Xi Jinping, Maduro, Vučić, Miguel Díaz-Canel, and Lula da Silva arrived for the Victory Day frenzy celebration. A powerful Ukrainian drone attack on May 7 was followed by a calm night on May 8. Putin’s ceasefire seems to be holding.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 8th. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Memorial Day Link to heading
Today, in Europe and the United States of America, it is Memorial Day and Victory over Nazism in World War II. On this day in 1945, in a suburb of Berlin, the act of Germany’s full and unconditional surrender was signed. A very telling detail, which is certainly known to everyone, but it’s worth repeating: Stalin was outraged by the signing of the surrender in Reims. In fact, there were two signings of the act of Germany’s full and unconditional surrender, because Stalin was furious that, in his view, the Western Allies played the leading role in Reims. He refused to recognize this act and demanded a second signing in Berlin, asking the Allies not to make any official announcements of victory until the second signing had taken place. His request was denied. Churchill said that Parliament demanded information from him, while Truman stated that Stalin’s request came too late and it was already impossible to cancel the victory announcement. Stalin insisted, claiming that the agreement in Reims could not be annulled, but it also could not be recognized, and that it had to be done in Berlin. Well, in principle, no one really objected. No one objected. They gathered a second time. A second time. On the Russian side, it was signed by Zhukov. So, in short, this whim of Stalin was satisfied. And? The Second World War ended. It ended 80 years ago. Of course, it continued in Asia, in Japan, but in principle, the main theater of military operations in Europe was concluded. This truly is one of the central events of world history, because the Second World War, by the number of crimes and victims, undoubtedly eclipsed all previous wars: over 60 million dead worldwide, 6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust. Most of Europe was destroyed. One million people were missing or forcibly exiled, and after the fall of the fascist regime in Germany, a new bipolar world order was established, which lasted for 40 years. Then, after the fall of the Soviet Union, there was an interim, I would say, world order. And now, at this very moment, we are in the midst of a historical upheaval that is perhaps comparable to the tectonic shifts that took place after 1945 and after 1991. This transatlantic order, which was established after World War II—primarily by the United States of America with their participation—is now falling apart before our eyes. Trump’s presidency showed that the Europeans, who relied on the United States, neglected their own defense. They miscalculated. Trump shattered the illusion. So in fact, we are now truly standing on the threshold of a completely different world. What kind of world will it be? Well, to some extent, it depends not on each of us individually, but at least on many. That is, history is not some kind of 0.01₽ that moves from the past into the future. It is a probabilistic process, and it includes elements of free will. So, in short, this is a theme that will be continually explored in all our conversations.
Victory Frenzy Preparations Link to heading
Moving on to today. Last night, the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, arrived in Moscow. Prior to that, it was announced that Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić had also arrived in Moscow. He had to take a rather roundabout route, as the Baltic states and much of Europe closed their airspace to him. He was forced to fly through Azerbaijan. Incidentally, there were some theories that this was related to the mass drone attacks—but we’ll talk about that. The main version, however, is that the Baltic countries simply closed their airspace to flights into Russia. Before this, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had already arrived in Moscow. Alongside him, presidents from Brazil and Cuba as well. Putin’s aide Sergey Ushakov stated that over 20 foreign leaders were expected in Moscow, but that number will likely be lower, since the presidents of Azerbaijan and Laos have declined. So, we’ll count later how many actually show up. For now, the central figure is clearly Xi Jinping. He is essentially the main course at this event. Among European leaders, the only one expected in Moscow is Robert Fico. So, this is the kind of gathering we’re seeing.
Now, I think the events of May 7 were particularly important. I’m not talking about individual statements or summits, but rather about what was, if not unprecedented, then certainly an incredibly massive drone attack on Russia. Zelensky rightly said that it was entirely fair for Russian skies to be as restless as Ukraine’s. Indeed, on May 7, the skies over all of Russia were very, very uneasy. This led to the shutdown of many Russian airports, including Moscow’s Domodedovo, Sheremetyevo, Vnukovo, Zhukovsky. On May 6–7, they suspended operations. Over 350 flights were canceled, affecting more than 60,000 people. So on those days, May 6 and 7, many Russians felt that war is not just something you watch from your couch while Russian missiles destroy Ukrainian cities—but something that can come into your home and disrupt your schedule. War is a two-way street.
During this period, Russia’s Ministry of Defense reported that over 500 drones were shot down on May 7 alone. That’s the number intercepted. How many were launched in total is unknown—at least, I couldn’t find that information in either Ukrainian or Russian sources. But drones attacked more than 10 Russian regions, including Vologda, Moscow Oblast, Moscow itself, Tula, Saransk. In some cases, defense industry facilities were hit—especially in Tula and Mordovia. In Tula, a military plant called Splav, which produces multiple rocket launcher systems and other weapons, was seriously damaged. This suggests an effective drone campaign, which was a key part of this large-scale attack. In Moscow, besides airport closures, there were also disruptions to mobile internet and cellular service. So, the war is reaching Russia, contrary to Putin’s claims.
