it can't be like that, i wonder why people died on the maidan or for such a country, and this sentence is absolutely not me personally and not only me, but we the victims, many of us, we consider it... unfair, unfair, i consciously understand that, but time drags on, you understand, and that more and more witnesses are being lost, that more and more are being lost, because people, many parents died, many witnesses of those immediate events died at the front, protecting the country from an external enemy, and i cannot call them anything other than internal enemies people who accept the data. of course, i

would like a fair trial, fair evidence, so that my soul can rest, you understand a little bit, that i could, i am at such an age that i can no longer go somewhere there and look for those bastards myself, but at least do not insult their honor and dignity in the court session. don't slander us as relatives.

greetings, this is svoboda live, my name is vlasta lazur. why did china and turkey again talk about peace talks between ukraine and russia? what are the achievements of prime minister shmyhal today exactly four years since he drove into the office on hrushevsky street? and is it true that during the withdrawal of the ukrainian military from avdiyivka, chaos prevailed, and the soldiers were waiting for the order to leave the city much earlier. these are the main topics of the issue. let's start. for two weeks , avdiyivka, a city that served as a stronghold for ukrainian defenders since 2015, has been under russian occupation . avdiyivka became the first so-called territorial property of russia in the last year. some military observers in ukraine say that the withdrawal of the armed forces from the city was thought out before details and almost without losses. others complain about the belated reaction of the political leadership, saying that they should have left earlier, there would have been fewer prisoners. by the way, their number...

is unknown. the washington post spoke with seven ukrainian soldiers who defended avdiivka until the end. the publication does not name the interlocutors, but publishes their callsigns, ages and photos. based on the stories of the fighters , the washington post describes the retreat from avdiivka as an event that took place in panic and disorder. he states the stories of servicemen publications demonstrate the urgency of the situation of ukraine on the battlefield, where fighters are waiting for the supply of weapons from the west and... reinforcement of one of the interlocutors of the publication of a soldier of the third separate assault brigade with the call sign major. he arrived in avdiivka in the second week of february and settled in the building of a two-story student dormitory and was miraculously not captured when a group of russian soldiers entered his position. the moment his unit was ordered to retreat, the major became the commander. at that time, as he says, there is no one older remained many comrades in the service were injured. another troop.

the employee of the armed forces of ukraine, with whom the washington post spoke, is a 20-year-old soldier with the call sign kavkaz, together with his comrades repelled attacks near the avdiiv koksokhim. according to his estimation, about 3/4 of the russian military who had to confront had good military training and only a quarter were simply confused. on the other hand, among his colleagues in the service , a little more than half had some combat experience, - said a ukrainian military man from call sign caucasus. he is also in favor of... that from his point of view the order to leave the city should have been earlier, this is how he argues it. his unit was preparing to execute the retreat order when soldiers from the second battalion of the separate presidential brigade appeared, apparently lost and asking for information. they lost contact with their commander and had no idea of ​​the order to retreat. although the kavkaz group was scheduled to leave in shifts at 4:30 a.m., the stray soldiers were allowed to evacuate. those 30 minutes,

or even an hour, were very important, it was a big risk for us. i believe that the retreat order should have been given earlier, even 5 hours earlier. it would matter. we reached out to the 3rd assault brigade to get more information about what the brigade's fighters told reporters for the washington post, but the 3rd assault brigade reported that the article was either misquoted or taken out of context . at the moment, the brigade is not ready to comment on this topic, but they promised to do it tomorrow, and under such conditions, we will, of course , return to this topic, right before about which he writes for the washington post. well, in the meantime , species. the new york times, referring to satellite images, writes that the positions to which the ukrainian army withdrew from avdiyivka are weakly fortified. the publication compares the photos from the avdiiv region with the photos of russian fortifications in the zaporizhzhia region. this direction has been unsuccessfully

stormed by ukrainian troops for many months in a row for a year. and the ukrainian positions in the avdiyiv direction are much weaker - states the new york times. well, i will remind you that earlier about the absence powerful fortifications in this area were said. ukrainian military observers, president zelenskyi, for example, said back in november about the need to speed up the construction of defense structures, in particular in the avdiyiv direction, however, as noted by finnish analyst pasi paroinen, practically nothing has been done since then. the lack of powerful fortifications leads to the fact that the russian troops advance much faster, and after taking avdiivka, they went another 4 km to the west, occupying at least three more villages and storming the fourth. such rates of progress the russian army... did not have many months, writes the new york times. well, oleksiy hetman, military analyst, veteran of the russian-ukrainian war, joins our broadcast. oleksii, good evening. good evening. i 'll start with probably the defense questions, is the new york times right, they, they

