[000:00:00;00] in 5 months there will be bare beads, while they are on equipment, i can't fulfill the specified amount of equipment, but we will not allow more than 20 new tanks per month . does not allow for further offensive actions or new territories with enthusiasm. this is how we residents survive without water posts. this is not an easy task every time. look how it is happening, what

happened now, i will help the final, i will postle he doesn't want a stroke, but you can or don't you walk at all, let's go oh, thank you raiduzhna and here you are collecting glass - it means to fly to you in two, so everything is in flight, that's all the glass we flew in the kitchen, everything flew, the channel is burning for the third day there three floors in the house i burned my ass, it's bad in general, well, it's possible to live there, in principle. how come you don't think of evacuating me , first of all, i have a 93-year-old grandmother, and secondly, because of these bad people, i won't leave home. i believe that

ours will not be missed. thank you very much to all of ukraine za to что нам следующая представление продутиваеtes do you think russian troops will reach here or not? victory will be with us. we are evacuating people who expressed a desire to evacuate from a dangerous place. here we are transporting people. assistance in the form of food kits and household kits, as well as

free accommodation. good day , ukraine demands an urgent meeting of the un security council in in connection with the statement of russian president vladimir putin on the placement of nuclear weapons in belarus, as stated in the statement of the ministry of foreign affairs of kyiv, kyiv expects effective actions to counter nuclear blackmail of the kremlin from the permanent members of the radbezuo. is also a permanent member of the un security council and has the right to veto. the russian president said at the weekend that russia will deploy tactical nuclear weapons in belarus . in brussels, if moscow and minsk implement their plan, when and under what conditions are they ready for new sanctions and how will other countries, ukraine's partners and those who consider themselves neutral, react zoryana stepanenko in more detail and another european warning about the consequences

in case of further escalation of sanctions, the european union is ready to such an answer , the head of european diplomacy said the day before today , i clarified with the official representatives of the european commission what punitive measures are possible, and most importantly - when exactly are the details regarding the type of possible sanctions. we did not hear them to agree to the eu member states, all 27 will traditionally join the process. previously, european commission officials did not disclose details about whether they will wait until the russian nuclear arsenal reaches the belarusian warehouses or act in advance . unity to stop the process, which is considered dangerous here, it is very important to reject these statements and hear what the belarusian side will say, the lukashenko regime, which is already an accomplice of this brutal illegal

aggression, but the fact is that it would be an escalation, it would create a threat to the security of europe and it will not remain without a reaction from the member states , we are ready for all scenarios and are reviewing our readiness as events develop , the kremlin today announced the possibility of sanctions from the west on their plans no will affect vladimir putin claimed that the russian arsenal will not be transferred to belarus but will be placed on its territory, referring to the fact that the united states is also allegedly doing so in the territory of a number of european countries in nato , the allies, unlike russia, are acting fully respecting its international obligations, the rhetoric of the federation in the alliance is considered dangerous. however, there are threatening changes in its nuclear policy that would force nato to change its own. they do not see any signs of the transfer of russian nuclear weapons to neighboring belarus or elsewhere. they do not see it in washington in particular, but they are watching, i can tell you that we have not seen anything that

would indicate that mr. putin is preparing to use tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine in any way , and we have not seen anything that would make us change our own strategic nuclear position deterrence of moscow's plans was condemned by a number of countries on both sides of the ocean, starting with nuclear france, which calls on russia to review the agreement with belarus, nuclear-free germany, which assured that it would not deviate from the course of supporting ukraine's self-defense, and ending with the only country in the world that survived atomic bombing, japan assumed that in conditions of aggression which is ongoing in ukraine, this will lead to further escalation called on russia and belarus not to increase tensions, nuclear china refrained from condemning, but commenting on russia's statement, the deceased noted that

strategic risks should be reduced and focus on diplomacy from brussels . plans of the kremlin so far these are only words, however, as putin said, russia intends to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus, according to him, he has already agreed on this with alexander lukashenko, putin claims that minsk will not get control over nuclear charges, while according to putin, russia has already helped convert 10 belarusian military aircraft for the use of tactical nuclear weapons and handed over to minsk iskander missile complexes that can carry such charges. the russian president added that on the territory of belarus until on july 1 , the construction of the storage for tactical nuclear weapons will be completed, and the training of the crews of the canders should begin on april 3. literally in a month, as