As for last night—at midnight on May 8, Putin’s ceasefire supposedly began. And it seems to be holding, at least for now. The first night of Putin’s ceasefire appears to have passed without drone raids. Judging from reports in both Russian and Ukrainian media, there were no Russian drones in the skies over Ukraine, and no drones in Russian airspace either. That still needs verification. I think we’ll have more accurate information by this evening. I’ll try to do an evening broadcast today if possible, and I’ll try to confirm this information. It’s just notable that, during previous nights, Ukraine launched hundreds of drones, while last night—this night, leading into Thursday—there are only a few very unconfirmed reports of isolated drones. So it seems that the ceasefire is indeed in effect.
Scott Bessent Considers Putin a War Criminal Link to heading
Another significant piece of news is that yesterday—on May 7—hearings took place in the U.S. Congress, and among the participants was U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. In addition to routinely criticizing the Biden administration and the previous president for weak sanctions against Russia, he made a much more substantial statement, in my view. In response to a congressman’s question about whether Putin is a war criminal, Bessent answered yes. And when asked whether he would negotiate with the war criminal Putin, Scott replied that the nature of diplomacy lies in engaging in dialogue with both sides. He, for some reason, referred to the necessity of negotiations with the Japanese after World War II. Well, that’s neither here nor there—what historical examples one chooses is not the point. What matters is that the Treasury Secretary—who is a key figure in sanction enforcement—is taking an extremely hardline stance toward Russia. I think this is significant as the Trump administration considers its next steps and decides what actions to take once it becomes clear that Putin is deceiving everyone, that he has no intention of ending the war, and that Trump’s peacekeeping mission has in fact failed. So, the question becomes: what next? I believe Bessent’s statement is important, because if Putin is a war criminal, then surely the sanctions should reflect that. So this offers some hope that the complete failure of Trump’s peace mission will not render everything meaningless. The mission may have failed—but now something must be done. That, to me, is a slightly encouraging sign.
Why You Can’t Strike Red Square Link to heading
As for today and tomorrow, we’ll see. I can say right away that many Ukrainian citizens in the comments are expressing strong confidence that tomorrow’s parade should be used as an opportunity for a massive strike—using drones and possibly missiles, since Ukraine now possesses missiles capable of reaching Moscow. But I wonder whether these Ukrainian citizens—and not only Ukrainians—fully grasp the consequences of killing the president and the leaders of China, Brazil, and so on. Do you really believe that this would strengthen Ukraine’s position and truly contribute to victory in this war? I don’t think you fully understand the implications—at least, that’s how it seems to me. I believe Ukraine’s military and political leadership is acting absolutely correctly by striking military targets and, I assume, refraining from any attack on Red Square tomorrow. I’m confident in that. And I believe that, in this case, they will be making the right decision.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Now I’ll move on to answering your questions.
How Can Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn Be Symbols of Freedom Link to heading
A question from Sergey: In today’s stream—I mean yesterday’s—you touched on the topic of symbols of a free Russia. Can you explain what kind of symbols these are? One is a peace activist, but also the creator of the hydrogen bomb, the other an antisemite. Would you say these are good symbols, or is it just “such freedom, such symbols”?
Dear Sergey! Well, first of all, I don’t entirely share your assessments. You put “peace activist” in quotes—referring to Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn. That’s your choice, and I’ll leave it to your conscience. Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov really was an outstanding human rights advocate, a notable peace activist, and one of the major public and political figures of the 20th century. As for the fact that he was one of the creators of the hydrogen bomb—you know, symbols of any era don’t fall from the sky. They don’t arrive from Mars; they grow from the soil of their own country. They emerge from that very history, from the very muck in which they were rooted. There’s no other way. The people who created American democracy were slaveholders. Where else would new types of people come from? Those who tried to fight Soviet totalitarianism were Soviet people themselves—there were no others. So yes, Sakharov was a creator of the hydrogen bomb.
As for Solzhenitsyn—my criticism of him is well known, and I’ve explained the reasons. But calling him a flunky is a bit much. Yes, he sympathized more with Putin than with Yeltsin—that’s true. That was his leaning, because he was an imperialist, a Russian nationalist. Still, one cannot deny his role in the denunciation of Stalinism. He is unquestionably a major figure. Both Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn grew out of Soviet soil. There are no other examples to draw from. The greatest fighter for the freedom of colonized peoples—Mahatma Gandhi—was also a man shaped by the Indian social context. Everyone has their birthmarks, their stains—there’s no such thing as a person we admire today who was entirely free of them. Even Mahatma Gandhi once tried to engage with Hitler. Everyone has their issues. History is not made by angels—it’s moved forward by flawed humans.
So yes, these are our symbols of freedom. They came from the Soviet Union and, of course, bear the birthmarks of that past. But some managed to tear themselves away from it, however painfully, with some residual traits. Others remained stuck in it. The real question is which direction a person leads their country, their society, and humanity. And by that measure—yes, they are symbols.
