Massive strikes on Ukrainian cities will intensify amid Trump’s “surprise” and Kellogg’s demands to “immediately stop.”
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 26. It’s 7:40 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Russia Intensifies Attacks on Ukraine Link to heading
This past weekend was yet another, and perhaps one of the most… There’s a constant refrain now that “this was the worst night,” only to be followed by an even worse one. For Ukraine, what happened over the weekend—at least on the night of May 25—was one of the most massive attacks to date. Nearly 300 drones and 70 missiles were launched. Strikes were carried out across 13 Ukrainian regions. At least 12 people were killed. These are the figures as of last night, though they may be updated. Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, Zhytomyr, Khmelnytskyi, Ternopil, Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Kharkiv, Chernihiv, Cherkasy, Sumy, and Poltava regions were all targeted. In Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast, four people were killed and 16 injured, including three children. In Zhytomyr Oblast, four people died. The children are among the victims, according to the latest information. Four people were also killed in Khmelnytskyi Oblast.
So these attacks are clearly escalating. Just to remind you—last year, Russia needed to stockpile missiles and drones in order to carry out such massive strikes. That is no longer necessary. Some specific details are now coming to light. It’s evident that these strikes are intensifying. And there are some important points to analyze—not just to grieve or exclaim “how long?” but to try to understand what’s happening.
A significant portion of the missiles used in the recent waves of Russian strikes against Ukraine were North Korean, and the drones were almost entirely Shaheds of Iranian design. These are the findings reported by The Washington Post, which indicate substantial support from Russia’s military allies. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s partners are not currently providing assurances regarding continued deliveries of air defense systems, particularly the U.S.-made Patriot systems.
To summarize what’s currently happening in Ukraine: Russia’s partners—including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which is a clear and direct military ally—are providing perhaps even more effective assistance than the collective West is offering Ukraine. It should be noted that Ukraine has no military allies per se—there are partners and countries offering aid, but not in a formal military alliance like Russia has with North Korea.
What I said earlier about attacks likely intensifying—and becoming qualitatively different from previous ones—still stands. Previously, Russia had to stockpile drones and missiles, launch attacks in waves, and then pause to replenish. That’s no longer the case. The attacks are now continuous. A recent article in The Economist reports that drone attacks by Russia on Ukrainian territory could escalate to entire regions being hit by up to a thousand drones. This is tied to a sharp increase in Russia’s drone production, particularly of Shaheds based on Iranian blueprints. In 2024, Russia was producing about 300 Shaheds per month; now that number is being produced in under three days. This is a drastic spike. The Economist article states that Russia plans to ramp up drone production to 500 per day.
So today, as usual, dear friends, we’ll be speaking with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabskiy, and I want to have a detailed discussion with him—pardon the tautology—about the balance of forces. Previously, we were quite pleased to note that Ukraine had the edge over Russia in terms of drones, the most promising area of military technology. Now, it seems that assumption may be questionable. Based on the latest data, Russia might not only be catching up but possibly surpassing Ukraine in this crucial domain.
I want to verify this today—this is a preliminary and very troubling conclusion—with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabskiy. I very much hope I’m wrong. I hope that Serhiy Maratovych will refute these deeply unpleasant suspicions. I’m basing them, first, on the facts—such a volume of strikes on peaceful Ukrainian cities can’t be coincidental—and second, on The Economist article. At the very least, this is a question that must be clarified today.
Let me remind you that at 8:00 p.m. today, as usual on Mondays, we’ll have an important conversation with Serhiy Borysovych Hrabskiy.
Reaction to the Bombings Link to heading
Now, as for the reaction. To me, this seems like the most important aspect of what’s happening. Let’s start with the United States. Kellogg commented on the events in Ukraine over the past weekend by posting the following text on social media—I quote: “These attacks are shameful, shameful. Stop the killings, stop the fire immediately, immediately cease fire.”
When I read that, it reminded me of a number of things. First, I recall how we marched through the streets of Moscow during the protest rallies of 2011–2012, chanting slogans like: “One, two, three—Putin, step down! Thieves and crooks, you’ve got five minutes to pack up!” Back then, I found those slogans somewhat ironic. “One, two, three—Putin, step down!” Well, we counted to three, and Putin didn’t step down. Five minutes passed, and the thieves and crooks weren’t going anywhere.