before, or rather in a week, according to reports our belarusian pro-government so-called experts from the belarusian radio liberty service happily welcomed putin's decision . for example , belarusian tv presenter hryhoriy azaryonok said that belarus would become a nuclear state and that warsaw would float and vilnius would sink . with russia called putin's decision absolutely correct and let the polish elite know what a confrontation with us can lead to - he said belarusian deputy well, the reason for the placement of nuclear weapons in belarus is the future ukrainian counteroffensive, namely the liberation of the annexed crimea. this is the opinion voiced by the head of the bypol initiative oleksandr azarov on the radio svoboda e morning program . listen to him. putin is preparing to put this nuclear weapon precisely because of the upcoming offensive of ukrainian troops, or putin

, russian analysts have always said that they will strike with nuclear weapons in response if there is an attack on crimea. this is what is likely the statement is connected with these that putin is afraid that the attack will be effective and therefore, in order to scare ukraine, he wants to place nuclear weapons in the immediate vicinity of kiev . well , we will talk about the prospects of putin's decision to place nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus. taras zoftenko, an expert on international security, joins the broadcast. democratic initiatives fund named after ilko kucherev my greetings i welcome you to hear do you really believe, taras, that putin will not deploy nuclear weapons in belarus is this just blackmail and moscow does not will decide on such a step, because most of the experts i spoke with today believe that this is just blackmail, in principle , the possibility is even more so because we must understand that this is putin's decision to place tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of the republic of belarus, it was

not born yesterday or the day before yesterday, this is a track of russian aggressive policy, which in fact has been taking place for at least the last three years, because these topics about russian nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus began to be actively discussed in the second in the middle of the xxth year, in the 21st year, er, these conversations began to acquire some kind of scrutinizing at the level of the two er heads of both states in both regimes, so the russian federation and the republic of belarus, we already started in the 22nd year practical steps to take place, that is, in february 22 , a so-called referendum was held in belarus, among other things, that the neutral status of the state and the non-nuclear status of the state were deleted from the constitution of the republic of belarus. in this way , the alleged legal prerequisites for just in june 22, the petrovsky dictator lukashenko

officially appealed to putin with a request to transfer operational-tactical missile complexes from the dprk, this is the modification that can be a carrier of tactical nuclear weapons, and in december 22 lukashenko announced in 2012 that these soldiers had already entered combat duty on the territory of the republic of belarus. there are uh, not for uh , the russians for belarus, and in the end, for the west, this decision was not unexpected in any way, it could have been more than that. to even expect that putin should first, logically, so to speak, before the development of events, place nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus and after that start armed aggression against ukraine. because if these russian weapons were on the territory of belarus until february 24, 2022, then well, it is obvious that this greatly strengthened the position of russian nuclear blackmail of the west, so it is not known. well, how strong these positions would be in terms of the fact that

the west, at least at the beginning of this full-scale russian aggression, was, well, quite hesitant. let's put it this way, but it is obvious that putin then he did not wait for the full readiness of the military infrastructure on the territory of belarus to take such a step . well, accordingly, he started the war before he waited for the deployment of belarus, if not for the readiness of belarus to deploy nuclear weapons there, in principle . regimes, they approached this situation in such a planned way, you can expect that something will appear in belarus in this regard , especially since well, in principle, this is nuclear blackmail, it is from the kremlin, it is actually, well , belarus alone is not limited to this in the 14th year, in principle, we constantly expected that nuclear weapons would appear first in the occupied ukrainian crimea, because in

principle, these are the steps of the russian regime , they are actually included in the russian strategy. they want the united states to recognize them as a super nuclear power like the soviet union used to be. well, and accordingly divide the world into two poles and into spheres of influence. that is , in fact, this is what the strategist aimed for in putin's regime from the very beginning er from the very start of this hybrid aggression against ukraine and eventually against the countries of the west , so in principle it is obvious that now er it is a threat of placing russian nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus, on the one hand it is really an attempt er at least to put a pause, if not to stop the supply of western weapons to ukraine, but on the other hand, we must understand that these are the steps they are actually investing in this strategy of the kremlin , in order to have the opportunity, let