Are Comparisons with 30 Years Ago Valid? Link to heading
A question from Dolce Poncho: In light of the major milestone of Putin’s rule and the awareness of where it has led, there’s a constant comparison with the 1990s. And most people today feel things are better now than they were then. In your opinion, what are the positives of Putin’s rule? For me, comparing what was 30 years ago and now is wrong. In 25 years, a country can either be destroyed or turned into a technologically advanced, civilized society across many sectors—not just one dependent on natural resources.
Well, first of all, comparisons with the ’90s are largely based on coincidence. It is absolutely not Putin’s merit that the beginning of his rule coincided with a massive surge in oil prices. They simply skyrocketed—and this had nothing to do with his actions. It was what people sometimes call “Putin’s luck.” He really did get lucky. He came to power, and oil prices soared. Thanks to those petrodollars, life in the 2000s and partly the 2010s really did become significantly better than in the 1990s—much better. That’s the basis for those comparisons.
As for today, I think it’s now possible to compare again. And I believe that many people have started to understand that Putin’s rule isn’t just about the relatively prosperous 2000s and 2010s—it also includes what we are experiencing now. But overall, I agree with you: yes, indeed, 25 years of Putin’s rule has led Russia into catastrophe. That’s the truth.
On Vladislav Inozemtsev Link to heading
Ivan Goncharuk: What is your opinion of Vladislav Inozemtsev, and would you consider doing an episode with him? He has an almost diametrically opposite view on the collapse of the Russian economy compared to Igor Lipsits, whom I respect. It would be very helpful to explore his thoughts in a “thinking together” format.
Dear Ivan! I’ve had Vladislav Leonidovich Inozemtsev on the channel many times—he is a frequent guest. I regard him with sympathy—let’s say, with great respect. I can say that his role in popularizing Western political scientists is significant. He has published many books featuring Western economists and political analysts. He is indeed a rather prominent scholar. So yes, I respect him, and he appears on our channel. The fact that his views differ drastically from those of Igor Vladimirovich Lipsits—that’s perfectly normal. Pluralism is welcome on our channel.
On the Reliability of Ancient Sources. Is the Author an Atheist or Agnostic? Link to heading
A question from Lemeshev: Igor Aleksandrovich, you once told me that, as an agnostic, you recognize the historicity of Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, but you doubt the historicity of the Apostle Matthew. Based on your position, I’d like to ask: how do you interpret Paul’s testimony, which repeatedly emphasizes in his letters that he personally saw the risen Christ—having gone from a persecutor of Christians to a preacher? Paul claimed he was ready to suffer and die for this assertion, which seemingly rules out deliberate deception for short-term gain. At the same time, you trust the accounts of Plato and Socrates despite their subjectivity and time gap. So, what are the criteria for your trust in some historical sources and skepticism toward others? After all, many witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were still alive in Paul’s time, which complicates the idea that his account was a myth. How do you balance critical analysis of a source with recognition of its reliability in the context of early Christian history?
Dear colleague! First of all, let me clarify a so-called point of confusion. You’re mistaken: there was no time gap between Plato and Socrates—they were contemporaries. We even know the exact year when Plato met Socrates: 408 BCE. Plato was one of many of Socrates’ students. So there was no gap—not only were they contemporaries, but Plato personally knew Socrates very well. There is no debate in global intellectual circles over the reality of Socrates’ existence because there is a wealth of testimony from many diverse sources. This is a fact as firmly established as the existence of Napoleon or Alexander II, despite much larger time gaps. There are varied descriptions of Socrates—from the very critical portrayal by Aristophanes, to more philosophical interpretations by Xenophon and, of course, the most significant from Plato. Beyond that, many of Socrates’ students—the so-called Socratics—also wrote about him. So things are fairly clear in this regard. Your question stems from a misunderstanding: there was no time gap here. They were contemporaries.
Now, to your main question about the number of witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. Let’s dig into it. Indeed, the resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity. If you question the Resurrection, you are essentially denying the entire foundation of Christianity. And from my point of view, this is not a fact but a fiction, and the entire Christian religion is built upon it.
The claim of the Resurrection rests on three so-called truths: first, the tomb where Jesus was buried was found empty on the Sunday after the crucifixion. Second, Jesus’ disciples had a real experience of interacting with someone they believed to be the risen Christ. Third, the Christian Church emerged from this belief.
I don’t want to go into detail about how people, caught up in religious ecstasy, come to perceive certain things as reality—things that are not. There are many documented cases of people treating icons or other religious objects as real—icons that supposedly cry, for example. How this is done is well-known, just like how the “holy fire” is lit with a lighter—it’s not some celestial flame. Mass testimonies of miracles are not proof of those miracles.
I’ll end my answer here, because honestly, I don’t want our broadcasts to turn into atheist lectures. Some accuse me of calling myself an agnostic while being practically a militant atheist. That’s not quite accurate. What I am certain of is that I don’t know whether a supernatural force was involved in the creation of the universe. I can’t answer that definitively—that’s what makes me an agnostic.