Now, Kellogg demands an immediate ceasefire. “Immediately stop the fire.” Yet somehow, no one’s listening. Even now, Russian political emigrants are marching through the streets of Berlin, demanding that Putin stop the killing. But he’s not stopping. Addressing Putin with a plea to stop killing is like asking Chikatilo to stop murdering—“Chikatilo, stop killing immediately.” This all seems like impotence—a demonstration of impotence, in my view. Because politicians’ reactions should be different.
Now to Trump’s reaction, which comes with a different tone. I quote: “I don’t know what the hell happened to Putin.” He doesn’t know what’s going on with Putin—this is the fourth year now. But in fact, if we go back to 2014, Putin has been killing Ukrainians for over a decade. But suddenly now something’s happened. Trump continues: “I don’t like what he’s doing.” That’s an important message—everyone thought he did like it, but apparently, he doesn’t. “I don’t like what Putin is doing. He’s killing a lot of people. And I don’t know what the hell happened to him. I’ve known him a long time, always got along with him. But now he’s launching missiles at cities and killing people—and I don’t like it at all. We’re in the middle of negotiations.”
What negotiations? It’s unclear. But he’s launching missiles at Kyiv and other cities, and Trump doesn’t like it. He’s surprised. Very surprised.
So what is this? What kind of tone, what kind of message? This is what we call “comradely criticism.” “Comrade Putin surprises me. I’ve known him for years—I didn’t expect this from him.” It’s comradely criticism.
In sharp contrast, however, is Trump’s attitude toward Zelensky. For him, Zelensky is to blame for everything. According to Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky is not helping his country. That’s a very different assessment—one of deep personal hostility. I quote Trump again: “Everything he says causes problems. I don’t like it, and it would be better if he stopped.”
Then, of course, comes Trump’s usual mantra: “This is a war that never would have started if I were president.” For him, the war is the fault of Zelensky—Zelensky first, then Putin, then Biden. Trump isn’t on the list. So it’s clear—Zelensky and Ukraine supposedly started this war.
This is, without a doubt, a creeping Munich. Of course, the difference is huge. Any historical analogy is always conditional. But a creeping Munich is exactly what this is: the West’s current position, where yes, there is support for Ukraine, and yes, a new sanctions package against Russia is being prepared. But for example, that package—already signed by 82 senators—calls for 500% tariffs and secondary sanctions. I’ll be very surprised if Trump enforces it, even if Congress passes it. Because while Congress can approve it, it’s up to Trump to implement it. Whether he will is a big question.
The difference, of course, between Munich in 1938 and the current situation is immense. The key difference is that Ukraine is not Czechoslovakia, and Zelensky is not Beneš. I’m absolutely convinced that if Ukraine took the same position as Beneš did in 1938, the Munich Agreement would be fully replicated today—or at least we’d have a very clear analogy. But because Ukraine resists, because Ukraine has not surrendered, a full-scale Munich scenario is impossible.
Still, what we’re seeing—the “one, two, three, Putin step down” rhetoric from Kellogg—and Trump’s comradely criticism—ultimately, it’s clear: Trump is more on Russia’s side now than on Ukraine’s.
So yes, the difference is enormous. But nevertheless, this is a creeping Munich—not a single conference where betrayal occurs all at once, but a betrayal that unfolds gradually, as a matter of fact. So what’s happening? Ukrainians are being killed—so where are the air defense systems? Where are the long-range missiles? Where are the aircraft? Where is all the support? Yes, it exists—but at levels that clearly don’t protect Ukraine.
That’s the reality. And so far, there’s no real shift in the West’s stance. Yes, Europe is preparing—but gradually, not immediately. It takes time. And the United States’ apparent betrayal—that is the creeping Munich.
Prisoner Exchange Link to heading
Still, so as not to start the morning on too somber a note, I do want to share some very good news. Though, admittedly, there is a fly in the ointment. But what can you do? It’s important to report objectively and not just engage in rah-rah propaganda. But the good news is indeed major: a massive prisoner exchange, 1,000 for 1,000. The exchange lasted three days, and on Sunday—yesterday—the final group of 303 people were exchanged. This is a big, positive, and very uplifting development. It’s the 65th exchange since February 24, 2022. Still, this is a massive exchange, and overall, an unprecedented one. That’s great.
