. release on time, we really hope that it will still be possible to consider and approve, if there is a need to carry out further consultations with the military clarification, then obviously it will have to be done,

because in our opinion, this demobilization is actually part of the motivation of people to go to the army, understanding the conditions and how long the service will last. against the background of these conversations about mobilization and demobilization, about how this separate draft law should work, or when it should be adopted, and the dates are called that in 8 months, as the spokesman of the ministry of defense of ukraine, dmytro lazutkin, said, mariyana bezugla, who is for... the deputy head of the parliamentary committee with of national security, defense and intelligence, said that the draft law on the demobilization of the military should not wait until the end of the war. when asked when this new law will be adopted, bezula answered as follows, i will quote: i think never, until martial law ends, it will only be bigger, we will be destroyed in the events of the third world war, until the world

is redistributed. that there is no demobilization in ukraine, she blamed russia, mr. andriy, is it clear to you, as a people's deputy of ukraine, the logic of further actions, because when he says mariana bezuglas, no matter how irenized there in social networks, but it turns out that she rebroadcasts a position, which is then implemented in life, well, for example, she talked about... for a long time about the resignation of the employee and torpedoed it for a long time, this is such a political torpedo , which constantly torpedoes or does what the government does later, is it possible to accept what bezugla says that there will be no draft law, and we will not hear about demobilization until the end of martial law, well, first of all , the further i go, the less something i would like to comment on what the said deputy says to me

still work with her. in the same room, probably for a long time, and in order to make us feel more or less comfortable there, i will probably refrain from direct comments about her, to put it mildly, not very appropriate and regularly inappropriate statements, but you know, i i think the problem is much bigger, the problem is that both politicians and media people have driven society into complete disorientation, because from the moment we realized that we have problems with conscription, and thank you, sergey, that all- after all, at the beginning of our program, you are they correctly said that they adopted a law on mobilization regarding the improvement of conscription, but you see, all the media people write and say that the verkhovna rada adopted a law on mobilization, rostyslav is right, again putting it so gently that it has been in effect for a long time, i remind everyone, that it has been in effect since october 1993, it was this law that enabled ukraine to mobilize since the 14th year, all these long and

difficult years and months. accordingly, the verkhovna rada of ukraine did not adopt any law on mobilization. maybe this is news to someone, but it is a fact. we adopted a package of bills that made changes to the procedure for completing the service, to the procedure for mobilization, conscription, and so on. these were changes to the current legislation. but somewhere from probably july, do you remember the scandal when the odesa military commissar was dismissed, when, as i understand it... the headquarters realized that the number of volunteers had become somewhat smaller, and it was necessary to call in someone, it ended with the fact that the president of ukraine, without any supreme the council dismissed all the military commissars, and then we realized that we had a problem with conscription, but everyone was told that in we have a problem with mobilization, and now we are having a discussion: mobilization, demobilization, dear friends, we have been mocking the russian federation for years for distorting the meaning of words, but we are also distorting the meaning of words with you, because the word

mobilization has... a clear legal meaning, and it is not only about conscription into the army. mobilization is, first of all , the transfer of the entire economy, the work of enterprises, institutions, organizations, the public sector, all municipal institutions to the mode of operation in a special period. and accordingly demobilization is a return from this mode to the usual peacetime mode, and both of these processes are activated exclusively by the commander-in-chief. these are not my fantasies, this is what is written in the law that has been in effect for 30 years, according to which we all work, so in order to somehow understand what is happening, let's still get rid of these media stamps and still speak in legal language, because we are constantly talking not about appeals, but about things that have very clear legal consequences, so i have a big question, whether the mobilization took place in ukraine for the third year at all

war, because once again it's just... not about conscription.