But I am certain that there is no anthropomorphic god—a bearded old man in the clouds who controls the universe and predetermines our lives—and no son of his who rose from the dead. Everything I know about the world tells me this is untrue. So yes, I’m an agnostic when it comes to Spinoza-type conceptions of God. I don’t know if Spinoza or Kant was right—Kant also believed in God, but not as an old man in the sky or someone who rose from the dead. He saw God as some kind of supernatural force involved in the creation of the universe. And that’s where I’m agnostic.
But as for the specific doctrines of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism—I am firmly convinced these are myths. In that part, yes, I am ready to admit I’m an atheist. But in a broader sense, I am an agnostic. That said, I don’t really want to turn our channel into an atheist talk show. I’m not sure that’s what’s important right now. So, with that, I’ll wrap up. And by the way—Olya from Sumy, sorry—I’m circling back here: I might skip some questions about the existence or non-existence of miracles like the Resurrection of Christ. Otherwise, we’ll steer the channel in a very different direction. Though it is, overall, a fascinating discussion. So I’ll try to manage it carefully.
Putin Cannot Claim Ignorance of His Crimes Link to heading
Olga from Sumy: Regarding Putin’s supposed unawareness, since he doesn’t use the internet and so on—at the start of the war, media pushed the idea that Putin wasn’t to blame, that he was misled, given the wrong folders, etc. But isn’t it simple? Even ignoring false reports, the criminal code on starting wars, and his lack of internet use—there are laws. And ignorance of the law does not absolve a criminal of responsibility. Do you think this principle will apply to Putin?
Dear Olga! 100%—it makes absolutely no difference what folders were shown to Putin or what he did or didn’t know. Putin is a war criminal, without question. He absolutely deserves to end his life in prison—some prison, somewhere. That is entirely clear to me. Alternatively, liquidation—as the number one terrorist—is also an option. Any outcome, take your pick. There are no mitigating circumstances here, of course.
Do All Russians Demand Rights in the West? Link to heading
From a user under the nickname “Так?”: Yakovenko, if the vast majority of Russians choose to do nothing—out of fear or otherwise—then why don’t we have the right to hate them for it? If they choose inaction, what right do they have to demand anything from others? And yet, that’s exactly what all the opposition in the West is doing—trying to claim rights. Isn’t the world justified, given Russians’ unwillingness to resist the regime, in telling them to shove their demands and visas? What have Russians done to deserve decent treatment? Everyone knows what they’ve done to deserve contempt.
Well, frankly, I don’t quite understand why you’re addressing this question to me. My name is Yakovenko—not Svetov, not Navalnaya, not someone else who holds a strongly pro-Russian position. So I don’t really see the point of directing this question at me with such rhetorical flair.
Now let me try to address the tone and content of your question.
First: no one is denying you the right to hate Russians or Russian citizens. I don’t understand why you’re banging on an open door by asking me this. I have never denied the right of Ukrainians—or citizens of any other country—to hate Russians, as much as they like. What I would question, though, is this: is it valid to extend that hatred to everyone, including, say, Alexander Skobov, or the fighters of the Freedom of Russia Legion? They’re Russian citizens too. Do you hate them? Do you hate the fighters of the Russian Volunteer Corps who are giving their lives for Ukraine’s freedom? Do you hate the fighters of the Siberian Battalion, also dying for Ukraine’s freedom? Because you use the pronoun “all”—and that, to me, reflects a certain flaw in your perception.
The second part of your question introduces a sneering tone toward the term “opposition.” I don’t know exactly whom you mean. As for me—since you’re asking me—I personally believe that there is no real opposition, only emigration. Then you claim that all of them are just “claiming rights.” But I, for example, am not claiming anything. You won’t find any of that in my films or texts. The Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps are not demanding rights either—they’re fighting, risking and giving their lives for Ukraine. Kasparov isn’t “demanding rights” either. I could name many people who aren’t shouting about their entitlements, but are actively helping Ukraine.
In fact, every one of my stream descriptions includes a link to a fundraiser for the Freedom of Russia Legion and another for drone support. So no, I’m not demanding anything—I’m trying, within my very limited means, to help Ukraine.
Therefore, when you say that all Russians are demanding rights, you’re simply not telling the truth.
And then you quite subtly switch the term “Russians” to “Russians” in the ethnic sense. So what do you mean? Are you also referring to ethnic Russians who are citizens of Ukraine? Does your hatred extend to them too? This is a sweeping and careless generalization. And sweeping generalizations are always wrong.
Lastly, your question might have been more appropriate if you had addressed it to someone like Svetov or Yulia Navalnaya. But I don’t understand why you’re directing it at me, when I’ve never denied Ukrainians the full right to hate Russians, or Russia as a whole. Just be cautious when you say “Russians”—because that may include Ukrainian citizens too.
