The full text of the tweet:
Review of Ukrainian politician Sergei Pashinsky on Turkish UAVs
supplied to Zelensky's regime. “Bayraktar has more PR and corruption
than combat use. He has no combat effectiveness. All of them shot down
the Russians almost immediately. They are very vulnerable.”
I think it is safe to assume that the author meant "shot down by the Russians".
I cannot confirm that the man in the video really is Serhiy Pashynskyi, but the speech in the video has a different point than the tweet. Translation:
Bayraktar has more PR and corruption than combat use. It's... It's
first and foremost a PR-project. I personally was against it, as they
are vulnerable against air defence, strong one, and first week of the
war, you have to understand, we had a lot of Bayraktars, and they were
all shot down in a week. Yes? But America gave us, uh, missiles,
anti-, er, anti-radar ones. I mean, Bayraktar as an element...
Bayraktar is not a self-sufficient weapon. It can't work on its own.
Bayraktar is not a wonder-weapon, against strong air defense systems
it is shot down just like that and has no combat effectiveness.
Without American HARMs and HIMARS there would be no Bayraktars
anymore.
("Bayraktar" refers to Baykar Bayraktar TB2, a Turkey-made strike UAV operated by Ukraine)
To sum up: the speaker doesn't seem to think Bayraktars are completely useless, but rather points out that they need to be used in conjunction with other weapon systems to be effective - which is true for any weapons system, really. He does say all the words the summary has, but the context is different.
Viewing the full video (from the description, the video is a transcript of a prank caller posing as Michael McFaul calling Pashynskyi) - the linked fragment is not complete. For example, there also were mentions of effective use of Bayraktars (not in strike role, but for recon) that were edited out of the excrept that was linked in the tweet.
Thus, the summary in the tweet is incomplete at best, and an intentional misinterpretation at worst.