And now the fly in the ointment: despite expectations in Ukrainian society, none of the released Ukrainian servicemen were from the Azov Regiment. They’ve been in captivity for four years now, subjected to torture and held in especially inhumane conditions. The reason is obvious. I know well that Ukrainian society is expressing criticism toward those in the Ukrainian leadership who handled the exchange. And while that criticism is understandable, I also know very well the attitude of the Russian authorities specifically toward the fighters of the Azov Regiment—it is one of intense, visceral hatred. And that is, of course, the sole reason why, among the 1,000 Ukrainian prisoners exchanged—who included not only military personnel but also some civilians—there was not a single Azov fighter.
The only reason is the deep-seated hatred that the Russian leadership and occupying forces harbor toward the Azov Regiment fighters. They simply don’t want to give them up. Just don’t want to. The prospects for their release do exist—negotiations are ongoing—but this is a fixation. They are fixated specifically on Azov fighters. The unprecedented resistance, heroism, and incredible courage that the Azov Regiment demonstrated in the defense of Mariupol and Azovstal provoked this intense hatred.
So, I never presume to give advice to Ukrainians, but to blame the leadership involved in facilitating this exchange is probably a mistake—because there’s only one reason for the Azov fighters’ continued captivity. No other reason exists.
And in conclusion to this part of the discussion, I want to remind you once again that at 8:00 p.m., we’ll have a conversation with Serhiy Ivanovych Hrabskiy. Unfortunately, we missed Monday’s broadcast due to our own fault, but many questions have piled up. Including those about who currently leads in drone production—in terms of both quantity and quality—Russia or Ukraine? Again, I think this is a very important issue, and we will discuss it as well with Serhiy Maratovych.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Moving on to your questions and my responses.
Which Projects of the Author Were Interrupted by the War Link to heading
I want to specifically highlight a question from a subscriber named Patriot. I’ve been having some kind of issue connecting with Patriot subscribers lately—these are people I’m very grateful to, as they provide financial support to the channel, which allows us to keep working. But lately, I haven’t been able to engage with them in a real dialogue. People just send money, but they’re not particularly active. I probably need to do something about that. So I want to respond first to a question from Kira.
She begins with a remark: 47 is leading his party from a different plane. And only from there can one really influence the course, the outcome of the war.
Honestly, I don’t know what that “different plane” is. I believe that if he’s influencing the course of the war at all, it’s by providing real support to Russia.
Now, her actual question: If not for the war, what topic would you be covering with the same emotional drive?
If we’re talking about emotional drive, then it would certainly be the further development of humanism. I believe this is the most important thread running through all of human history—the advancement of humanism. I realize that, in the context of the Holocaust, or in today’s context as we speak about the war in Ukraine, this may sound a bit naive. But I’m absolutely convinced that human history can be seen as a process of expanding and deepening humanism.
One modern aspect of humanism that I find especially compelling is our changing relationship with animals. A fundamental shift has occurred—moving away from a consumerist view of animals toward including them as subjects of humanistic concern. Animal rights, the defense of those rights, humane treatment—all of that. It’s a huge topic I would love to work on.
Aside from that, I’m also interested in sociology—though it stirs less emotion. But the real emotional drive is in what I’d call animal religion. That’s something I’d truly like to explore, but for now, it’s not in the cards.
The Taliban Distort the Quran Link to heading
Here is a very important comment from Elena. I want to read it in full and then share my thoughts. Elena writes:
What the Taliban are doing has nothing to do with the Quran. First: nowhere in the Quran does it say that a woman must cover her face or wear a hijab. Second: there is a direct verse stating that both boys and girls must be educated. Third: regarding adultery and stoning, there is a precise text. When is adultery considered proven? Only when four men are present and witness the male sexual organ in the female sexual organ. I repeat, this is the exact wording of the Quran, writes Elena. So adultery can basically never be proven.
I want to thank Elena for this comment, because I too have a decent knowledge of the Quran. But these are very precise citations, and they are direct proof that the Taliban are not about traditional values. This is a kind of moral-political fabrication, you see? Just like what’s happening in the Russian Orthodox Church today, which has only a very distant connection to Christianity. It’s a fabrication. The Russian Orthodox Church is more of a totalitarian sect—Satanic, even—that bears only a distant relation to Christianity.
In the same way, as Elena has thoroughly demonstrated, the Taliban represent a moral-political fabrication. A very important point.