Request for a show about learning after 40 Link to heading
Denis Lyubarev What can help with learning in adulthood, after 40? Are there any techniques or diets? What should be included in the diet? A routine that alternates physical and mental activity. Much appreciated. If you do a show dedicated to this topic with a specialist, you’ll need to find a specialist.
I definitely mean it. That is, I definitely won’t be doing this show as a solo stream, because I’d be stepping into areas where I’m not even an amateur. Like, say, dietetics and so on. That would be just ridiculous if I tried to talk seriously about it. But finding a specialist — yes, that. That’s interesting. That is interesting.
Cutting NASA’s budget isn’t beneficial for Musk either Link to heading
And the second part from Denis regarding Musk and NASA. Musk is developing reusable launch vehicles. The main client of these technologies is the American agency. In addition to rockets, he has created a satellite network and so on. So cutting NASA’s funding goes against Musk’s interests.
The important clarification is noted.
About Fyodor Krasheninnikov Link to heading
Margarita. I heard that you didn’t speak very flatteringly about Fyodor Krasheninnikov. I used to enjoy listening to him, but after thinking about it, I realized I stopped following him quite a while ago, probably throughout this whole war. I’d like to ask: did you simply change your opinion of him, or did you never really have a positive view of this blogger? I used to think Krasheninnikov was a pretty smart guy.
Well, of course he’s smart. What, you think someone like Shariy isn’t smart? He’s absolutely smart. But Shariy is an enemy of Ukraine. That’s it. A traitor. Being smart and not being an enemy of Ukraine, being smart and not being a traitor — those are not mutually exclusive things. Krasheninnikov clearly takes an anti-Ukrainian stance. Yes, he’s undoubtedly a Russian opposition figure, no question. But it’s really very simple. I’ve said many times — war forces a person who wants to be involved in politics to answer one clear question. There’s a war — Russia attacked Ukraine. Russia is at war with Ukraine. Whose side are you on? It’s a very simple question. Saying “I’m against Putin, but I’m for Russia” is absurd. That’s like saying during World War II: “I’m against Hitler, but I’m for the Third Reich.” No. There is no “other Russia,” you see? That myth about a beautiful Russia of the future — it doesn’t even exist as a project anymore. What we have is the Putin Reich, the Russian Reich. So — whose side are you on? People who choose “I’m for Russia” — they’re on the other side of this war. And that’s exactly what happened with Krasheninnikov. Because in his broadcasts, he constantly throws mud at Ukraine. There’s this clever trick — saying “I’m basically for Ukraine,” but then everything to do with Ukraine’s leadership, military, politics, civil society — it’s all garbage. So how are you for Ukraine then? And I don’t mean that Zelensky can’t be criticized — oh, he definitely can. I just don’t do it — that’s not my job, and there are enough people doing it already. But you see, when there’s this constant smearing of Ukraine — well, it’s clear what’s going on. It’s a matter of choice. And yes, my attitude toward Krasheninnikov has worsened significantly during the war because he’s on the other side, he’s for Russia, he’s against Ukraine.
Is it possible to refuse an award from Putin? Link to heading
T. I’m sure each of us can easily imagine Igor, living in Russia, refusing an award from Yeltsin. But how many can imagine Igor Aleksandrovich, living in Russia, refusing to accept an award from Putin? Let’s not kid ourselves.
Dear colleague. You know, yes. I agree — let’s not kid ourselves. I was never offered an award from Putin. So your thought experiment can’t really be verified or falsified. But I must tell you, first of all, that there are indeed a number of people who have refused to accept awards from Putin. But there’s a nuance here. The thing is, when it comes to awarding someone, there’s usually a prior idea of who the recipients will be. And people who are likely to refuse — they simply don’t get nominated. That’s how it works. People who show some kind of independent thinking are just avoided to prevent embarrassment.
Now, regarding your claim that if I had been offered an award, I would have crawled on all fours to accept it from Putin — again, I repeat, I was never offered one. But I did receive many offers for career advancement under the Putin regime. I’m not exaggerating my importance, but let me remind you — I was a State Duma deputy and spent ten years as General Secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, the largest civic organization in Russia. Naturally, there were all kinds of approaches — up to a point. Then they stopped, once it became clear they needed to just get rid of me by any means. But yes, people approached me. I won’t list them all, but I’ll mention one — Mr. Surkov. I spoke with him, briefly. There were conversations like, why not join United Russia, move into the Presidential Administration — “we need people like you.” The usual pitch.
So again, I was never offered a state award. But I was offered a brilliant career. And my refusal was firm and unequivocal. So to assume that everyone kneeled before Putin and that there was some kind of universal obedience — well, what about the people who left the Human Rights Council? Just yesterday, I spoke with Dmitry Borisovich Oreshkin, who, at the peak of Putinism and while still in Russia, publicly left the Council for Human Rights and Civil Society for political reasons. That too was a stand. And yes, living in Russia, that kind of step could well be equated with refusing an award from Putin. It was a stand. And such stands were taken — not by many, but not by one or two, either.
