normality, but at least there will be opportunities for some kind of political competition, for freedom of speech, for evaluating what happened, there will be such evaluations that we cannot even imagine now, as long as the hostilities continue, in in any case, well, i think that these were definitely very difficult years, due to many reasons, and definitely remain the most difficult years in the history of ukrainian independence, and i think that the exam that will last. like any other ukrainian official after the end of hostilities actions will be very difficult. i would really like for us to think more not about specific politicians, but about what will happen to the country, because now is the time when it is not the question of, for example, the political fate of zelenskyi, but the question of the political system in ukraine in general , which it will be after the end of hostilities. because the challenges that ukraine will face after the end of hostilities in politics and social life. well, believe me, they will not be

smaller than what ukraine is currently enduring during the war, there will be a lot of questions, and including very difficult political issues, about which we still have to talk very hard. well, of course, after our victory, ukrainians will face many challenges, no less than during the war, it is absolutely obvious, but still, sociological services measure both the rating of trust in the president and the rating of trust. to other candidates, as regards the level of public trust in the president of ukraine, recently, as recorded by the razumkov center, it decreased in march 2024, it was 59%, although it was 64% back in january. a year ago, about his trust in the president stated 83% of respondents. similar data was recently published by the sociological group rating. the level of approval of the activity

of the president of ukraine zelenskyi decreased to 63%, although it was 91% back in february 2023, this is evidenced by the results of the survey of the sociological group rating. you, as a political expert, a person who understands reading these sociological studies, what can you say, well, that is, whether it is a lot of fall during the war , the trust rating of the president... or the president who leads the armed forces of ukraine, he is the supreme commander-in-chief, one way or another, this affects his trust rating, maybe he makes some decisions, and this also has some effect, and in general, we remember politicians who were winners in the war, but could not win afterwards already there in the elections, we don't say anything about the elections now, we talk only about trust, mistrust and does this mean that people... stop trusting

or trust less, or this trust is decreasing, what can you say? first of all, i will say absolutely sincerely and honestly, what are these ratings are now being made public during military operations, they are conditional, because the result of the attitude of politicians to all politicians will be measured by the results of the end of the military campaign, which will definitely end with the victory of ukraine, but simply we will not say when and we will not say when a pause in this will be possible. in this path to victory, when a pause will occur that will allow ukrainian politics to be democratic, at least to the extent it was before the war, then it will make sense to measure ratings, well, imagine there are different scenarios for the end of this stage of the campaign, we will get completely different ratings of both the government and the opposition, well, that’s true, to be honest, but i think that there is another question for zelenskyi’s team, well, what is it now...

i’m watching, it’s not the first year , they constantly inflate expectations, constantly live in the future, constantly say that something will happen and something will be very good, and this was, by the way, both before the war and during the election campaign, 5 years ago, how about you remembered, and now, when the expectation that we are about to win is constantly inflated, i will emphasize that it is about both before the war and after the war, and then it does not happen, well , at least so quickly. as it is promised, then it hits the rating, because to live constantly in political life at the expense of the future, well , it is the same as how to constantly take loans from a bank to a businessman, so you take, take loans, take, take, and then well, sooner or later you have to give them away, because then it all threatens bankruptcy, so that's why, well, i would n't say that there is bankruptcy now, but there is a certain trend towards a decrease in the rating, which you quoted, i think this is largely due to the fact that i'm spinning... this expected future

that is supposed to be beautiful and is about to happen, it's not happening so quickly, and that's why it hits the ratings, but i want to emphasize again, that the results of the political forces now... do not make much sense to measure, it makes a lot of sense to measure immediately after the end of the military campaign, although, as suggested by you, you have already talked about history, as suggested by the fate of many politicians who manifested themselves in different ways during the war, sometimes even won military campaigns, then during democratic elections it will be very difficult for them, because people will still associate all the negativity of the war, well it will definitely be big, with the politician who was in power, sometimes it will be fair. sometimes it is unfair, but in any case it will be for sure after the military campaign, so we understand that for a long time now zelenskyi’s political power does not have the monopoly that he had before the war, there will never be this monopoly again, and that zelenskyi