Suggestion to Host a Stream with Artificial Intelligence Link to heading
Now to questions from the chat. A question from Sergey: “I asked two AIs whether Putin is a war criminal. Google started reasoning like Rubio, while ChatGPT responded unequivocally—yes, he is. Could you host a stream with artificial intelligence?”
Dear Sergey, I don’t quite understand what the format of such a stream would be. Honestly, your question caught me off guard—completely off guard. Because, first of all, I don’t currently use artificial intelligence. I know I should—especially since my own intelligence, with age, is starting to let me down—but for now, I don’t. Still, I do plan to. I plan to get the hang of this not-too-complicated technology.
But as for hosting streams with AI—I’m not quite sure how that would work. I’ll have to think about it. Or, alternatively, I’d be grateful, dear Sergey, if you could clarify what kind of stream format you’re suggesting.
Suggestion to Invite Sharp and Abel Link to heading
A question from Galina: “Please invite David Sharp and Abel to your broadcasts if possible. Rustam covers Ukraine-related topics.”
Well, in principle, both of them have been on our broadcasts before. And yes, why not? Overall, I think it’s doable.
Is empathy dangerous in large doses? Link to heading
Evgeny. A. The next three—there are three questions. As I understand it, the first one is: Isn’t empathy dangerous in large doses? Can it lead to suffering over a boring carrot?
Well, you know, so to speak, you can correct and ridicule anything. You can empathize with love, with anything at all. In short—no, it’s not dangerous. Empathy is not dangerous. Empathy is always a good thing. But if, so to speak, you can give an example of a more or less well-known person who suffers over a boring carrot, I would be very grateful. So. Well, caricature is a useful thing, I don’t mind, but overall—in short—no, empathy is not dangerous.
Attitude toward educators who stayed in Russia Link to heading
Second. What is your attitude toward science educators and popularizers who remained in Russia, for example, Drobychevsky, Vodovozov, and so on, and their work?
Well, in short—I have a positive attitude, of course. Of course, a positive one.
Castaneda and Zeland Link to heading
The third question is also from Evgeny: Don’t you think it was a mistake to lump together the books of Castaneda and Zeland under the theme of mysticism? For the former, mysticism is far from being the main focus. That is, of course, if one reads attentively.
Well, I don’t know how one could read Castaneda and not see mysticism in it. I’m not equating them. They are very different people. But both contain mysticism. For Vadim Zeland, it’s the main thing—this so-called reality transurfing, where he believes reality can be controlled through thought. Well, okay, it’s a bit different. But Castaneda also has mysticism. So I’m not equating them. I’m simply stating that both have mysticism present.
On Abram Tertz’s aesthetic disagreements with Soviet authorities Link to heading
A question from Vadim. Now, here’s a question I don’t really know how to answer. Look, Vadim asks: Tertz’s disagreements with the Soviet authorities were aesthetic and stylistic.
I’ve seen both versions as quotes in several instances from different sources. And each time—I don’t know which one is authentic. I haven’t done a special analysis, but I like both versions.
Russian POWs are forbidden to say that Ukrainians treated them like human beings Link to heading
Poncho. So, here’s the deal: Russian prisoners of war, upon returning home to Russia, are subjected to pressure from security forces. In some units, it’s forbidden to talk about captivity at all, or forbidden to speak about the conditions of captivity. Well, there are, so to speak, instructions that say how they should talk—how they were tortured, and so on.
Well, we’ve seen all of this. So, in short—it’s allowed to talk about captivity, about Putin, about being captured, but they have to say what horrors supposedly took place.
Do returned Russian soldiers go back to fight? Link to heading
Second question: Do returned POWs go back to fight, or what happens to them?
Well, yes—they do go back to fight. There are some other possibilities, like, for example, serving as a propagandist who is useful on air, constantly appearing and talking about Ukrainian atrocities. But basically, yes—mostly, they go back to fight. By the way, this is different from Ukraine. In Ukraine, there is a clear, strict rule that those who return from captivity only go back to the front voluntarily; they are not forcibly sent back to fight.