So you’re overstating things a bit. Yes, spineless compliance was the majority, perhaps, but certainly not universal. There is a significant minority — including, I might add, yours truly.
Anthropology, theosophy, meditation Link to heading
A question from Robert. Still, going back to the question of theosophy — is anthropology just as much nonsense as, say, stoicism, or is it simply madness? Why were people like Scriabin, Andrei Bely and others so fascinated by all of this? What is meditation? Enlightenment, as sought by Buddhists — from the point of view of hard science, academic psychology — isn’t it just belief, mythology? But in Buddhist practice we find not just an abstract ideal but also practical tools to reach it. There are methods, instructions, and so on. How should this be viewed rationally?
There are several different questions here, and they need to be separated. I take it that by theosophy you don’t just mean the old general term, but rather the theosophy of Helena Blavatsky — that’s probably what you mean. So what is it? It’s a version of religion, although it denies that it’s a religion — but it obviously is one. Anthropology goes in that same direction. I don’t see any fundamental difference between various forms of Christianity, Judaism, etc. It’s just another version of religion. So it falls into the same category.
Now, a completely separate question is meditation, enlightenment, and so on. Today, meditation is widely practiced by a significant number of people — in many different countries. People use meditation to achieve a variety of goals: stress relief, pain reduction, relaxation. It’s an important practice — and no, it doesn’t necessarily imply anything mystical. Yes, there is meditation with a religious flavor, but again — anyone who’s done Eastern martial arts knows that those often come with certain mystical elements. But those are separate things. There’s a philosophical component, sure, but meditation can also just be a psychological exercise.
When it comes with mystical underpinnings — I reject that. But as a psychological tool, yes, there’s proven benefit. That’s entirely rational. As for Scriabin, Andrei Bely, and others being fascinated with stoicism or whatever — well, people like all kinds of things. But, you know, there are also famous people who were into drugs. So what should we do with that?
On the author’s attitude toward sex workers Link to heading
So, a question from VAD Why have you spoken more than once about “butterflies” as fallen women in such a harsh way, almost like a religious person? But you’re not religious, are you? It’s an ancient profession. If a woman is a butterfly, that doesn’t mean she’s fallen.
Dear colleague, I have never spoken contemptuously, insultingly, or negatively about representatives of the oldest profession. I believe that it is absolutely a woman’s natural right to have full autonomy over her body. But when I was talking about the Finance Ministry, I was specifically emphasizing that the Russian intelligentsia, and Russian literature in particular, has always shown empathy and compassion toward sex workers. However, the attitude toward pimps has been negative. And I still believe that a pimp is a disreputable character.
When I spoke about Pavel Gusev as the chief media pimp of the Russian Federation — that, to me, is what’s bad. That, to me, is someone who is not respectable. These are different things entirely.
Does the Animal Religion project imply giving up meat? Link to heading
To Sveta. My question was about the Animate religion, which you’ve touched on in your shows. The topic came up more than once, though from slightly different angles. My argument is that you can’t fool evolution. My father, over 50, gave up meat. And so on. Then suddenly his knee started hurting so much he couldn’t walk. By then, I’d finished university and realized it was a collagen deficiency. Where do people get collagen? That’s right — from meat. The solution came quickly: animal-based gelatin. He takes it and everything’s fine. Another example — people in the north mostly eat a fish-based diet, and so on. Then there’s this: you can’t outsmart nature with ideas in your head. Humans evolved over a million years with meat in their diet. Right? My belief is this — she’s experimenting on her own health, but if something goes wrong, no amount of money can buy it back. Is it worth the risk? That’s what I’d like to hear your opinion on.
Dear [Sveta], I have to tell you — you’re absolutely preaching to the choir here, for two reasons. First, I 100% don’t want to stage an ideological debate about vegetarianism or the stricter forms of it. Yes, there are discussions to be had — but I’m not the one to have them.
And second, you’re preaching to the choir because the Animate religion project is definitely not about promoting vegetarianism. I’ve said it many times — and not to mention, this is a research project. One of its directions, in fact, is that I’m definitely not a supporter of dietary dogma. I’m convinced the core issue is that we kill animals in order to eat them — and that this problem can be solved. I’ve spoken many times about programs around the world focused on cultivated meat — that is, real meat, grown in a lab, relatively affordable.
This process is underway in many countries. And I think that’s the solution. There are lots of related issues, of course. It’s a huge, serious project that humanity has begun. So there’s no need for caricatures, no need to present opponents as idiots. This is a serious, large-scale undertaking. And of course, no one is suggesting humanity should give up meat — just that the sources of meat may vary: either from killing or from cultivation — full-fledged, safe, and nutritious.
