the ukrainian authorities say that the russian offensive has been stopped, and that during the offensive only two suburbs of donetsk were captured. so have the russian forces run out of steam and what will happen next? we talk about this for the next 15 minutes on the bbc, in the studio. volodymyr zelenskyi recently stated in an interview with zmi in french: now the military situation has significantly improved, compared to the previous three months, and the advance of the russian army has stopped. according to the spectators, the offensive stalled due to the fact that the armed forces inflicted significant losses on the enemy. the numerical losses of the russians were also mentioned at the meeting in ramstein. by the way, this is already the 20th meeting of the contact group on the defense of ukraine.

the ukrainian delegation is headed by the minister of defense rustem umyerov, and on the us side is his colleague lloyd austin. and it was he who noted that at least 315,000 russian soldiers were killed or wounded during the war. and he added, by the way, that the usa and the coalition will not allow ukraine to be defeated in this war. let's listen. our message today is clear: the united states will not let ukraine lose, this coalition will not let ukraine. to lose, and the free world will not allow ukraine to lose. putin will not stop at ukraine, but as president biden said, it is ukraine that can stop putin if we stand together with ukraine and provide it with the weapons it needs for self-defense. ukraine's survival and all our security are at stake. and what is the situation on the front line now, when the ukrainian army is still experiencing a shortage of ammunition. as of mid-march, russia...

made the main effort to break through ukrainian defenses west of avdiivka. this was said by the commander-in-chief of the armed forces oleksandr syrian after the departure of the ukrainian forces from the city in february, the russian army was able to rapidly advance to the west and capture several villages. in addition, in this direction, the russians are trying to break through the defense of the armed forces near maryinka, which they recently captured. we will talk more about the situation at the front a little later, but will russia want to try to seize kyiv again, the ukrainian authorities say no, but western observers believe that it is necessary to prepare for everything, but do they have enough strength? my colleague, bbc correspondent, oleh chernysh further. actually, we are now we are in the very center of kyiv, this is independence square, two years ago, literally 20 km from here, russian troops stood, and then, as you know, the ukrainians were able to drive them away and liberate the north and northeast of ukraine, but this winter.

high-ranking officials, in particular former president dmytro medvedev, once again began to declare their claims on kyiv. however, do these statements have any basis? the military say that there is no solid, large russian group on the territory of belarus in order to again start an offensive on kyiv, no. according to rough estimates, there are only 2,000 russian troops there, which is obviously not enough for such a difficult operation. and so, what can be the meaning of these statements? well, for example, the head of the military intelligence of ukraine, kyrylo budanov, talks about psychological pressure, military experts say that with such statements, the russians not only put psychological pressure on the ukrainian government, but also force the military to hold, the ukrainian military to hold a certain group in the northern corridors, that is, everything to cover up the northern corridor, to cover kyiv along the perimeter and, well, not to use these reserves for, for example. battles in the east, well, this

may actually be the purpose of these russian statements about kyiv. indeed, in fact, an escalation is currently underway in the east, where russia is attacking simultaneously on several fronts. although president zelenskyi said that ukraine was able to stop the russian offensive. independent analysts say that russia is only deploying it. so how to evaluate russia's statements about kyiv? it is quite possible that russia is trying to make the most of its favorable moment. on let me remind you that indeed, now the ukrainian army is experiencing a very strong shortage of ammunition, there are also problems with human resources, as we know, the law on mobilization has not yet been adopted, and the military, which has been fighting in the east and south for two years, they are tired, they openly say that rotation is necessary, therefore it is no secret that the russian leadership will try and is already trying to take advantage of this situation, it increases the pressure on the east. direction, it is true,