're analyzing the satellite imagery, it's open. when it is written that the defense in the avdiyiv direction is very weak, especially when it comes to the positions to which the ukrainian army retreated after the retreat. supposedly they are weakly fortified, this is their subjective point of view, and it does not correspond a little to the military strategy, military tactics, in general, how the fortification is built and what we need to do, avdiivka is a dominant height, we have heard about it many times, so what is around avdiivka is no longer a dominant height, on the contrary it is and the lowlands, the next hills , on which it makes sense to entrench and maintain a defense, are 10, even more kilometers from avdiyivka to the... east, oh, to the west, the east would be better, of course, because of that, and before that it is the so -called nezina , and there you can build a temporary structure to simply delay the enemy and to slow down his advance, the real fortifications should

be built where the hills begin, where the steep heights begin, this is a classic, well, not a classic, it’s even a dinner of defensive actions, if some cadets there of the first or second... course would write on the passing of subtactical tests , in order to build fortifications in the lowlands, he would not have received a pass and would have been sent first to the outfit, and then to the retest, so here we can agree with what the new york times says that no power structures have been built there, but why them they analyze what is built where we have to use the topography of the area, in general , defensive positions are not built according to the map, someone with a ruler on...

this is a side view, let’s face it , this is not a ukrainian edition, this is not even not quite from the side, this is no no objective view, they did not analyze the other fortifications , which are a little further there, on which the defense will be held, but analyzed, well , you know, it is, oh, well, i don't want to talk about our friends there about the fact that the stupid half-finished works are not shown, but this is not the first time this is their statement not only by the new york times, but also by other leading western publications when they analyze something like that . often, very often, i'll just add that very often, in fact, the ukrainian military also tells ukrainian journalists off the record that

there are problems with the defense lines, they, as military people, are not always ready to talk about it in general in public, but they do not admit it publicly , they, well, of course, because in... with what the russians were building for six months, while we again had a delay in the supply and everything that was necessary for our offensive, they built three lines of defense, they built, mined very densely everyone... goes to these lines, and they used iron, concrete there , a lot of private companies worked there, including a lot of engineering troops, we just have such opportunities, we don’t have enough builders to build very powerful lines, so we need even more we should not use the topography of the area as actively as possible and keep the defense where nature itself is a fortification for the enemy, that's what is important, and what... read, well, i agree with the military, of course, if this is not the case i know or something, someone else does not know that

our fortifications are not as good as the russians , in some cities they have not been completed yet, what is the problem, oleksiy, what is the problem, why can’t, why can’t ukraine build high-quality fortifications, it's people, it's money, it's time, and the fact that they are still not there, active hostilities continue in that direction, does this mean that they are even... possible to build? well, you know, you are now very similar , asking questions, as the new york times concludes, and really, why can't we build a 1,500 km front line, why can't we quickly build fortifications, which will be reinforced concrete, which will be in three or four the lines, which will be two-story, until such and such, what, what, what time, yes, i ask you such a question, because i am not an expert in fortifications, you say the russian army built, i really ask what the problem is. from the ukrainian side, from the ukrainian side, because there are many more people in russia, because in russia, in order

to add someone to the building, it is necessary, as in any totalitarian country , to force people to dig it, because in them many people work, because they have a more powerful economy than ours, and so on, and why can't we produce almost 2 million shells produced by the russian federation, because it is an economically more powerful country more and more people, we're doing our best, we're bringing in people from all over the country, private construction companies, we're building as much as possible, given our, excuse the taftology, capabilities, well , listen, we're grown people, well, how can we build a super three, four , here we have two, three, two, three lines of iron defense with concrete with the necessary moves, since russia built it in a short period of time, well , it is necessary that the whole country there... shovels and went to dig there, well, just in a different way, well, it is not it will be different, we don’t have that many people

