Indeed, the most difficult task will be to convince everyone in nato, to have a common position on this, and here i want to focus specifically on some specific nato countries, such as hungary, maybe turkey, as it was when sweden joined, in the position, sweden, it is necessary to speed up this process for ukraine, which concerns the socalled invitation, ukrainian. The people may not be very familiar with these bureaucratic nato terms, what is an invitation . The invitation is the beginning of the joining process, actually, and the joining process is this the technical stage of how to make ukraine a member of the alliance. I specifically checked that certain countries had started accession negotiations. And, the final decision to accept these countries into the alliance, sometimes it took six to, it seems, eight months, in some cases, for these countries to become full members of nato. So, as the ambassadors have clearly said, we must somehow develop a special procedure. For ukraine, because ukraine is a very specific case, and i really hope that there is a solution in washington will be adopted. I also share the opinion that not only the americans, but also the ukrainians, many were disappointed by the vilna summit, and i strongly believe that the Washington Summit will make a decision. And we will see real efforts to make a final decision on ukraines admission to nato and to show the whole world that we are not afraid, that we believe in the free world and are ready to defend the free world together with ukraine. Now lets take a question. But before that, i want to ask our guests to comment on some things that need to be clarified, i think. Arseniy yatsenyuk noted well, rightly noted that there is a certain difference between idealistic and realistic approaches , which should determine how ukraines accession to nato will take place, it is quite important that the accession negotiations are not endless, as there must be certain deadlines , macedonia, lets say, 10 years have passed in this negotiation process, that is , how can we make sure that this does not happen, that this process does not turn into an endless one, i know. That you have already shown these documents administration, your colleagues at the state department, what their reaction was, how did you feel, what people in washington thought about your document. I think we all know, as both sandy and douglas have already said, that the administration is zanato. Carefully approaches the issue of defining american interests in the context of russian aggression, therefore the decision. Is quite slow, weapons are provided slowly, incrementally, and only gradually, and we want this process to be accelerated at the Washington Summit, as well as the accession process of ukraine to nato, thats why we drew up this document, we, as former officials, believed that this was a step, we held serious negotiations on these issues, and as we expected, they told us that our goals are too ambitious, and thats all. What can i say, commenting on what you asked about, but i think well be able to convince the administration that this is the right approach, as i said before, weve looked pretty hard at what. Maybe the most ambitious scenarios in washington , we know that there are some things we will not be able to solve, say, providing specifically, the invitation to the vashtor summit may not succeed, but we can, we must also understand how it is necessary to provide ukraine with the right amount, the right quality of weapons in order for them to succeed in the battlefield. Ambassador werchbao, lets take a closer look. To that question, weve all heard president bidens wonderful speech, a powerful speech addressed to israel and ukraine, to the free world, and indeed to all of humanity as we witness a war between good and evil, my question is this what do you think, what takes place in washington, in the powerful. Korodoh, because on the one hand we see such a powerful speech from president biden, on the other hand we see how difficult the disputes and debates about domestic american policy are in the us congress. What is the perspective of this political process in your opinion . This is, of course, such a stage of american domestic politics, not very inspiring, because now you see that the main parties, in fact, you can say, are fighting against themselves, but here the question is about european and world security, and when it comes on these issues, we still see a bipartisan consensus. I am only a small part of the Republican Party and zionists who oppose it, but. Still, i am an optimist and believe that a certain compromise decision will be made regarding the provision of additional aid to both israel and ukraine. The president used this opportunity quite successfully to show how similar these two cases are, israel and ukraine, these are both countries whose selfexistence is threatened by hostile neighbors, hamas in one case and putins russia, on the other hand, and the interests of the United States, on the other hand , will be under serious threat if we see that the system we created after the Second World War has changed to a system in which countries can conquer other powers. And dictate their own rules. So, despite all the craziness that you see on tv about our domestic politics, i hope that in the next few weeks, the process will normalize and we will see the adoption of documents and laws that will make it possible to provide additional assistance to ukraine, general man, you talked about. Ambitious military goals and objectives in this document. How did your colleagues perceive these ideas in the pentagon, can we get a powerful increase in the provision of military aid to ukraine. Well, i would nt say that you can expect it right now. The purpose of this document is to set out an ambitious program. Since we understand that the Washington Summit will take place in just nine months, ukraine is waiting for the interim period. Quite heavy fighting, so even before the Washington Summit you need help, about which it says in this document, if this support is provided, you will be in a more political position, and for the american administration, there will be political reasons to do it differently, that is, these two initiatives, they mutually reinforce and support each other. I can tell you that in our project, we