Well, let's talk now to Ukrainian politician Inasowson in Kyiv and from Washington by Max Bergman, who's a senior fellow at American Progress, where he focuses on Europe, Russia, and US security cooperation. Inasowson, let me start with you. This is today the 811th day of this war. Mr. Blinken says that the US has been by the side of Ukraine since day one. But was there anything in what he said today that gives you any hope, any optimism that an end is in sight?

Well, the truth is that we are in a very difficult situation, both on the front line but also on the other parts of the Ukrainian territory as well. Ukrainian energy infrastructure has been destroyed in literally 10 minutes before I had to go live for this interview, we got to news that they might switch off electricity in Kyiv as well as in other parts of Ukraine because of the recent attacks on the energy infrastructure. So it is a very difficult situation we're in. And of course, this visit It comes both as a sign of solidarity, which is important on itself at this very difficult critical moment. But we also hope that there were talks held behind the closed doors where more specific issues of help to Ukraine were being discussed. How long this help will last? What will happen with the new package of the aid? What will happen after the elections in the United States? Will the US help promote Ukraine entering NATO? All those are very critical issues that need individual face-to-face discussions. We very much hope there was some decision made. Of course, they will not be announced right away. But the fact that discussions are taking place are important.

But we really hope that decisions will be made sooner. Because unfortunately, the news that you just were talking about the situation in Kharkiv, in Kharkiv region, it happened because aid was not delivered on time, because Ukrainian army couldn't have prepared for that. It still doesn't have ammunition. And that is why we are losing ground in Kharkiv. So the timing of the aid is as important as the amount of the aid. I think that was made clear to Secretary Blinken over here in Kyiv.

Yes. Max Bergman, that's the issue, isn't it? The money has been promised, the messages that we are with you. The detail, though, about where that aid ends up and can it get to the areas that need it most urgently still remains means outstanding, particularly, of course, as Russia opens this new front once again around Kharkiv.

Yeah, I think, of critical importance right now is the speed at which the US can get the aid to Ukraine. I'm actually fairly optimistic about the aid moving fairly quickly. This had been stuck in front of Congress since October first. In the administration, they had had a long time to prepare, to identify the equipment that they were preparing to move, and in fact, move some of that equipment ahead of time, ahead of passage of the supplemental. So I think military equipment is flowing into Ukraine. There's going to be a challenge of quantity, of how much can move and how quickly. Some of the equipment and some of the money for the equipment has to be built. So that's one big challenge is that a lot of the money was to ramp up production production of artillery. Now, that would have been great if it passed last October, and then we would have had another 6-9 months of production that would have ramped up. Instead, that got delayed. There are some kinks in our system, but there's a lot of money that has been passed, 60 billion plus for Ukraine. That is an exorbitant, a huge amount of material that will be provided to Ukraine.

I think what will happen is that it's going to be provided as as possible, in part because there's some uncertainty post January 2025 over who will be in the White House and how the US will support Ukraine going forward.

Yes, and that is an important point here, isn't it, as well? There were two things in Asovsson that already some criticism that they feel a little premature. One, of course, talking about seizing Russian assets to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine. The question, of course, is ending that war first before the rebuilding can begin. But also that talk of NATO membership, once again. The Secretary of State saying that we are bringing Ukraine closer to and then into NATO. That is the long term security guarantee for Ukraine, but it still feels a very long way off, doesn't it?

It does, but we very much hope that progress will be made because we don't want to live under this constant threat of Russia attacking us again after the period of this this period of war ending. We need long term security guarantees and the single system that can provide us with long term guarantees are NATO. Nato and membership in NATO, aspiration for Ukraine to enter NATO, are part of our Constitution solution. Absolute majority of Ukrainians support this because we understand that this is the single guarantee that we can get a single guarantee that will actually save us in case of a new attack whenever it comes. People We are very much hopeful for that. We see reluctance of any specific data or any specifics on the NATO membership for Ukraine overall. We don't know to what extent this issue has been discussed with the Secretary of Blinken today, but I'm sure it was, and we very much hope that there will be progress made. I don't want my son, who's 11 now, to fight in yet another war against Russia. That is my very strong personal feeling and shared by millions of Ukrainians over here.

Yes. Max Bergman, briefly, if you will. Once again, that commitment from the Secretary of State to seize Russian assets, he says, to pay for the rebuilding of Ukraine when this war is over. Some would question why that has not been done already. We know there are sanctions, we know that there are penalties, we know that assets have been seized, but this seems to be a new development in what America wants to see.

Yeah, well, I think part of the challenge of supporting Ukraine is that it's going to be more costly, that the United States and Europe have given away a lot of their old military equipment. And so the way to support Ukraine now is that we have to buy new. We have to go to our industries and buy that. And that requires tens of billions of dollars annually, if not more than 100 billion. And so that requires a lot of money. And there's more than 300 billion in frozen Russian assets sitting there. So I think it makes reasonable sense to perhaps seize that money now. And how we finance support for Ukraine, which is That's something we can definitely afford and should be doing. But we have to start actually finding the money and putting real money on contract with defense firms to ramp up production. And that's one of the big challenges. And so I think identifying frozen Russian assets, the US, I think, is really trying to push Europe to move on this because that's where most of the money is. Frozen is not in the United States, but in Europe.

Really good to talk to you both. Thank you for joining us on the context. Inasoff, some there, joining us from Kyiv and Max Bergman in Washington, DC. Thank you.