, we don’t have that many, i understood your answer, then another question, in the last review of the american institute for the study of war it was said that in order to achieve some tactical successes in the east, just along the avdiyivka line - donetsk, russia is still ready to lose its aviation, i will remind here that volodymyr zelenskyi in one of the last addresses reported that russia lost 15 planes, ukrainian forces destroyed them, the institute of war says that russia is not ready reckon, ready to reckon, more precisely with such losses, to make such sacrifices. what does that mean now? because earlier there were assumptions that if ukraine-russia is losing aviation so rapidly, then of course it will reconsider its tactics, but if it is not ready to reckon with these losses, what does this mean? well it's again, well it's again... new york times, it's what's the new york times, it's , it's a conclusion, because it's, it's the same thing, it's the

same thing, that's what, and why, why there are bad fortifications, why don't they, they, they are very sorry for their planes, they are very careful they include, because there are a little less than a hundred su-34 aircraft left, a little more than a hundred su-35 aircraft, for them this is an extremely, extremely serious loss, 15 aircraft, this is very serious, but they will do it anyway, because, no because they do not regret, but because in order to... save some city, they use the only tactic that gives them a certain profit, they do not know how to fight in another way, they destroy, turn into a lunar landscape, some city , a trigger through the craters of the ruins, and nothing remains there, and then there are local attacks, local assaults, the infantry is coming, which will also be destroyed, but even then they have the opportunity to attack, when they destroyed the artillery shells for such a number of shots, that they simply do not have you to destroy a city. times less

than a year ago, i want to tell you that during the two years of the war , which was, that is, which is ongoing, they, they fired 12 million shells at us, well, plus or minus there may be some percentages, about 12 million now they cannot do so, therefore, in order to still achieve their goal, namely to destroy some village or some inhabited point, and then enter. troops there, they don't have enough artillery, they started to add air strikes, precisely these guided bombs, of course, they lose planes, but if they don't do this, the artillery... will shell some populated place alone for six months, to turn it into ruins, but to release a large number of shells at once, which they very badly need in their tactics, they just don't have that many shells, that's why they use viaci, not because they regret it, they very they are sorry, they are trying very hard to do it carefully, they are looking for ways to fly under, well, to be in

maximum safety and so on, but they are not doing it because they don't care, there are still a dozen or two dozens of planes gone. no, they were protected. there is no other way out, they will not be able to advance in any other way, and they desperately need, especially before march 15-17, when the vote will take place, the so-called vote for putin’s election, they desperately need some political advantages on the front line, that is why they are they do, here yes, here the planes are already flying like clockwork , i have one last question, after all, we started with the western press, although you criticize the theses that are heard there, but nevertheless, the edition from the washington post spoke with seven ukrainian military men, who until the last avdiyivka, their names are not mentioned, but there are photos, callsigns, and based on these stories, with the washington post describing the retreat from avdiyivka as such an event that took place in panic and disorder, now, of course, in the third assault unit they say that there is partly, or completely, we do not know for sure, quotes were allegedly taken out of context, but let's return to the very topic of the exit from avdiyivka,

do you personally have any reason to believe that there was panic during the exit, which may have served as a reason for the capture of some part of the fighters, and most importantly, do you think , that the order to withdraw should have been earlier , again, as some ukrainian soldiers claim, well, it is quite possible that the order should have happened earlier, this is a debatable issue, you know, this is a debatable issue, everyone has their own opinions here, and here, well, you can assume both in one direction and to argue, and to argue in the other direction as well, let's... let it be, let it be, let everyone have his own opinion, i believe that it was possible, that we were together as much as was necessary, and it was not necessary before was to withdraw, if only because we were destroying a very large number of the enemy and his equipment, and the task of any army on the battlefield is to destroy the enemy's army, well , that's right, just in case, and regarding the fact that the battle is unorganized,

planning planning withdrawal of troops is a more complex tactical operation, it is more difficult is planned than, for example, offensive operations , few people know about it, this is a more complex operation, therefore it is carefully planned, combat orders are prescribed for each unit, who should do what, and the military perfectly understands that only by carrying out such orders, these are combat operations, it leaves with battles, no one said, but we are leaving , the russians said, well, that’s it, let’s say goodbye , we waved a blue handkerchief and that’s it, and we left, they understood that during the withdrawal, the troops are most vulnerable, which is why it is difficult to prepare such an action, and therefore... fought with battle, of course, he had losses, and the main thing is that every serviceman knows very well that if panic begins and people just start to flee, well, when they leave, it leads to much greater losses than an organized retreat, so no one, if there was, well someone panicked, well, maybe some of the people were actually captured, some of the people were, unfortunately, uh, killed, but

