Our man in the Capitol. Congressman Adam Kinzinger-about F-16 fighters, Himars long-range missiles for Ukraine and the condition of NATO's entry into war

In June, Kinzinger posted on Twitter a photo with two pilots of the Armed Forces and reported that he registered a bill that would allow the states to teach Ukrainian military flying on American fighters - so that when the United States was finally handed over to Ukraine's battle aircraft, Ukrainian pilots were ready. Kinzinger Day Video is a Republican, with a very critical position on the former Republican leader, 45th US President Donald Trump.

He was one of the ten republican congressmen who voted for Trump's impeachment and one of the two who voted to create a special commission to investigate the attack on the Capitol in 2021. In the near future, Adam Kinzinger plans to come to Ukraine, and while - says when Ukraine can transfer fighters why Congress does not recognize Russia with sponsor of terrorism and whether NATO can really come into war against the Russian Federation.

Elena Tribushna spoke with Congressman, the editor and presenter of the YouTube channel are questions. - Thank you for your time and for the efforts you make to support Ukraine. Apparently about your personal motivation and my first question is - why do you do all this for Ukraine? - Ukraine is fighting on behalf of us all. Russia is a huge threat to the world, huge. And they will not stop in Ukraine.

If Ukraine seemed if Russia was able to seize it in a few days, it would be Moldova, or Baltic countries, or further Russians would have completed what they started in Georgia. They would not stop. Ukraine has stood, it is pressing the world, Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. And as Americans, as people who value freedom, the least we can do is to rise and give Ukraine all it needs - moral support, financial support, support the government of the country.

- In June, you initiated legislative changes that will allow you to teach Ukrainian fighter pilots. You are a pilot yourself. How do you evaluate how long it will take to teach Ukrainian pilots when these exercises can begin and when, in fact, will the fighters themselves be? -If the administration decided to go to it, it could be done: transfer fighters to Ukraine and teach Ukrainian pilots to manage them for three to four months. I met with Ukrainian Migiv pilots.

They do great work, and miga are good, but multi-purpose fighters for air-air and air-land, such as F-16, would be ideal for Ukraine. It is hoped that in four months the war will end and Ukraine will win it, but the war can continue. But regardless of this, in this time frame, Ukraine should build air forces - it doesn't matter to reflect the Russian invasion now, or in order to defend itself from the Russians in the future. And there is no better time to start doing it than it is now.

We believe that in about 2. 5-3 months we can prepare a well-trained pilot to fly on the F-16, and more importantly-to control the system of its weapons, which is just a complex part of the process of rewinding on another model of the fighter. It is a very accelerated pace, but Ukraine has very motivated and capable pilots. - The debate about the fighters has been going on for a long time.

Who resists in the United States? - Someone in the administration [Joe] Biden - whether Biden himself or people who influence his decision. It seems that we are approaching the approval of this decision-and then there is some nervousness among people in the administration. This is my great disappointment. Obviously, the West and the US have intensified to give Ukraine a lot of weapons, the same HIMARS are undoubtedly very important.

But there is some fear that if we provide Ukraine with the ability to protect ourselves, it can invade Russia. It is hardly in Ukraine to think, "Hey, and let's get the war on Russia!" Everyone understands that winning is a difficult task. You just want to protect your country in the borders of 2014, with Crimea and East. That's what Ukraine wants. But still there are these hesitation that escalation can happen in some way.

The Russians have demonstrated one thing - and I have been talking about it in Congress for 12 years - the Russian army is not as powerful as they declare it. This is a paper tiger. This does not mean that she is not a murderous force - she is. But they are definitely not interested in scaling this war on the entire NATO block. - That is, you were not surprised that the Russian army was not as powerful as it was thought? - I was surprised by how frantic Ukraine rose and defended itself.

There is no person who would not be amazed. Again, there were many Russians. But I always spoke about the Russian army and in general the Russians that Russia is a gas station. Here is her asset. We know Ukraine and the assets of Ukraine - it is grain, it is sunflower, it is industry, it is motivated people, very smart people. The United States - we know our industries - we have agriculture, energy and so on. Russia has energy. And that's all.

They are not able to invest so much in their army so that it can win NATO, the United States, and frankly - even Ukraine, if Ukraine has the appropriate weapon. When I was in Latvia four years ago, we were very concerned about the Russian means of radio electronic wrestling, and now it seems that we have overestimated them and we gave it advice. The power of the Russian army is in intimidation.