's say, to be a player at least on at the regional level of taras, then the second question. here is a look. recently, we watched a meeting between all the zepins and putin, and then , according to the results of their meeting, china and russia signed a number of agreements there in publicly opposed the use of nuclear weapons there and signed a number of agreements where as i remember they signed an agreement that stated that they oppose the deployment of nuclear weapons outside their own countries. and so the meeting ends and then comes out with a statement that he is deploying nuclear weapons in belarus. and what should china's reaction be? what i can see in advance is this reaction. she is quite modest and restrained. and in general, putin will not fly, so don’t worry about it . and you know, there is a legal loophole that can be used. well, obviously , the russian dictator will take advantage of them. there is something from the belarusians. this is the bilateral legal framework of the trade union state and

within this framework. in principle, putin can talk about the fact that, well, technical russian nuclear weapons did not end up outside the borders of russian territory, because if you look at the territory of russia, belarus from the point of view view of this of the international legal framework, in principle, they simply , relatively speaking, moved their nuclear arsenal tactically across their common territory, what about the position of china in general, and the fact that, well, china takes such a rather clear position, let's put it this way it is in complete contrast to all of putin's attempts. what if it was the next time he tried to use this nuclear blackmail ? in fact, i think that what putin is doing now is actually playing into the hands of the chinese leadership because, in principle, in his conditions, in contrast to the chinese leader, he can gain maximum points by appearing to be as moderate as possible, peace-loving, inclined to

a peaceful political settlement, and in the end, this strengthens his position in the dialogue of the west, because he says conditionally yes . well , we understand that putin is inadequate. - first of all, i have influence over putin, so i can control him to a certain extent, and secondly, i have my 12-point peace plan in my hands. let's somehow agree on what i will restrain uh, how did he say dear dear friend vladimir, what did they call each other at the meeting? instead, we will move along this road map, which is actually the chinese peace plan putin, he finally and agreed with these symposia, but the fact that for the chinese side it was hardly a box, the surprise was a surprise, well , we can certainly hope for it, because if, and from this logic, we see that such a step

of the russian leadership, he puts on the contrary china is in a much better position as a peacemaker and mediator in general , in this situation, then there is one more question . so far, we have seen such very restrained and moderate statements from the west, they said that they will be watching because so far there are no signs that russia has started the transfer of nuclear weapons to belarus. let's assume that tomorrow these signs of transfer will be visible. what should the west do? what will it do? what actions do you expect from the west ? to the scheme of actions, yes, at first, there will be, uh, the same thing that we are hearing now. we are at this stage now, political statements, calls to rationalize both the russian and belarusian sides in order to uh, well, avoid, so to speak, yes uh- is such a practical step, when it doesn't work, it's obvious

that sanctions will be worked out in parallel, which will be tied exclusively to this situation. yes, to the threat of placing russian nuclear weapons in the republic of belarus, if in the end it happens , and the russian tactical nuclear arsenal at least parts of it will end up on the territory of the republic of belarus, then the west will move on to practical actions, these practical actions will be the political and military toolkit , that is, well, on the one hand, there will be a strengthening of sanctions, and it is obvious that if these sanctions were a little tougher than they are now, they will be more personalized, and on the other hand , there will be a certain military response. this will be a strengthening of the presence of the alliance on the eastern borders of poland, in the baltic countries , it is obvious that additional anti-hail defense systems and elements will be placed anti-missile defense systems are obviously coming another military exercise with the united states of america on nuclear deterrence last

year there were two such exercises a-a well and in the end uh washington from the very beginning this is the first comment of the pentagon who said that it says that well actually the united states does not see any signs that the russians are either moving their nuclear arsenal or preparing to use it , you know, this is a kind of signal in moscow that the americans know where to look, they see everything that is happening with the russian nuclear arsenal and in the end well, what they see where and what is happening on the territory of the russian federation means that, well, at least the potential targets for strikes by the american air force of cruise missiles are also known. in principle, well, the reaction of the west to such a move by russia is, to a certain extent, expected, and it is so rationally balanced, the west is simply included in the list of military targets that must be destroyed on