military people perfectly understand that panic withdrawal and organized entry... differ in that with an organized withdrawal, the loss is much less , but there are still losses, this fighting is fighting. thank you very much for your comment. oleksiy hetman, a military analyst, a veteran of the russian-ukrainian war, we talked about the situation in the avdiiv direction. thank you very much. china and turkey do not stop working on their own negotiation platforms for a peaceful settlement of the situation in ukraine. well , russia... in its turn is trying to use these initiatives to strengthen information campaigns aimed at reducing international support for ukraine. this is stated in the current review of the american institute the study of war, which i already mentioned today. actually, in the last week , two countries, china and turkey, started talking about peace talks. initially , the head of the turkish foreign ministry stated at a diplomatic forum in antalya that russia and ukraine had reached the maximum

of what could be achieved by military methods, and he said it was time to start a dialogue about... fire, according to him, this does not mean recognizing the russian occupation, but they say, the time has come to separate the recognition of the occupation from the issue of sovereignty, from the issue of a ceasefire. eventually, after diplomatic negotiations in moscow, which took place on the evening of march 2, the ministry of foreign affairs of china stated that negotiations are the only way to end hostilities in ukraine. in russia, commenting on the meeting with the chinese representative, they said that the negotiations did not take into account the interests of russia. are impossible it was established that any discussion of a political and diplomatic settlement is impossible without the participation of russia and taking into account its interests in the field of security. with . it was noted that the ultimatum demands to russia advanced by kyiv and the west, and the dialogue formats related to them, only harm the prospects of settlement and cannot serve as its

basis. well, according to a report by the institute for the study of war, russian officials continue to falsely blame both ukraine and the west for the lack of peace talks between russia and ukraine, despite numerous public statements by russia, which to the contrary indicate that it is not moscow in the first place ... is interested in some bona fide peace negotiations with kyiv. oleksandr khara, an expert on issues, joins our broadcast of foreign and security policy, center of defense strategies. alexander, good evening. good evening, madam owner. yes, let's divide turkey and china at once. let's start, perhaps, with the turkish question. actually, how should one interpret the statement of the turkish side that russia and ukraine have already reached the maximum on the battlefield, and that it is time to start this dialogue about a ceasefire and... just as they interpreted it very much, it is interesting, it does not mean recognition of the russian occupation, and they say that the occupation should be separated separately, and the ceasefire separately,

how to understand what erdogan is promoting, well , first of all, i have no doubts, the sincerity of our turkish partners, that they want this conflict to end, but of course at any cost, this is exactly what ukrainians and the public opinion poll itself do not like . show that the ukrainians are not ready to exchange the so-called peace on the territory, because they understand very well that this will only mean a pause before the next invasion of ukraine, and of course that turkey is balancing between ukraine and russia, between russia and the countries of the west, because sometimes interests coincide, well, for example, there are commercial or inert interests with the russian federation, turkey buys a large amount of stolen ukrainian grain with large discounts. energy and thus solves its internal problems, but it is also an intermediary in the supply of chips, dual-purpose goods to the russian federation.

on the other hand, she closed the basford canals, and we have joint projects for the production of drones and other equipment and military equipment. therefore , turkey is trying to survive as much as possible it is possible, then she tries to establish herself as a regional leader and they are very when they managed to unblock the black sea ukrainian ports with this black sea grain initiative, here, but after the russian federation left there, when ukraine created a real black sea grain initiative, that is, it protected sea lines of communication from our ports and world markets by force of arms, of course, what is the role of it has decreased a little, well, they are trying to find some forms, but it is absolutely like this, let's say. statement that any war ends with diplomacy, or ukrainians and russians can do nothing on the battlefield, of course it is from lukavyi, well , first of all, if the war is genocidal, if it

is total, as it is for the russian leadership and the majority of women offend, then of course, that there is nothing to decide about diplomacy, and literally today or yesterday, it means that the main drunkard of the official russian federation medvedov in such an imposing. the clothes showed a map, that means of the russian federation, well, somewhere there is ukraine - this is the kyiv region, it's probably difficult there understand, either russia or our other neighbors took everything else, that is, if an official, he is now in the national security council of the russian federation, if an official says so, if putin says that his goals have not changed, denazification , demilitarization, well, even such nonsense even. taker clark himself laughed, said that he had never seen or heard of the most ridiculous de-nozification of ukraine. therefore, of course, we have no chance for any negotiations, and