About the Party of Native Blood Link to heading
So, Nadya at the movies. I’d like to clarify one detail. Yes, I was talking about Krasheninnikov. He likes to emphasize that if a Russian blogger shows sympathy for Ukraine, it’s just for views. As if one must be against Putin but not for Ukraine. This isn’t the first time he’s expressed such views — his writing is practically soaked in rejection of Ukraine and its president. Before the war, his content seemed normal, but now he seems to have lost it. My question was more rhetorical, but I’d still like to hear your opinion. How can someone be against Putin but not for Ukraine in this war? In peacetime, maybe — but now?
Well, that’s how — like Krasheninnikov does it, like many others do, like Shlosberg does it too. That’s the “party of native blood.” These are people who still believe there’s a Russian voter they shouldn’t alienate. So they’re sort of against Putin, but still “for Russia,” for Russians — because they think, maybe, deep down, that things will settle down, they’ll return to Russia, run for office again.
And that’s why they don’t want to make enemies, don’t want to openly support Ukraine now. They want to be “for Russia,” for “our boys,” and so on.
Great scientists also believe in God Link to heading
Olga Rashkin. Olga is a sponsor of our channel, and we are very grateful to her. Question: Do other religions have a dream of the afterlife, of reincarnation? After all, there’s the idea that the soul travels from one body to another until it’s fully purified. And speaking of the science of religion — I have a friend who’s a prominent microbiologist and a deeply religious person. Surely you know someone like that too.
Dear Olga! I just want to say that there are a great many outstanding scientists who are, for example, communists. A vivid example is Nobel laureate Zhores Alferov. Alferov was, until very recently, a member of the Communist Party faction. A staunch communist. And so what? Because physicist Zhores Alferov was a communist and a member of the Communist Party, does that mean we should change our views and embrace communism too?
I’ll say it again: people are contradictory. There are remarkable individuals who are addicted to drugs — should we then take up drugs too, or call it a virtue? There are prominent physicists, Nobel Prize winners, who were fascists. So what now? People are contradictory.
Martin Heidegger, a major philosopher, was a Nazi — just flat out, a Nazi. So should we, out of respect for him, also become Nazis? Outstanding achievements in science and personal or political views — these things can vary widely. People are complex.
What’s the secret of Yuri Shvets’ popularity? Link to heading
Maksim Lebedev How do you explain the phenomenon of Yuri Shvets’ popularity? He’s currently at the top of Russian-language political YouTube. His videos consistently get between 600,000 and 1,000,000 views. He posts almost daily. And yet, unlike Professor Solovey, he doesn’t rely on sensationalism or fake scoops.
You know, dear Maksim, it’s really about the allure of the spy — the mystique of the intelligence officer. People are fascinated by the idea that a spy, by definition, has access to secret information. And Yuri Borisovich constantly references certain data, occasionally claiming he gets updates from old sources of his. You see? He frequently says things like, “My sources told me this or that.” And, as Shenderovich used to say — it’s persuasive.
This aura, this reverence for intelligence officers as bearers of secret truth — it has a strong effect. I remember being amazed when General Kalugin, a well-known defector, was brought to one of the Republican Party congresses. People were in awe, almost treating him like a miracle.
So yes — it works. Yuri Borisovich, as far as I understand, regularly monitors Western and even Chinese media — English-language outlets in particular — and his content is a blend of real media analysis and these exclusive tidbits “from the inside.” That combination, with constant references to old contacts, makes an impression.
Was the USSR on the side of good? Link to heading
So, Konstantin? In the 7:40 episode on Monday, you again casually stated that the USSR was on the side of good in World War II. I really wanted to clarify — at what point exactly did this happen? When the USSR was training Hitler’s pilots and tank crews on its own territory? When it was dividing up Europe with Hitler and waging its own aggressive wars, including the joint invasion of Poland? When one of the two totalitarian regimes, as all observers expected, attacked the other? Or maybe when the Red Army “liberated” European countries — none of which became truly free afterward: GDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland. They could tell you a lot about that ‘good.’ Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that good, in the form of the Western allies, was forced to side with one evil in order to defeat another, more immediate one — and the Cold War that followed only confirms this view?
You know, dear Konstantin, if I were to answer your question briefly — when exactly did that happen? The Soviet Union was on the side of good in World War II at the moment it drew in nearly two-thirds of the German divisions. The destruction of the vast majority of German — and not just German — divisions is, in my view, an act of good: the destruction of evil. That was good.
And the fact that the Soviet Union made an enormous contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany is a historical fact. That is good. What, are you saying it’s evil? Was the liberation of Auschwitz good or not? Come on, let’s not say ridiculous things.
When you suggest that it would be more accurate to say that the West had to side with one evil to defeat another — sure, yes, life works that way. History works that way. In private life, too, sometimes obvious evil ends up doing good, even without intending to. And your rhetorical gymnastics seem aimed at denying that obvious fact.
Of course, we can phrase it differently. You can say, for example, that the Soviet Union, being obviously evil, ended up on the side of good because it started fighting Hitler. Okay — but who does that help? I have my own formula, and I think it’s solid.