it keeps large groups in the south and , perhaps, forces ukraine by psychological pressure to think about the defense of kyiv, i can add here that, for example, right now at this very moment... another line of defense is being built around kyiv, it's actually not a secret, you can see these works, as if from the window of your car, driving along the roads around of kyiv, that is , whatever the russians' statements are, the ukrainian authorities pay attention to them and actually conduct preparations so that a repeated attack on kyiv does not happen again. and we will talk more about this topic with military commentator mykhailo zhirikhov. i congratulate you mykhailo. this is russia's rhetoric about capture kyiv is unchanged. already for several years, but is there really a risk of the russians capturing the capital? and of course there is a risk of such a development, because the russians are already practicing the accumulation of forces and means both in belarus

and on the border of the sumy region, because they simply do not have these forces and means, after putin's re-election there will most likely be a mobilization. and the russians receive a certain, certain number of personnel and a sufficient number of tanks, artillery and everything necessary for operational reserves, where they will use them is a big question, but whether is the ukrainian side doing enough to protect the capital? absolutely correct, this is classified data, but fortification... works are in full swing, in addition, some parts of the front, they are near kyiv, are within the northern operational area, i mean zhytomyr, chernihiv, sumy regions, and i i think

this will be enough for now. and if we return to the general topic of the front, how is it currently advancing, are russian forces continuing their offensive on... the main directions, and unfortunately, the russians are advancing, now they use the moment that we do not have enough artillery shells, we do not have dominance in the air, and therefore the use of guided bo aerial bombs, it is simply colossal, now they use them even on groups of soldiers, who are there two two or three people, if before that it was 5-10. now, if two or three people see a drone, then this bomb almost always flies behind it. you mentioned the lack of weapons in the ukrainian army, can europe replace the united states in supply

weapons to ukraine, so far the white house is delaying the provision of military aid? and this is a question that is solved in the medium or long term. time, because europe is just developing the production of projectiles, the production of equipment necessary for ukraine, and therefore weapons are needed now, and not in 2-3 months, in this sense , the help of the united states is very important, but it is important now, and not after some time , when the russians will advance even further and will have more opportunities to... attack ukraine. recently, the telegraph publication wrote that allegedly there is a risk that ukraine will soon run out of missiles for air defense systems. how much do you think this information is true, and how much time do we still have in ukraine?

in general, this information is classified, and journalists cannot have access to such information, because even in peacetime, how many... how many launchers and air defense systems in general, they are top secret, so let's talk now about how many missiles are left in the arsenals of the ukrainian army. well, for example, i would not become and think that no one owns, well, except the general staff and the commander-in-chief do not have such information, so all this information is aimed at certain political or ideological goals, and after... the election of the president of russia, how do you think the military strategy of the russian army will change? well, it is already obvious that there will be mobilization, it is already obvious that they are forming seven or eight new divisions, and for this a plan has been formed

for the production of heavy armored vehicles, light armored vehicles, and for the summer the russians are planning a large-scale offensive, but again... where , where it will be and when it will be is huge questions that our military needs to answer. thank you mykhailo, it was a military observer, mykhailo zhirokhov, on our broadcast. thanks again, so compared to the beginning of a full-scale invasion, the ukrainian army is much more prepared and has more weapons, but from the point of view of supporting the event, what would a russian offensive look like at a time when the us, on the one hand, is delaying the supply of weapons, and europe, on the other hand, another, looking for shells and funds for them and discussing the involvement of his military. we asked a military observer about this jonathan marcus. i think, in general, yes. russia really wants to take advantage of the advantage it has now, but i am not sure that it can

immediately muster the equipment and troops for a direct attack on kyiv in the near future, this is a crucial moment, russia has the initiative, what ukraine needs to do this year, unfortunately, it is to dig in, regain strength and try to contain the russians as much as possible, while simultaneously improving and adapting one's own capabilities. first of all, i think the idea of ​​a truce and... negotiations is ridiculous, especially at the moment when russia would really reach the capital of ukraine again. i see no reason why the russians would be interested in talking. and the russians have so far shown no interest in negotiations, despite, you know, occasional diplomatic statements. they are playing a game, they have already placed their bets, they want to destroy ukraine by force, and they think they can do it in some time. i think the main thing really for the europeans and their support for ukraine is to prevent the russian army from standing again