should stay in politics, well, first of all, he has to to win the war is at least, well , secondly, there will probably be a completely different format of political forces, i suspect that political forces can. which is in power, will be different, or will not be at all, there will be other new political projects, and most likely it will be so, and then it will make sense to measure different political ratings, well, in summing up, i can assure one hundred percent that the monopolies of one there will definitely not be a person or one political force after the end of hostilities, most likely there will be competition between several political forces, which will then be in the parliament form a coalition, this will be for sure, because the era of monomajority, regardless of what it is now... the political party does not matter the majority, it has already passed, well , maybe this era will pass much faster than we think, not only after the end war in ukraine, and possibly even earlier, because it has been announced that

a number of personnel issues may be brought up for consideration at the session this week, in particular regarding the resignation of three or four ministers and the prosecutor general, said people's deputy of ukraine yaroslav zheleznya. according to the information of people's deputy goncharenko, it is about vice prime minister iryna veryschuk, minister of infrastructure oleksandr kubrakov and minister of education oksana lisovoy, the ministry of culture may also be disbanded, however, the head of the servant of the people party olena shulyak says that her faction has not yet discussed any personnel issues, can this topic and these personnel changes, mr. serhiy, should be a prologue. before the creation of some other government, the government of national unity, which everyone has been talking about for a long time, perhaps zelensky understands that monopolies require monoresponsibility from him, he can responsibility, mono-responsibility

to be scattered among other political forces, if they lead some other coalition of deputies and form a government and in this way he can say, win, say that we have a national government because there is a war, because we need to unite, or is such a scenario possible? well , you and i even discussed on the air many times that a government of national trust would be a very correct step from the authorities at the beginning of the war, because it would remove the issue of responsibility and at the same time, well, now many, for example, criticize the same information marathon, or we definitely criticize the monopoly in the information space dictated by the government. if a government of national trust was created at the very beginning, then this government of national trust would also mean joint responsibility for this, for everything that is happening in the country, accordingly there would be no reason for any internal criticism, well at least that the criticism would even be different in tone,

because it was everyone's shared responsibility political forces. apart from everything else, the government of the national trust at the beginning of the war would be a very good signal to the world that we, ukrainians, are ready to unite for... times for us, internal political differences mean nothing if it is about the preservation of the country, but then it was necessary to create a government of national trust, whether it will be created now, well, i doubt it, for this it is necessary to change the approaches in politics a little and move away from this monopoly that currently exists, i do not know whether the government will dare to do it now, i am told, it seems that rather no than a knife yes, but the fact that this step would be logical during the war, it is... certainly it would be logical at the beginning of the war, logical now, because it's better late than never, but still i think the government will go in another way, new people will be appointed who will be positioned, well, supposedly independent of political forces, it will even be possible to speculate that they are professionals without

any political affiliation, and i think that the government will go in this direction rather than create a government of national trust, if the government dares... to a government of national trust trust, well, i will say frankly, this will be a huge plus for her, first of all for the authorities, because it will mean that the authorities are able to draw conclusions from their steps and draw correct conclusions, but... i think that so far for such statements, well, there is little time, i think that the authorities will not dare to do this, although it is a pity. one more question, very short, i hope for a short answer, the fair is among the hundred most influential people in the world according to the magazine, what does it mean, why isn't zelensky there? it is necessary to ask the question who made this rating, but i think that in the international arena, the head of the president's office from... now uh basically has a monopoly, he communicates with the international elites, and

it is obvious that the international elites and those people who made the rating , now he is considered so influential, perhaps even the most influential person, at least in ukraine. well, again, this is before our conversation, regarding the monopoly, but it seems to me that, once again, in this same international sphere, it would now be much more correct not to monopolize foreign policy activity, because precisely debates, in foreign policy, ukrainians will definitely... have a single position, they will definitely speak with one and the same voice, on the contrary , responsibility must be divided and then, at least, the authorities will not have uh-uh unclear answers to the question of why it was so difficult to advance aid to ukraine in last months now, it is true, serious positive trends have appeared, but how long it will last is unknown. and it is precisely this monopoly in the field of foreign policy that underlines this style of government, which consists in monopolizing everything. i think this is wrong. during the war, and i think that in any case, you see