territories of russian facilities and military facilities connected with russian strategic and tactical nuclear forces. and to this list of targets, a few more targets will be added on the territory of the republic of belarus and by the russians to the belarusians. they will simply demonstrate how the allies are practicing striking these same targets purposes, in the event that somewhere or in the kremlin or in minsk or somewhere they have an idea about not just deploying nuclear weapons, but threatening their practical use can theoretically become a target in the event of any escalation taras thank you very much taras zoftenko expert on international security of the democratic initiatives foundation named after ilko kucherev we talked about the prospects of placing russian nuclear weapons on the territory of belarus another important topic a major political reversal the governor of the american state of florida rondesantis who is considered

the main opponent of donald trump in the fight for the status of the candidate for the us presidency from the republican party called vladimir putin a war criminal. he said this in an interview with the british journalist piers morgan, and it was quite unexpected, because in march , in an interview with fox news, desantis criticized the policy of us president joe biden regarding ukraine, he said that the usa has a lot of important national interests and, as desantis said, further involvement in the dispute between ukraine and russia is not one of these interests , the governor's words about the so-called territorial dispute were criticized not only in ukraine , but even in his own republican party, now in an interview with piers morgan paratroopers claimed that his comment about the territorial dispute was misinterpreted, paratroopers noted that he should speak more clearly, listen, it's obvious that russia invaded and it was wrong, they invaded crimea and seized it in 2014

, it was also wrong i meant where the hostilities are currently taking place that is, on the western border or on the eastern border, donbass and then crimea, so it is a difficult struggle and i did not think that russia has the right to this. but i think that the main thing is that russia cannot seize ukraine in order to overthrow the government or threaten nato, i do not think that it is of sufficient interest for the united states to immerse itself even more in this war . i would not like american troops to participate there, but the idea that what i said somehow justifies russia is nonsense, why is there so much chained to this statement by ron desantis attention and why are we actually discussing it now ? well, because according to polls of the airborne troops , the elector from the republican party is very popular among the republican electorate, in particular among those americans who previously voted for donald trump and it is desantis who is currently considered the most serious potential opponent of donald trump in the fight for the presidential nomination from the republican party

. well, donald trump himself. by the way, he promises his voters to end the war in ukraine in 24 hours if the americans elect him as their president in the entire election in the usa will take place at the end of next year, as we can see from the us presidential candidates, their voters and journalists. well, they also demand clear rhetoric regarding the role of the us in supporting oleksandr kraev, director of the north america program of the foreign policy council of ukraine, ukrainian prisma joins our broadcast, oleksandr my greetings, yes, greetings, good evening , everyone, is it you? it is quite sharp and so unexpected. well, maybe this is the rhetoric of a potential candidate from the republicans in the light of the american elections. and regarding how he sees the war in ukraine. at first he said that it was a territorial dispute. and now he says that he remembered that it all started in

the 14th year with crimea. how can this be explained? you know, american colleagues really like to compare politics with poker, and if we continue this comparison, then desantis revealed his cards at the beginning of the party itself , it was really expected that he would become a bit sorry for such jargon to trump closer to november this year, because it is precisely in november that the intra-party primaries begin precisely in november 23 in 2018 , the headquarters of pre-election candidates were to be determined , that is, in fact, landing forces, one way or another, he had to start speaking trumpian rhetoric for one simple reason: until now, about 30% of the rep of the german electorate, i.e. low-lying voters, namely low-lying voters determine the success of candidates in the primaries, about 30 %. they still very, very positively perceive what trump says, this does not mean that he is not supported by my trauma, it simply means that such a policy is such a rhetoric such an approach that the former had the president, they are popular among them, and the paratroopers, being a very experienced politician, were excellent. he understood this and it was expected that one way or another. but this year