On Muratov’s appeal to presidents regarding prisoner exchange Link to heading
And Welliton? Dear colleagues, I repeat my request once again. It’s not insistent, of course, but let’s say, a polite suggestion—please sign your name. Because I really can’t keep going into your account each time to figure out your actual name. Sometimes it’s even impossible. So just sign your name. Otherwise, I’ll have to call you whatever YouTube shows. For example—Valentin, please comment. And then follow quotes from Dmitry Muratov, Yulia Latynina, Vladimir Kara-Murza. This is about Dmitry Muratov’s well-known proposal. He appealed to the leaders of Russia and Ukraine to exchange civilians. I’ll quote his well-known statement: I ask the presidents of Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine and Russia—gentlemen presidents, your negotiations will continue, the negotiations of your delegations will continue. Please give each other the civilians: the anti-war prisoners sitting in Russian jails and camps, and the pro-Russian supporters held in Ukraine, in exchange for the anti-war prisoners in Russian prisons and camps. There has been no practice of mutual civilian-for-civilian exchanges. But this needs to start. Release them while they’re still alive. Start with the teenagers, the women, the sick, and those who have children waiting for them at home.
Here’s what I want to say on this matter. The situation is asymmetrical, you see? So when it comes to prisoner exchanges, the situation is already asymmetrical—because the Russian prisoners in Ukraine are occupiers who came to someone else’s land. And the Ukrainian prisoners are defenders. There’s undoubtedly an asymmetry here, but still, there’s a sort of equalization based on the principle that both are soldiers taken captive. A fundamental difference. But I’m sure Muratov knows this. The fundamental difference is that in Russia, there are several thousand Ukrainian citizens in detention—people who are held without trial and without any chance of release, because they aren’t even allowed lawyers. These are people without any status at all. Ukraine doesn’t have such cases—or at least none are known. The reason is simple: Russia occupied parts of Ukraine. And these people aren’t even prisoners in the usual sense—it’s something else entirely, a kind of timeless limbo, a completely different status.
As for the “pro-Russian” people being held in Ukraine, I assume Muratov is referring to participants in the Ukrainian project “I Want to Go Home.” These are people who worked for Russian intelligence. For example, Zhilkin has an entire video series about these collaborators whom Russia simply refuses to take back.
So this needs to be sorted out. You know, I think—we need to talk seriously about this, maybe even have a discussion with some serious human rights defenders, including Ukrainian ones. Maybe we need a meeting on our channel between Ukrainian and Russian rights activists to discuss this. Because there are so many different categories.
Unlike prisoners of war, which is a bit more straightforward—in the case of civilians, there are a vast number of different categories, and we need to clarify exactly who is being exchanged for whom. And besides, Russia doesn’t want this. Russia categorically doesn’t want this. Ukraine, on the other hand, is doing intense work to bring back its citizens first and foremost.
As for the Russian anti-war prisoners in Russian jails—well, Western human rights defenders are the ones primarily working on their behalf.
Nothing can stop Putin Link to heading
Now, questions from the stream comments. A question—from what I see, this looks like Richard. If you want me to call you by name, write your name. What do you think could stop Putin? If he launches a general mobilization, he’ll face a demoralized, scared-to-death population that won’t resist. It’ll be like the pension age hike—everyone grumbled, but accepted it. There’s no difference.
There is a fundamental difference. It’s not about whether someone will go out into the streets to protest. No. The difference is that with the pension age increase, there couldn’t really be any actual passive resistance. Because how? They just raised it—end of story. What could you do—storm the Kremlin with a fork? But in the case of mass, total mobilization—we remember how it went. There was mass flight. People just hid. So it’s not very effective. That’s why Putin avoids it. He simply understands that people are willing to go under three main conditions: either for big money—and that’s still working; or they’re convicts in exchange for freedom, or suspects in exchange for freedom; or they’re North Koreans. For now, he’s using these methods to sustain the meat-grinder assaults. But mass total mobilization would lead to mass flight. People would start hiding, some would flee the country, others would go into hiding within Russia—especially in big cities where that’s still possible.
Could Russia start arming its shadow fleet tankers? Link to heading
Event Harrison: I wonder what Estonia will do when there’s another attempt to seize a tanker? Will they shoot down a helicopter with a MANPADS? Who will Tallinn declare war on if the ship was sailing under the Gabonese flag, owned by a Cypriot offshore, and the missile was launched by an FBK fighter registered in the Cayman Islands?