And once again — take today’s war between Russia and Ukraine. On the side of good, you can find all kinds of people, including ones I personally dislike. Take Mr. Koch, for example — he’s on Ukraine’s side now, and I find him extremely unpleasant. But I don’t try to obscure that fact with clever phrasing — because it’s the truth.
The Soviet Union, at that time — yes, overall, was on the side of good, even while committing plenty of wrongs along the way. What happened after the war — yes, having done the major work of crushing at least two-thirds of the fascist divisions, the Soviet Union went on to commit more wrongs. But that’s another story.
You’re conflating time periods — you’re talking about consequences that came after the USSR had already stopped being on the side of good. It’s really very simple. Trying to eliminate the contradictions of the world always leads to mistakes. And I believe that’s the mistake you’re making, dear Konstantin.
On the raids on Moscow Link to heading
So? Pan Stepan! The question is about the current Ukrainian raids on Moscow. Clearly, Putin’s ceasefire didn’t materialize — and that was Ukraine’s decision. I think that’s good in itself, because Ukraine thus defended its sovereignty and right to set its own policy. But if these raids continue — the eighth, the ninth — they risk disrupting Putin’s holiday events. Even if they don’t reach Red Square, the chaos alone could spoil things. Would you deny the specific value of undermining the propaganda effect of the May 9 holiday? You’d have to be blind not to suspect something’s wrong when, on the glorious 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, debris falls on the capital, airspace is closed, and airports are shut down. Can the parade even happen if drones are flying somewhere — maybe not to Red Square, but they don’t know that? So the threat is real. After yesterday’s reports of an effective collapse in air travel, I thought — why are these airports even still open? Shouldn’t Ukraine bring them down with drone wreckage over a few nights? Disrupting aviation would be a major blow to Russia. Let them all bear Stalin’s name — symbolically fitting. Stalin Airports, all out of service.
Dear Pan Stepan! First of all, I’d like to point out that Putin’s ceasefire began at midnight — 00:00 — and according to the information I was able to gather overnight, there were no particularly large-scale Ukrainian drone attacks on Russia, nor were there massive Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities. I emphasize again: this is based on information from the night. Things may have changed, but for now, Putin’s ceasefire appears to be holding — that’s a fact.
As for your suggestion to destroy all the airports — I’d say, yes, in theory, that would be ideal. Just like it would be ideal to destroy all military factories, to eliminate the entire Russian army. But Ukraine acts within the limits of what it can do. It has the will — but its resources are limited. So Ukraine is acting under constrained conditions.
Proposal to strike Red Square Link to heading
A letter from Ruslan Bring on the drones and ballistic missiles for Red Square. Why should Ukraine spare vile ghouls — enablers of Russian fascism — like Xi Jinping (fascist), Orbán (fascist), Trump (fascist), Lula da Silva, Netanyahu, and the rest of the scum who enjoy taking part in fascist carnivals on May 9 in Red Square? Let all lovers of Russian fascism and those who shake the Kremlin fascist’s hand get what’s coming to them — tungsten carbide and more. Why shouldn’t Ukraine throw a fireworks show on Red Square on the day of Russia’s fascist victory cult?
Dear Ruslan, I’ve tried to explain this. Sure, in theory it might sound satisfying — total destruction of Red Square, with Xi Jinping on Vasilyeva Street, and the rest of the Global South’s leaders. But let me ask you honestly — do you really think Ukraine could continue the war after that? That anyone would keep supporting Ukraine?
I just believe — and I say this plainly — that Ukraine is not led by madmen. So none of this will happen. Simply — none of it.
And the consequences — if we imagine a thought experiment in which this did happen — I think they’d be catastrophic. In fact, it might even be exactly what Putin dreams of: a May 9 strike on Red Square that kills Xi Jinping and the rest. I suspect Zelensky will do everything to make sure that never happens. Putin, on the other hand — he might be hoping for just that.
How many years has Putin been in power? Link to heading
Second question from Ruslan. The Successor Operation began in early August 1999, when the KGB ghoul was announced as successor and appointed Prime Minister, and in December 1999 he was made acting president. Therefore, the countdown to fascism in Russia should begin from that moment. Which means the ghoul has been raping Russia for 26 years, not 25.
Well, there’s really nothing for me to argue here, dear Ruslan. You can count it that way, sure. I personally prefer to stick to the more official timeline: the inauguration was exactly — exactly — on May 7, 2000. Just like we count Trump’s first 100 days from January 20. So we count Putin’s 25 years from May 7, 2000. I don’t think this is the most crucial issue.
Closing remarks Link to heading
So, it seems I’ve answered all the questions that were asked or that I found.
Dear friends, with that we’ll wrap up our morning stream for today. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom to Alexander Skobov! To Darya Kozyreva and all Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives. All the best to you. Until next time!
I’m not sure yet if I’ll be able to prepare an evening program. If I do, I’ll post the announcement as soon as possible. Stay tuned. All the best. Until next time! And once again — take care of yourselves!
Source: https://youtu.be/icFrjYgdxXQ