, international experts believe that these are the two most influential politicians in ukraine, although it would seem logical to me if this ranking of influential people included people who passed the elections in ukraine, which have the support of the voters, by the way, i do not name the parties on purpose, they can be very different parties, including those from the government, but after going through the elections they would... probably have greater legitimization of their actions on the international arena, it was would be more correct. thank you, mr. serhiy, it was serhiy taran, a political scientist. friends, we are working live on the tv channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms, and today we are conducting a survey of you, and we are asking you about whether russia will dare to use nuclear weapons in a war with ukraine. shall we watch the interim poll results on tv? 30% yes, 70% - no. the same survey will be in the second part of our program, which will start in 15 minutes. we have

news from our partners at the bbc ahead. in 15 minutes i'll be waiting for you in front of the tv screens, let's talk about the most important thing, whether will the united states of america save the world and itself? elon musk is hysterical, and medvedev traditionally went to zapii and talked about it. how will american aid to ukraine end? events, events that are happening right now and affect our lives. of course, the news feed reports on them. however, it was not enough to know what was happening. it is necessary to understand. antin borkovskii and invited experts soberly assess the events, analyze them, modeling our future. every saturday at 13:10 with a repeat on sunday at 10:10. studio zahid with anton borkovsky at espresso.

vasyl zima's big broadcast. two hours of air time. two hours of your time. two hours to learn about the war and how the world lives. two hours to keep up with economic and sports news. two hours in the company of favorite presenters, presenters who have become like family to many, as well as distinguished guests. studio events of the day in two hours, a big broadcast of vasyl zima, a project for the intelligent and those who care, in the evening at espresso. see this week in the collaborators program. selling bloggers, as a resident of makiivka, the stavos of the kremlin on a temporary basis occupied donetsk region. uncle vova saw what was happening and sent troops. but how did propagandist solovyov use the mariupol madonna? everyone makes his own choice. on tuesday, april 23 at 5:45 p.m., watch the collaborators program with olena kononenko

on the espresso tv channel. greetings, friends, the second part of the verdict program is live on the espresso tv channel. my name is serhii rudenko. in our second part, we will talk about american aid to the congress of the united states of america on the 20th. voted in april to provide $61 billion in cash aid to the ukrainian state, will the united states of america save ukraine, the world, and themselves? why elon musk found himself in hysterics, and dmitry medvedev in yet another binge, we will talk about it all today, and we will analyze what happened during the last week. let me remind you that we work live on the espresso tv channel, as well as on our youtube and facebook platforms. for those of you out there watching us live,

please subscribe to our pages and also take part in our survey. today we ask you about... such as: will russia dare to use nuclear weapons in a war with ukraine? yes, no, please vote with the appropriate buttons on youtube and write comments under this video. if you're watching us on tv, pick up your smartphone or phone and vote whether you think russia would dare to use nuclear weapons in a war with ukraine (0800-211-381) or no (0800-211-382). all calls to these numbers. are free, and today a bipartisan delegation of the congress of the united states of america visited ukraine, which was discussed our correspondent kateryna galko knows congressmen with ukrainian officials, she is with us live from kyiv, kateryna, i congratulate you, thank you for joining the broadcast,