had two two commanders in chief of nato in europe, two two former fourtime generals of the United States, so two former supreme commanders of nato, and they said absolutely openly that this is not possible. Approach to incrementally to assistance in the conduct of military operations, it is simply ridiculous, given the military science, military history, we as americans would never have started a campaign under the conditions that ukraine had if we were the ones fighting on the battlefield, so when you see the list of those people, who signed this document addressed to the president , you will see quite prominent military personnel, and they have the right to reasoned such a discourse, yes indeed, we are all retired, but we believe that there is this document based on a powerful scientific military base, and now i want to provide an opportunity for the audience to ask questions, ambassador chala, please, i think there is a microphone there, if not, the technical staff will provide a microphone , thank you, daniil, first of all, i want us to thank those who developed the first part of this document, regarding. So, please, lets applaud the authors of this document, give them credit, i have a question , maybe this is predictable, but i want to ask you about a negative scenario, a scenario that is not included in your document, but it nevertheless exists, i. E. , if ukraine is not offered a political one the decision regarding the invitation to membership, what effect will it have on the position of russia, the position of european allies and on the position of people , simply on public opinion, in ukraine and in the United States, because now almost 90 of our population supports ukraines membership in nato. In the usa, the majority of the population supports this idea, so this is one question, and the second is related to it, danilo asked you about the agenda of the us domestic policy, i will ask the question a little differently, do you think that, whether, congress is more must be actively involved in of this process, and others. Players, so that not only the white house, but also the congress, and the lobby, the military, such as general lut, and one more, this, the only option, the only option, if possible, i would ask mr. Yatsenyuk, as the founder of the Kyiv Security forum. Mr. Yatsenyuk, do you think we should cook. Er, a symmetrical, commemorative note for the president of ukraine, because of course we are, that would be plan a, thats a good idea, thank you, thank you, would you like to answer your question specifically, or all, or who, mr. Ambassadors, or mr. Herbs or mr. Versbao, and that to the question of the military lobby, it is possible. General lutz will be able to answer this question. Thank you very much, if ukraine does not get this extra that we are offering. I think it will be disappointing, but it will not be the end of the road, nato is doing a lot, in terms of military support, at least simplifying the process of joining nato, in any case, because, after all, the glass is not half empty, half full, and i think, but this can become a symbol for moscow that nato support, nato support for ukraine falters falters and its russian propaganda that will take advantage of that and so we will have to work using the existing structure to prepare the ground for membership, but it will be a missed opportunity and hopefully your scenario will not come true, on the second issue, on the leadership of the United States, saying , which made a more ambitious decision in vilnius impossible, is the caution of the white house and some members of the alliance, who also carefully stood behind the americans, but i think that more, the vast majority of the members of the alliance are ready were supported by ukraine, so the leadership of the United States was not quite sufficient at that time, for that period, i hope it will be better, before the Washington Summit, regarding military advice, recommendations within the United States, in our tradition, military advisers present their views civilian leaders, and they do it always behind. Behind closed doors , behind the doors of the white house situation room, thats where the military advice is given, but the results of that advice depend on the civilian authorities, and obviously the appeal that we wrote, addressed to the right person, the president of the United States, because in our system, as in your system, he is the absolute commander in chief, he is the one who receives military advice, must consider it, along with other priorities, and make the final decision, i would say no i dont know any military officer still serving in the United States armed forces i know all the top military officers for example austin was mime my roommate in the military. Educational institution, then i would said that what is written is a framework made on the basis of very good military science, previously part of this approach was that we cannot afford the risk of escalation by providing this or that system because that could provoke the escalation that we want avoid, but i think we already have more than 600 days of history. Which shows over and over again that we have provided certain levels of support, we dont see escalation, i think that mr. Putin, if there was an opportunity to escalate, he would have done it already, he cant do it, to me thats a signal that , what he has limited options for escalation, to be honest, and what more can he do, hes bombing ukrainian cities, hes killing ukrainian civilians, he s committing war crimes, what more escalation can we expect, so im sure that our military provides frank and military advice to civilian authorities, and this is exactly why this appeal is written for the president of the United States, there was another question, the ambassador became and addressed to arseniy tsiunyak, but i also suggest that evanka also answer it question, what is your idea, what can you offer close to the topic to the president of ukraine, what would be your advice, the note that we are going to talk about now goes to the oval office, should we, should we do what goes to the square office, i dont know, since we dont have a uval, i think, no, its not necessary, ill tell you why, we, we need it. Join forces ukraine cannot have a separate plan, it must be a joint plan, which is agreed upon by everyone