the main diplomacy is our military, which destroy the eyes of, let's say, the russian , the troops of the russian invasion, as well as our politicians, diplomats, public experts who communicate and convince our western partners that it is necessary to increase the aid, that it is necessary for... the americans to unblock the aid, that is, this there is real diplomacy, it is real progress towards peace, towards a just peace, and not towards a temporary peace, after which there will be a new invasion. yeah, i just wanted to point out that tucker carlson, he probably should have said that during the interview with putin, but when he had already left the borders of russia, he could already speak about denazification, he simply did not want to share the fate of ivan grishkovich and sit in the boot guard. well, i will return to this diplomatic forum in turkey, in antalya, there, on the sidelines of the forum, the minister of foreign affairs of slovakia met with the minister of foreign affairs of russia, they did the following.

photo, boasted about it in the public space, and even the prime minister of slovakia, robert fitzo, said, well, he called this meeting such an example of a balanced foreign policy, and what does slovakia want to tell us? well, you know, she wants to sit on two chairs , on the one hand, to have access to european rights, freedoms and economic opportunities, because we understand that slovakia is a small country, and it has, let's say, an interest in european union funds, they are protected and ... nato allies who now support us and understand that russia poses a threat not only to ukraine, but also to the european union in the european continent, and of course, that this is hardly a smart policy or something, but he is trying to get bonuses in russia, which is looking for such odious leaders who can offer them something, blocking the sanctions policy, maybe some

others. services that the kremlin can delay , slovakia can perform, well, the same , by the way, that is happening with hungary, which is the trianon horse of the russian federation and the people's republic of china in the european union, in nato, so it is trying to balance its own interests, but i think , that it will be expensive, there was already information that the italians were taking one of the air defense batteries, well, if such friends with russia, russia is not going to attack slovakia, so... it is better to put this system somewhere either in ukraine or on the border with the russian federation. and now china, because in fact it is probably the main topic at the moment. china, by the way, which claims to be neutral in russia's war against ukraine, and we know that china's special representative, lihui, he plans to visit russia, russia, he has already been, ukraine, poland, germany, france, and all this is for

negotiation about. tell me, what is its purpose? it seems to me that he is already on his second round is already on his way, he has already visited this number of countries for the first time and also with the same goal of ending the war. why is beijing again sending its representative on this very tour, and what exactly do these chinese statements about the need for negotiations indicate? well, traditionally, china also wants to show itself as a global power that can solve problems in other regions, of course, that they have some success. for example, they managed to put saudi arabia and iran at the same table, and actually they are trying to do something similar, this is one story, the second story is, of course, in the background what is happening in the house of representatives of the united states, the blocking of aid to ukraine, and it coincided, well, you remember how symbolic it is, it coincided with the announcement of the withdrawal

of our troops during the munich security conference. and it is clear that this is an indicator that the situation at the front is critical, and in connection with the fact that they do not supply us with the armed ammunition that was promised, and of course, that against this background, the chinese are trying to use this wave, to show the europeans, that, well, it's probably time to somehow include diplomacy, well again, diplomacy in quotes to resolve this, and of course, there is a third permanent and very important component... beijing, these are signals to the global south, they are positioning themselves as a party that is not a party to the conflict, and by the way , they still call it the ukrainian crisis, the ukrainian conflict, they have never called a war a war, and they blame a measure that helps us defend ourselves, according to the 51st article of the un charter, they say, let's say this, they say that this is throwing up the creep of flight

and... that it's wrong, we don't do it and accordingly the west should not do, although by doing so they buy the same oil, dual-purpose goods, the same drones, the same chips in large quantities, and if china did not support the russian federation, simply economically, i am not talking about there are technological or military things, then of course russia would have no choice but to end its aggression against ukraine, china is trying to take certain... dividends from this, i would not, to be honest, of course our official representatives are to meet, to talk, to prove that the exclusive, exclusive way to a stable and long-lasting peace can be based on the peace formula of ukraine, the formula, the peace formula of ukraine is actually a citation of the un charter and other international documents , of which the russian federation is also a part

, i.e. we don't ask for anything more. and not for russia to fulfill its international obligations.