please tell us what the congressmen came with from the united states of america, what they are talking about... help about how quickly this help will get to ukraine, and in general, what is the mood of the american congressmen? greetings, serhiy, greetings to the viewers of the espres tv channel. so, after half a year of delays, the house of representatives of the united states congress america finally made up its mind and approved an additional aid package for ukraine worth 61 billion dollars, and immediately after the adoption of such a decisive and perhaps even historic package. both republicans and democrats of ukraine visited kyiv to discuss all this, in particular with the president of ukraine, volodymyr zelenskyi, about which we were told and noted that he explained very clearly that if it were not for this help, ukraine would be incredibly difficult today . we, of course, asked about when this help would reach us, and the exact answers to

unfortunately we did not receive it, we were told that it could be days, months, or whatever... because they, like us , do not have a clear, clear schedule for providing or receiving such assistance, unfortunately. we also asked why it took so long to pass, we were told that it was important to ensure certain amendments to such a draft law, in particular we talked about and noted this ripo act, as they say, that is, the possibility of confiscation of russian assets in favor of ukraine, they also noted that it was important to help not only us. and israel, taiwan and etc. let's hear more in the comments now. to answer your question about timing, it will be faster than anyone thinks possible. we met this morning with the 82nd airborne division. we talked to our people. they were preparing for it, they weren't just waiting, they were prepared, and the weapons would get here faster

than i think any military could mobilize to get. we all know that putin, xi, and the leaders of iran are interconnected in decision-making, and we are convinced that we stand up and say that this is a long package that includes long-range attacks that should be allowed, repo law, you can take russian sovereign assets, tick-tock, i mean that's a very strong signal. so actually, regarding the filling of such a package, they also noted that there will be a different arsenal of weapons, both atakoms, and artillery, and that, they also noted that they took so long to make this decision, the problem was not in ukraine, for example, they sent also to the fact that they adopted their own budget slowly, and

both republicans and democrats unequivocally said that this was a historic decision. i am i will note that tomorrow this package will be considered in the senate of the united states and i promise that it will be much, much faster. this is all the information we have for now, so serhii, i will pass the ether to you. thank you kateryna, it was kateryna halko, she watched how the united states congressmen today spoke with the press and with ukrainian officials and explained the decision that was adopted by the united states congress on april 20. well. actually, kateryna mentioned that most of the congressmen who came to ukrainian capitals are talking about the historicity of the decision of the congress of the united states of america and ... on this historicity or on the fact that history will appreciate this step, the speaker of the house of representatives of the congress of the united states

of america mike johnson, the same mike johnson who for a very long time could not put it, hopes the question for the vote of the congress of the united states of america, he said that it was impossible, that it was possible there only under certain conditions, and then already after the vote he declared that he had done the ... work despite the possibility that that it could cost him his position and dismissed objections to delaying the process. let's hear what johnson said. the house of representatives had a lot of important work to do. we needed to secure government funding in our appropriations process. we needed to reauthorize the foreign intelligence surveillance act. we had a lot of important events and we got there. as fast as they could. i think you've heard from leaders around the world that it's being done on time. the chamber should have had time to think and act

it is right. i think we did our job here, and history will judge it accordingly . you know, when the speaker of the house of representatives of the united states of america talks about the historicity of this decision, the first thing he talks about is the historicity of the decision for themselves. of the united states of america not only for the ukrainian state, rather, not only the future of the ukrainian state will depend on this decision, but also the future of europe, the future of the north atlantic alliance, the future of the united states of america, and the fact that they allocated 61 billion dollars, most of which will remain in the american economy, that is, this money will go to finance defense programs, which will come later. to ukraine in the form of atakams missiles, other weapons, this is also an indicator that the americans could make this decision

and vote for this decision sooner, because it is truly historic, i say that not only for ukraine, not only for europe, not only for nato, but also for the united states of america itself, well, it must be said that 61 billion dollars is not... such a large amount for of the defense budget of the united states of america, because this year the defense budget of the united states of america was approved in the amount of 886 billion dollars. just imagine this figure: 886 billion dollars, this is 39% of the total world military expenditure, that is, the united states of america is a sufficiently strong, large state, which... can produce enough weapons and support countries such as ukraine in the war and give this aid