And when someone gets up and says "we are not afraid", as Ukraine did, it showed the true weakness of the Russian army and the true power of what democracy is when it protects itself. - A few weeks ago, the American edition of The Hill published an open letter that signed two dozen politicians and professional military. It is called "the United States must equip Ukraine now until it is too late. " They are trying to convince the Baiden administration to give Ukraine more weapons.

Do such things affect the White House? - So. I think that many statements that have been made in Congress have been influenced by the congress for six months. See what was at the beginning. People in the Baiden administration wanted to equip Ukraine enough to say they did something, but did not want to give enough weapons to defeat Russia. And then it became clear that Ukraine was not going to seem.

What disappointed me is that when Russia resorted to escalation, the United States simply took proportional actions - the United States and the West in general. Russia resorts to escalation - we answer. What should happen in return? When Russia raised the rates, we had to increase them even more. And we did it when they gave it. I think Himars was what changed the course of events in eastern Ukraine.

Now, finally, a lot of artillery is being transmitted, and most importantly, warriors for artillery systems. But I think we have to go even further now. It is the construction of the system of Ukrainian military aviation. Even when the war is over, Ukraine will need military aviation on the basis of migs. We essentially burned all the resources of migs and equipment for them through this war. Eastern Europe does not buy more Migiv, Russia is probably no longer overlapped.

Therefore, it is time to translate Ukraine as we did it with the rest of Eastern Europe to NATO weapons. - You said that Himars systems have dramatically changed the situation for Ukraine. There is still a discussion about whether we provide us with a long -range missiles for them. Who faces this in Washington and why? - I think these are the same people in Baiden's administration who are afraid of escalation. I don't think this is Joe Biden himself.

The large structure of people makes some of these decisions. He is probably convinced that if we give Ukraine a long -range missile for Himars, then someone will start to bomb Moscow, which is again a beacon. Everything that Ukraine wants to achieve is to break these disgusting Russians and regain their territory. There is no desire to wage war in Russia. We need to continue to press this. I emphasize: HIMARS less truckets were effective.

Ukraine could impress Russian supply chains, weapons warehouses, and now parts of the Russian group, river crossings, but long -range HIMARS missiles will give the opportunity to push these supply chains even further. And instead of overcoming, say, 150 km, to send reserves to Russian units, as now, they will have to overcome all 500 km. And this is not a viable scheme. This is how you can quickly influence the course of the war.

What we do not want to see in Ukraine - a long bloody frozen conflict. Because Ukraine will not give up. And we have to draw a deadly blow to Russia to end this war. Because Putin is indifferent to human lives, he made it clear. -Looking back on the events of February, could Ukraine stop Russian troops faster if the US and allies had transferred weapons to the invasion, not after? - Yes, I think everything might happen faster, though it is always difficult to talk about what could be in the past.

The Ukrainian military was trained by the US military from the forces of special operations, British and others, they could develop a kind of contradiction plan, standards of war, prepare civilians for participation in hostilities. And they demonstrated a great job. But, I will tell you, the Ukrainian army today is much more capable of six months ago. And not only because of the new weapon, but because of what the military learned.

I am amazed that Russian units lose commanders and become incapacitated, and the Ukrainian military is doing what is perfectly managed by the American, it is one of our most strengths: if the officer is killed or injured, the younger one takes over the command, and it happens, and so it happens. Until two people remain from the unit - this team chain. This allowed the Ukrainian army to act very flexibly, to be able to maintain the combat capability of the units even for heavy losses.

So, yes, I think, of course, we could reduce the time that lasting this war, if they gave Ukraine much better weapons much earlier. But it is very important to take into account the fact that the Ukrainian army today is much stronger than half a year ago. -In July, the US Senate supported a resolution that calls on the State Department to recognize Russia with a terrorism state. But as far as I understand, this is not enough for the State Department to make this decision.

Can Congress vote for it and why not vote? - I think we will do it. There is a great support for this decision. Russia is a sponsor of terrorism, it is indifferent that it is big and that it has gas. When we see what is happening at the Zaporozhye Nuclear Station now, when we hear constant threats of the Russian government to arrange nuclear diversion, it means that Russia is a nuclear terrorist.