at the gates of the ukrainian capital. and i think that threat may be real at some point in the future, but not now, and even russian officials aren't really talking about it in the present tense. they're just announcing that they're going to do it someday. so, if there really is a direct threat to the capital again. ukraine, then this may increase support, but it should happen long before that. i think we are now at the beginning of a new phase. awareness of these threats and needs is growing in the west as a result of a number of factors affecting both ukraine, as well as other countries. but i don't see any circumstances under which nato combat units would be sent to ukraine. i think it's one thing to diplomatically declare that no option is excluded so that... the russians, that the level of support from the west is increasing, so that the russians

have no idea how far all this can go. under the current circumstances, i think there is no question that nato combat units will be sent to ukraine, on the other hand, there are almost certainly already western military personnel there who help, train and advise ukrainians on how to use various weapons. their not necessarily many, but they are there, and will probably continue to be so. therefore, the interlocutors of the bbc from various fields of expertise estimate that there is no immediate threat to kyiv in the form of an offensive by the russian army and a second attempt at occupation. however, it should be remembered that many point to the elections in russia, after which putin will significantly raise the stakes on the front. this is how bbc correspondent oleg chernysh sums it up. it should not be forgotten that , as of now, on the eastern front, powerful hostilities continue, and the offensive of the russians, who after taking in february of this year are advancing further to the west, they are also fighting

near kupyansk, novomykhaivka, chasovoy yar. however, according to both ukrainian and western military analysts, the election of the president of russia may lead to increased mobilization, specifically in the russian federation, increased mobilization did not occur due to political issues in russia itself, now these reservations will be lifted and... putin has nothing will prevent the announcement of a new mobilization and call up hundreds of thousands more russians to the army, this can actually be used to create powerful reserves that will applied both to the eastern front and, theoretically, can again be used for a new offensive on kyiv. and subscribe to our pages on social networks so as not to miss the most important news, we are on facebook, instagram and tiktok, you can watch on youtube. our newscast if you missed it on the air and that's all we have time to cover today, we're back on

the air tomorrow at 9pm, take care. greetings, friends, the second part of the program is live on the espresso tv channel. verdict, my name is serhii rudenko, today in issue: the military partners of ukraine will not allow themselves to be defeated, once again gathered in ramstein, as agreed by the members of the contact group. close loopholes for dodgers. the defense committee is considering amendments to the bill on mobilization.

what is the reason for the delay? putin's fifth term. in the verkhovna rada. call to consider the dictator illegitimate, or recognize russia as a state sponsor of terrorism? friends, we work live on the tv channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms. for those who are now watching us live in ours social networks, as well as on youtube. please take part in our vote. today, we ask you about the following: does the united states of america recognize russia as a state sponsor of terrorism? yes, no, please vote. on youtube or with the yes or no button, write your comment below this video if you have your own opinion. if you watch us on tv, grab your smart phone and vote. if you believe that the us recognizes russia as a state sponsor of terrorism (0800-211-381, no), 0800 211-382. all calls these numbers are free, vote,

at the end of the program we will sum up the results of this vote. today we have as a guest a people's... deputy of ukraine fedir venislavskyi, a people's deputy of ukraine from the servant of the people, a member of the verkhovna rada committee on national security, defense and intelligence, mr. fedor, i congratulate you, thank you for being with us today, heroes glory, iryna friz, people's deputy of ukraine, european solidarity, member of the verkhovna rada committee on national security, defense and intelligence. ms. irina, i congratulate you, thank you, that you joined our broadcast. good evening. oleksiy kucherenko, people's deputy of ukraine. from the batkivshchyna faction, the first deputy chairman of the verkhovna rada committee on energy and housing and communal services. mr. oleksiy, i congratulate you and i am glad to see you on our air. greetings, good evening, we are equally happy. well, since we, ladies and gentlemen, are asking our tv viewers and viewers what they think, whether the united states of america recognizes, recognizes russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and