without too much trouble for its defense budget. let me remind you once again that 886 billion dollars a year is the defense budget of the united states america. however, against the background of what was said by the congressmen who... flew to the ukrainian capital immediately after voting for the bill on providing aid to ukraine, and this euphoria that reigns in washington, they completely forgot about another bill that was voted on, or rather it became by law, a document that was adopted by the house of representatives of the united states of america under the number 8038 on the use of frozen russian for the benefit of ukraine. assets, it is about the fact that this document gives the executive power the opportunity to confiscate and transfer to ukraine frozen russian assets stored

in the united states of america. the american press estimates the size of these assets at 8 billion dollars, although literally half an hour ago i had the former minister of foreign affairs of ukraine volodymyr hrysko on the air, he talks about what the russians keep abroad. these assets, in particular in the united states of america, can reach trillions of trillions of dollars, and it is about the fact that most of these assets americans are still afraid to move, but how important is this the bill on the freezing of russian assets, that it creates a precedent for other countries of the world, it creates opportunities for the use of money in other countries for the benefit of ukrainians. which states, it is meant, to seize the funds belonging to the russian state, putin's russia, this bill, this bill on

assistance. the senate must approve on april 23 and we are waiting for this vote and hope that this vote will be positive for the ukrainian state as well, but what about the radical trumpists who were against granting ukraine of this aid, did not support the bill on the aid of the united states of america to ukraine, the representative of the republican party from the trumpist camp, taylor green, who made a number of absurd amendments to the bill on... aid to ukraine, criticized the document during the discussion in the house of representatives. let's see how it was. united states taxpayers have already sent $113 billion to ukraine, and much of this money is unaccounted for. this is a continuation of the sick business model run by the american government. the federal government continues to fund

the military-industrial complex. and that. a business model that requires congress to keep voting money, to keep funding foreign wars, and that's a business model that americans don't support. they do not support a business model built on blood, murder, and war in other countries while this same government does nothing to secure our border. after the vote , taylor green made a disapproving gesture to show that she did not support the decision. house of representatives, interestingly enough, during this voting in the congress of the united states of america , victoria sparts did not give her vote in support of this bill, she is a former ukrainian who is now working in the house of representatives of the united states of america, she says that in this bill there was no promised security at

the border, and well... the implication is that this bill did not deal with illegal immigrants in the southern united states of america at the border with mexico, and she said i didn't vote for it because it's unfair and it shouldn't be done that way, well imagine, a former ukrainian who was born in nosyvka in chernihiv oblast, became a congresswoman, and here she spoke against providing aid to ukraine. from the united states of america, and the congressmen who were born in the united states of america and who represent the american people decided to provide military aid to ukraine in the amount of 61 billion dollars, and victoria spascia has a lot of questions, of course, as a former compatriot of ours, and although it is clear that she is trying to please the first thing.

american voters, not ukrainians, and perhaps the answer lies here on the surface. on the eve of the vote in the congress of the united states of america, donald trump spoke for the first time about the need to increase support for ukraine, and this actually follows from his post that he wrote, which he says: how did it happen that the united states spends 100 billion on the war in ukraine dollars more than europe, despite the fact that... we are separated by an ocean, we all agree that the survival and strength of ukraine should have been more important for europe than for us, but it is also important for us, well, you see, trump, in year of the presidential elections in the united states of america, he is trying to balance between different groups, between different opinions on providing aid to ukraine, and of course he is, as they say,

in... and not yours, and not ours, that is, he chose such an average public position, but still after all , congress, despite opposition, despite delaying this support, provided this aid to ukraine, or rather voted for the provision of this aid, the first weapons should arrive at the end of this week, after the vote in the senate and the signature by president biden to the ukrainian state, this is a very important decision, friends, because actually... it is very difficult to oppose russia, which has a large military-industrial complex, which is helped by china, north korea in different ways, and iran, so it is clear that this help is important, it came, albeit late, but we know that...