And what we see on the lands that you have liberated and in those areas that have been occupied-ramping, torture, murder means that Russia is a state-sponsor of terrorism. Russia is a terrorist state. So I hope we will do it through all government levels and the president will sign it. This will have a number of serious consequences. We would like Europe to do the same soon.

- You have recently said that if the Russians provoke a catastrophe at the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Station, which will lead to radiation leakage, it should be considered an attack on NATO countries, and then 5 article of the Alliance treaty may enter into force.

Is this your personal assumption? Can NATO reaction really be like that? - I really believe that if the NPP has an accident and it will lead to a situation that was in Chornobyl, or if in this case it will not be an accident, and the Russians will do it intentionally, then the radioactive cloud will be murdered not only for Ukrainians, but but but will impress countries such as Poland, Romania, and we will face an uncontrolled nuclear explosion, worse than Chernobyl or accident at the three-mill-Island nuclear power station in the United States.

I think this automatically includes NATO 5 article because people in NATO countries, such as Poland, will automatically become a trigger. Russia knows, and I think it was very clearly understood that the use of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, even a tactical, and especially the use of a nuclear station as weapons - will lead to a very rigid reaction, and not only in the form of sanctions, but probably , in the form of NATO military force to throw them from Ukraine.

We do not want to come to this, and I know for sure that Russia would not want to face it. - Russians often threaten that they can attack a country of NATO. Do you believe they are capable of it? - I believe they can definitely try. They have nuclear weapons. We are not sure that this nuclear weapon is in good condition, especially after we saw the true combat capability of the Russian group.

So, yes, they can start such a war, but I say to you: if they are attacking, NATO, or even the United States, or even Poland-any NATO country will repel Russia. And if all countries together - it is unlikely that Russia will last for more than a couple of days, fighting with the United States and our allies. We will literally destroy each Russian unit of equipment for 24-48 hours, we will apply the landscapes "Earth-Air" and "Earth-Earth", the Russians will be overflowing.

And the Russians know that. They are particularly well aware of this after they saw how bad their army is and how well the army of Ukraine is fighting, which is not even a NATO member. By the way, I am convinced that Ukraine should be a member of NATO and should give it this status, especially after this war. - In November, there will be a collection to Congress. You do not try to get over. Is this because of your position on Trump and investigations against him? - to some extent.

My party has changed a little. I am a Republican, and I am proud of being a classic Republican, Ronald Reagan's party, George Bush - senior and George Bush - younger. They believed that America plays a very important role in the world. But I see that my party became angry, that it splits society. It's not about me. I sincerely believe that America always defended. So I decided not to run. On the other hand, I have been in Congress for 12 years. There are points where people have to make decisions.

I don't want to be a life member of Congress. I'm young. There are many other things I would like to do. And I don't go from politics. With high probability, in the near future I can decide to compete for a more responsible role. But at this stage, it is important for me to leave Parliament. I have an organization that is called the country in the first place, if someone is interested in it, then go to Country1st. com.

This organization is focused on regaining us the ability to speak about the state, get rid of toxic traibibalism and demonstrate unity. What Ukraine showed - in the middle of such a slaughterhouse the country was able to unite. I heard this joke: put two Ukrainians in one room - and they will create three political parties. But today we see a very united Ukraine. Ukrainians who put their lives in defense of democracy.

And it is sad that our democracy is trying to get rid of, because everything, they say, is too good. And that's what I want to focus on. Therefore, I do not go from politics, I only go from parliament. - If or when Republicans win intermediate elections, what will it mean for Ukraine? - I do not think that something will change something particularly for Ukraine.

We all know that there are some crazy, both extreme right and extreme left, which either sympathize with Russia, or simply believe that the US should worry about itself, not the whole world. The vast majority of Americans and American politicians do not agree. People such as Taer Carlson (American TV presenter, conservative, supporter of Putinism and theories of conspiracy, which justifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine - ed.

) Draw some attention and may have good ratings, but even most of those people who look at his show, do not agree with his position. Therefore, I think, no matter who will have the majority in Congress and the Senate, Ukraine's support will remain very strong. For example, in the last vote in Ukraine, it seems that we had 386 votes for "for" and somewhere 15-20 "against". This is a coalition that cannot be broken. We are devoted to the victory of Ukraine.

That is why it is very important when members of the Ukrainian Parliament or the Ukrainian military come to the United States. I have reason to say so, because I met with all these people - they are not here to spend a good time. Many of them told me how terrible to be in the city when you constantly hear alarm. They go here to convey information about the situation in Ukraine and do so that they are not forgotten in Congress. The US Congress halls are the most influential place in the world.