we ask this for a reason, because the american sen. lynsey grammy, republican. who was in kyiv announced that he would initiate a bill to recognize russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which should make, as he said, secondary sanctions more significant. mrs. irina, do you think washington will dare to recognize russia as a state, a state sponsor of terrorism? well, it would be absolutely logical from my point of view, because there is every reason to clearly define, including at the legislative level, not only in our state. and in the countries of our partners, consistent partners that russia is a sponsor of terrorism. i want to remind you that, uh, somewhere in the 17th year, at the nato parliamentary assembly, we made a corresponding report on how the russian federation uses opportunities to finance terrorist organizations like dild and deal, etc. therefore,

in this case, there should only be the presence of political will. our partners from the united states of america, regarding the completion of this issue and bringing it to a logical counterpart to what is actually happening now. russia is a state sponsoring terrorism. well, a state that is itself a terrorist, although this is a legal term: state sponsor of terrorism. mr. oleksiy, do you think that the americans recognize russia as a state sponsor of terrorism? i... thank you, indeed , sergey, you correctly said at the end that she is not a sponsor, she is the main terrorist russia, by the way, this is quite consistent, because if you recall the history of the soviet union, then the main organizer of world terror was the soviet union, russia is its successor direct, therefore, in essence

, there is a connection between times and peoples. the second, well, in my opinion, this is a very serious test for. our partners , well, not even so much from the point of view of their relationship with ukraine, support there or not, this is a test of their truthfulness, sincerity, devotion to the ideals of democrats, the slogans that americans have professed for many years, many hundreds of years, actually speaking, now it has to be confirmed by really actual decisions, and in my opinion this is a test for them as a democratic country, i would. put it like that, and that's it it is clear that when i mentioned lynsey graham, he said that the russians bypass all the sanctions in the world and that these are secondary sanctions. they should be more significant, last week donald tusk spoke about the fact that a part of europe

verbally condemns russia's aggression against ukraine, instead conducts some business, sells something, buys something from russia. mr. fyodor, when our partners will actually put all the dots and when it will be clear to everyone that there cannot be any negotiations with russia, that it is a state. sponsor of terrorism, that it is a terrorist state, and this will be enshrined in law in the united states of america, which will accordingly affect absolutely all counterparties with whom they work. well, here i completely agree with our colleagues who said that for us, for people 's deputies of ukraine, for the authorities of ukraine in general, there is no doubt that the russian federation is a terrorist country, a country that is a sponsor of terrorism. moreover, i want to tell you that... in the first weeks of the war, precisely our committee was one of the first to initiate and vote for the resolution at the committee, the draft resolution on recognizing

russia as a terrorist state, but at that time it did not receive support among other colleagues, but you know, talk about the fact that russia is definitely terrorism, dares in almost every corner of the world, in every country, and even in the united states of america, various political...politicians, various political forces, they declare that russia is a sponsor of terrorism, that it should be recognized as such officially, but on it's a great pity, we see some kind of, you know, caution in the actions of our american partners and western partners, when they try not to take any drastic actions or make drastic statements, to make decisions that could lead to an even greater escalation conflict, and unfortunately, when i was on a business trip to the united states... this thesis that the united states and the authorities of the united states are trying to avoid further escalation

permeated both the official and unofficial communications of our colleagues with the american colleagues, so i think that eventually the united states of america will recognize that russia is a state sponsor of terrorism, but how quickly will that happen, well, i can't be optimistic and say that it will happen anytime soon, though. this is the way that our partners in the united states of america declared and declare, the way, in fact, of the full application of all the various sanctions, which will then be very painful for those who violate them. today, the secretary of defense of the united states of america, lloyd osin, opening the meeting of the 20th meeting of the format , ramstein promised that the united states of america would continue to support ukraine's military efforts against russia. despite congressional procrastination. let's listen to what the secretary of defense of the united states of america said. today