in nato, mainly the flagship of nato, the United States, and others allies and i would say that the administration should start this process as soon as possible, right now. In order to start negotiations, on the table, under the table, everywhere, and ensure a consensus regarding what practical results ukraine can get in washington, because i have to repeat that this will be a fateful summit for ukraine and for that. During this period of time , we proved that some things that seemed absolutely impossible already in history, they were done and further development is already underway. One example is status a candidate for ukraine for eu membership, and i hope that by the end of this year, a decision will be made regarding the opening of negotiations on joining the eu, several. Years, so i dont think anyone could say that it could become a reality, so i think its a result of some things there, and one of the elements of that result, and what we understand, of course, is that primarily this is enormous bravery, and the strength of ukrainians and the Ukrainian Defense forces. And from our point of view, one of the elements is that everyone asks all layers of the ukrainian government, from the president , the cabinet, the parliament, all representatives of civil society, those involved in public diplomacy, all were involved in this effort to achieve one. Specific goal, and this received a very positive reaction among our partners, and therefore i would agree with arseniy that it is very important that we are all here in this hall, we are all likeminded, and we all believe that the only opportunities for ukraine, to have security in the future, is membership in nato, moreover, we believe that this is the only way achieving lasting, sustainable peace on this continent, in this part of the world, if ukraine is a member of nato, and if we have a potential possible tool to achieve that, i think everyone will be involved in this campaign of support, and thats why our efforts are here should be directed. In order to reach the president of ukraine and say that we are all ready to take on this together again, we must understand that only with such joint, united actions we can achieve a result, one more moment, i am very glad that here, it sounds here on this panel that the unity of nato member countries depends, not only on the individual decision of each member country, although we understand that the decision is made on the basis of consensus, but it depends very much on the leaders of the alliance, and on the decisions that they, i mean not at the summit, in washington dc, or the decision to be made in berlin. If these decisions are made with regard to how to integrate, or invite ukraine, or offer it a clear path to membership, then i am sure that we can then focus not only in those ways, how to do it during the Washington Summit, but also to include every nato member country in this, i think is a very important point, time plays a very Important Role here, you can say, well, the Washington Summit will be as late as july next year, why do we have to worry about it now, nato should. Such a decision, that is, when the Foreign Ministers gather for a meeting, there should be, say, a meeting of the Nato Ukraine Council at the level of Foreign Ministers , during this meeting, there will be another one meeting of Foreign Ministers next year, then another one, so it should become a routine. Work for the newly created Nato Ukraine Council, every such meeting should have, should discuss those things that should happen in july if we are not active enough to build a consensus, and we will not be satisfied with the result, as was the dissatisfaction with the vilnius result, and thats why lets work earlier, thats why we published our document earlier, so that we can start to achieve this consensus, okay, and for this reason, the Atlantic Council together with the kyiv the security of the forum has already decided this process, and now i can go back to the audience, i will raise my hands, i will invite the minister of Legal Affairs to ask my question. Aleksan yatsenyuk just mentioned that he was one of those who signed a letter in 2008 asking nato to provide ukraine with a pad, i was the person who delivered that letter to the nato secretary general, and i fully agree with what arsena said , that after that there was georgia in 2008 in august, crimea in 2014, then there was syria in the 15th year, and there was a lot. To other crimes, and for which we all see russia, and referring to your document, i have to say that this is a new approach, indeed, at least to speed up the process of ukraines accession to nato, but on the other hand, i agree with many ideas , which you suggested, but on the other hand, in my opinion, you missed one main point and this point concerns the transformation of russia. Let s imagine that tomorrow ukraine became a full member of nato, but what about the global threat from the russian federation, it is the same, that is, perhaps as a next step, it would be good to think about the transformation of the russian federation. Because in its current form, this threat will always remain, i think ambassador herbst is ready to answer this simple question what to do with russia . I think youve raised an important point, and i think the basis of the answer to your question is actually in our paper. Because we are talking about the threat to critical american interests from the kremlins current Foreign Policy, and if we understand that this is a problem, and this problem is not only in connection with ukraine, it is a problem of russian aggression, which is not limited to ukraine, then the answer will be a powerful american policy in coordination with our allies and partners, which would ensure the curbing of russian aggressive policy, but your question suggests further answer, what to do with the transformation of russia, well, the answer i will give is that it may not be very popular, but i do not think that those from the outside can somehow influence the internal transformations in russia and not only in russia, in any other country, and i think that one of the lessons, i hope, that washington has learned from our failed Foreign Policy in iraq and in afghanistan, in syria, in libya, is that these kinds of things are extremely difficult, but it does not mean that