he will say something similar to trump and these are his statements about the need to help less getting involved is actually part of this rhetoric, but a few appeared, but as you can see, he hid his strategy much earlier , literally six months earlier, and it played into olya's hands, obviously a change in rhetoric , a return to his previous positions, and they showed what it really was it's just his political game that he doesn't actually adhere to the same positions as trump regarding ukraine, he checked the electorate, he checked the support for such rhetoric and , accordingly, he is now returning to his previous positions, and i will remind you that there are four months ago, during a landing party with the governor of florida, he said that his main problem with biden is that he is too soft on russia and that he does not give ukraine enough weapons . that is, this is the political game of de santis - this is his strategy to identify his voter. i also want to quote things from him, and the journalist extracted them verbatim, but he still

extracted them. in a conversation with a paratrooper, morgan mentioned that an arrest warrant had been issued for putin and that they were trying to prosecute him for war crimes, and he asked the politician, but you will support it and he answered in the paratroopers answered what he thinks, he thinks that putin is a war criminal and that he must be brought to justice. to be honest, i have a hard time imagining what donald trump would say now. although i may be wrong, it is absolutely true that trump cannot actually say this, you know, trump is well first of all, trump is a political weather vane , he goes back and forth and says what is popular now, where the political wind is blowing from, and in trump's situation, where can he now find at least some advantages in order not to imprison him he will use it too soon, but let's not forget that trump is the person who, in 2017, at a back press conference with putin, in the presence of the director of geisinka, said that he trusts vladimir putin more

than his intelligence, well, that is, trump is a special case in general paratroopers are really like any adequate politician. he couldn't say that, plus let's forget about him, grant is still a paratrooper, he is a conservative republican, he defines himself as a reagan republican, besides airborne is already conducting quite successful negotiations with all the key donors of the republican party, this is a large industrial company, this is a large mining company, this is general motors, general electrics, and the american oil companies that manage the main oil and gas terminals and networks. they do not accept this rhetoric. for them, sanctions against russia are for them. the fight against russian oil is as profitable as possible, and therefore understanding this and again being an absolute pragmatist, as he shows it from day to day, landing forces well he simply could not turn to the rhetoric that not everything is so unambiguous, he definitely had to condemn putin and fortunately he did it

. meanwhile, donald trump, mentioned by us , also started his campaign, he promised to end the war in 24 hours, and the topic of war in ukraine is present in the rhetoric of all us presidential candidates . obviously, this is a very painful point for americans, but here are your own feelings and observations. and what kind of rhetoric is closer to the republican camp ? to conclude, we divide and disagree, we read which one is voiced by the airborne troops yes, no, putin is still a war criminal and he should be brought to justice, the answer is absolutely short, you understand now , to support trump's rhetoric is to support the rhetoric of a federal criminal, it is to support a person about whom four of them have been opened for treason and for an attempted coup d'état, it is to support a person who will serve several life terms in the future next year, well, that is, the republican party definitely

supports the rhetoric of the landing party, well then one such one such detail is interesting, here is desantis in his interview, he said that despite everything he said, he would not want to take, he would not want american troops to participate in the war, and in principle , what volodymyr zelenskyi said is very strongly echoed here at his recent press conference, addressing american journalists, he said that help ukraine with weapons and then your soldiers will not fight somewhere in the baltic countries if russia shows its aggression there to the extent that it is close to american leaders now in the light of the elections to promote this kind of rhetoric, let's now use weapons, because then we may have to help people, this is essentially what biden said, that a year ago he said that americans must pay with their money and their weapons , otherwise they will have to pay with their blood and the americans still have a vivid memory of the exit from afghanistan, the americans not so long ago completed two long-term, multi-year, in fact ten-year companies, i believe and afghanistan, and

therefore again from their boys and girls dying somewhere thousands of kilometers away, well that a suicidal political decision, and that is why in fact such rhetoric is a very important moment, it is popular not only among republicans , it is popular among democrats, it is even popular among socialists who are now reappearing in america, it is popular even among trembists, that is, this is exactly the topic that summarizes the entire american the political spectrum and therefore the repeaters of the landings , repeating this but at the same time emphasizing the help of ukraine, again, as i said at the beginning, shows their political pragmatism he knows how to attract an audience and our happiness lies in the fact that american national interests are almost 90% coincident with ukrainian national interests and therefore desantis is a safe candidate for us for now well , it seems to me that ukraine has already invited