, our message is quite clear: the united states will not allow ukraine to lose. our coalition and the entire free world will not allow this to happen. last week, the united states announced another security package, which amounted to 300 million dollars. this is an extremely important measure in order to help. ukraine in the purchase of ammunition, anti-aircraft shells and other equipment. we are now trying to find out what ukraine urgently needs, and we are determined to give it exactly that. and besides, he said that ukraine and the united states of america will not back down and will do everything to ensure that ukraine does not suffer defeat, and that this coalition will not give ukraine. to be defeated, ms. iryna, this is lloyd osin saying that the united states of america, reimstein, a group of countries that

support us in the war against russia, are saying that the fact that they will not allow ukraine to be defeated, although we do not hear from the rhetoric that ramshtein will do everything so that russia will be defeated, that is, some kind of half-hearted decision and half-hearted statements that ukraine will not be defeated, why does the west not say that russia must be defeated, putin must be defeated, russia in the form in which it is aggressive, dangerous for the whole world, that there must be demilitarization, denuclearization so that the world sleeps peacefully. thanks, well look, actually. clear and consistent support is very important

the clarity of one of our key supporters, the united states of america, is indeed to be applauded. narratives that speak of steadfast support for ukraine. it was very desirable for us to directly have not only statements and not only aspirations in support of ukraine, but also the provision of the necessary, vitally necessary for our victory, help from our partners. in this case, i think mr. austin's statements, they are directed. primarily to prove, including to the country of the aggressor, that ukraine will not remain alone with the occupying country. indeed , i support your thesis that it would be desirable to move away from these mythologies about the fact that it is ukraine that will not be defeated and change it to the fact that it is russia that must be defeated, but

we and you, unfortunately, still have. .. to state the fact that the vast majority of western leaders are under such a grip of the narrative that it is desirable not to anger russia too much. in this case , i believe that time is playing against everyone, not only against ukraine, but also against our supporters and our partners, so partners as soon as possible. will change their rhetoric and really come to the point that it is impossible to negotiate with russia, russia is not a country that will use the possibility of finding a compromise as the achievement of some parity in order to move forward, russia will use any compromises from partners as their weakness, and, accordingly, russia must be destroyed as a state, otherwise it will

continue to pose a threat. this democratic world. thank you, ms. irina, mr. fedor, please tell me what the west and our westerners are saying and doing now partners who are united in this ramshtein format, whether it is sufficient for ukraine not to be defeated in the fight against russia. well, first, i'd like to go back to that rhetoric. that our partners will not allow ukraine to be defeated, the fact is that our goal, with which we fight against the aggressor country, and the goal with which the aggressor country attacked ukraine, they are completely different. it is important for us to restore our territorial integrity, to preserve our statehood, and for russia it is important to destroy us as a statehood, as nation, as a people and so on. that is precisely why the rhetoric of our partners is that ukraine cannot lose, that is, they will not allow russia.

achieve the goals it sets for itself by invading ukraine. we have never declared that we want to destroy the russian federation, although i fully agree with ms. irina here that it would be an ideal option for us, but still our partners, given the nuclear status of the russian federation and the unpredictability of the destruction of this country into some fragments, they act very cautiously, but for us the main thing is that the signals we hear from our partners... that ukraine will not lose, and therefore ukraine will restore its territorial integrity, they are decisive and they certainly provide very clear guidelines for russia as well, which understands that it it will not be possible to do that because the whole civilized world is against it and for our citizens and for us, is the support that we will get enough, you know, without this support it would be much more difficult for us, but certainly this support, well, at the

moment from the point of view of e. understanding us as representatives of the defense committee , who understand the difficulties facing our defense security sector, are certainly not enough, because if timely decisions were made to provide ukraine with what it needs in a specific period of time, then the situation on the territory of the battlefield would probably be different, if there was no delay in the delivery of first the barrel artillery, then the rocket artillery, then the tanks, then the air defense systems or before that the anti-air defense systems, then the aircraft, but these are all decisions that our partners accept, and they help us a lot, but they are at least six months late, so of course this help is not enough, we are trying to consolidate other countries and our european partners to give us something that will help us protect our people and liberate our territory from the country, the aggressor. thank you, mr. feder, mr. oleksiy, well, after all, what is in...