Я хочу сказати зараз всьому українському народу: не падайте духом, знайте, що якою б жахливою не була ця війна — а мені доводилось бувати на війні, і не завжди захищаючи мою власну країну — решта вашого життя буде залежати від того, як ви діяли в цей момент, щоб у майбутньому ви могли озирнутись і сказати, що ви зробили все, що змогли, і поставили все на кон.

Я думаю, в перспективі Україна стане сильнішою, ніж була до війни.

— Якраз збиралась запитати вас: чи підтримуєте ви як конгресмен контакт із українськими парламентаріями і чи вони достатньо активні та ефективні у лобіюванні інтересів України в США? Чи вони могли б робити більше? — З деякими українськими депутатами я регулярно спілкуюсь через Signal чи WhatsApp, багато з них приходять до мене поговорити в Конгрес, вони дуже активні.

Повторю: що більше вони активні, то краще.

Зазвичай, коли у нас сесійний час, я зустрічаюсь один чи два рази на тижні з представниками України — членами парламенту, військовими чи групами, які займаються допомогою, і постійно дізнаюсь від них щось нове, вони підштовхують мене до певних ідей.

Я не можу прочитати абсолютно все про ситуацію в Україні. До речі, сподіваюсь приїхати в Україну в найближчі кілька місяців, побачити все на власні очі.

Але неможливо розуміти все це, поки ти не зустрінешся з людьми, які знають, що відбувається насправді і можуть тобі пояснити. Знаєте, що я вам скажу.

У вас є один член парламенту — вона прилетіла сюди, коли була була вагітною, застрягла тут, і вона весь цей час займалась тим, що дуже активно лобіювала інтереси України (мова йде про Олександру Устінову, народного депутата від фракції Голос — ред. ).

І якщо відверто, то варто віддати їй частину заслуги в тому, що Україна отримала HIMARS — вона говорила тут про HIMARS раніше, ніж будь-хто.

— Що ви знаєте про американців, які воюють в Україні? — Всього я не знаю, але знаю, що ті, хто воює, є легальними військовослужбовцями Збройних Сил України, вони прийняли присягу, вони члени Інтернаціонального легіону.

Ми очікуємо і вимагаємо, щоб до кожного американця, до кожного іноземця, який приніс присягу ЗСУ, ставились відповідно до Женевської конвенції. Ми чули тривожні повідомлення про те, що з деякими іноземцями не поводяться відповідно до цієї конвенції. А це наша вимога.

Я дуже пишаюсь американцями, які ухвалили рішення поїхати туди і ризикувати своїм життям заради країни, яку вони, можливо, не знають дуже добре. Але ті, з ким я говорив, кажуть, що швидко стали ніби частиною української родини.

Українці — гідні люди, я б сам із ними пліч-о-пліч воював, якби міг. Я пишаюсь американцями, які там. — Як ви думаєте, чи довго може тривати війна? — Звичайно, я б хотів, щоб війна закінчилась завтра. Але вона може тривати роками. Більшість війн і тривають роками.

Сподіваюсь, має наступити момент, коли моральний дух росіян зламається. Так, Володимир Путін може продовжувати відправляти війська на забій, він цілком здатний на це, бо йому байдуже до людських життів.

І не дивлячись на те, що HIMARS дозволили знищити велику кількість їх боєзарядів і зменшити обстріли українських міст, але вони все одно відбуваються.

Я б хотів побачити, як моральний дух росіян зруйнується і вони програють, як сталось в Іраку в 1991-му, коли там масово здавались. Кожен росіянин має знати, що він помре, якщо попаде в Україну.

Ти або здаєшся, або йдеш на смерть, або забираєшся геть — приймай рішення зараз, бо це лише питання часу. Я б хотів побачити це невдовзі. А щодо України — моє довгострокове бачення таке: це жахливий момент, час сліз, час горя, час втрат.

Але, гадаю, через кілька десятиріч, чи навіть через одне Україна буде європейською, після війни прийдуть інвестиції, зміниться ринок, багато всього буде відбуватись інакше, по-новому — я абсолютно точно очікую на те, що Україна стане однією з провідних економік, однією з провідних армій, одним з найголовніших місць, куди будуть їздити в Європі — в дуже недалекому майбутньому.