Well, let me respond to your wit, dear colleagues, like this: I think there will be an investigation. A tanker is not a needle, and measures will be taken in regard to that tanker. And it’s not just Estonia involved—where are these tankers? They’re in waters largely controlled by NATO armed forces. So shooting something down with a MANPADS would be rather difficult. So I think there will be an investigation, the tanker will be identified, and it will be seized in connection with the crime. I believe Estonia is a NATO member. So I think NATO does have ways to deal with this kind of disguised tanker.
On the number of Black Nobel laureates Link to heading
Arkady Mikhailov: A question for you, related to the topic of reverse discrimination you mentioned in your stream. How many Black Nobel Prize winners do you think there are in the leading disciplines—Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine?
Well, let’s put it this way. Of course, over the entire history of the prize, there have only been 14 Black Nobel laureates. Of those, 10 received the Peace Prize, three the Literature Prize, and one—sociologist Arthur Lewis—received the Prize in Economics. So. I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to prove. Are you trying to prove that reverse discrimination doesn’t exist? Well, that’s not the right method. Yes, Nobel Prizes are not awarded on that basis. Or rather, let’s say—in the natural sciences, no, they’re not. But overall, when it comes to a number of other prizes, including literary and film awards, yes—there is reverse discrimination, where, all else being equal, the award goes to a minority representative. That’s a fact. I don’t quite understand what you’re trying to prove. But there—you have your answer. Does this prove that reverse discrimination doesn’t exist? No, it doesn’t. Does it prove that reverse discrimination is always a positive thing? I understand its reasons—I’ve explained them in detail.
Comment on the video about non-Russians fighting for Russia Link to heading
Pan Stepan. Question: Have you seen the 40-second video online, filmed by soldiers at the front, where they laugh and say, “We’re fighting for Russia, and there’s not a single Russian here”? There are people from various ethnic groups, including Yakuts.
I don’t know how to respond exactly. But yes, I can say right away that I’ve seen that clip. Yes, it’s quite telling. While it’s probably not highly representative overall, it’s still a fact.
How can Russia’s small indigenous peoples resist Russification? Link to heading
So, next. Stepan writes: I believe that Putin’s policy toward indigenous and small ethnic groups is a major crime among the list of his crimes. This applies both to sending them to the front and, more broadly, to the renewed policy of Russification. Do you think these peoples have a chance to survive and preserve their culture under these conditions? Is there any resistance at the grassroots level?
Dear Pan Stepan! As for resistance—it exists, but it’s very ineffective. As for the chances of survival and cultural preservation—well, let’s put it this way, the list of peoples that have disappeared in Russia is already quite long. But again, it varies. For example, the Yakuts have a 100% guarantee of preserving themselves and their culture in the foreseeable future. I think there are different levels of ability to preserve culture. The Yakuts—100%, a full guarantee. Udmurts, for example—less so. The degree and level of national self-awareness and resistance to Russification vary among different peoples. This is connected to history, the presence of past statehood, population size, national identity, and so on. But overall—yes, the process of Russification is definitely underway, and the war has intensified it. So the danger is real for various peoples, though it manifests with different degrees of severity.
Is it valid to use historical examples when evaluating current events? Link to heading
Igor asks: I believe I have a timely question and would like a detailed answer. Right now, it’s common in discussions to use historical examples and analogies as arguments. You yourself sometimes use this method. Please justify why such an approach can be considered acceptable. Don’t you think there’s some dishonesty in it? Or even worse—oversimplification? In my deep conviction, nothing stays the same over time. People change, circumstances change. The same person might act differently in similar situations. Are we right to make assumptions and predictions based on past examples? Couldn’t that be misleading—or even a trap for a thinking person?
Dear namesake, I’ll make two points in response to your request for a detailed answer. I don’t know how detailed it will seem to you, but here’s the first thesis: when historical arguments are used to prove the correctness of some political position—like saying, “once upon a time, there was a certain power in this country, so now we must change something”—that’s unacceptable. Everything Putin, Medinsky, and Russian propaganda do when they try to use history as a club in political arguments—that’s completely unacceptable.
But when it comes to historical analogies and attempts to find answers in history to understand today—that’s perfectly normal. Because there is such a thing as the historical consciousness of a people. I literally just said that different peoples have different levels of resistance to Russification, and that is rooted in their histories. Some peoples had statehood, a developed language, and so on—and therefore greater resistance. Others didn’t.
Moreover, while you say everything changes, you know—there are also stable sociocultural practices that change very little. So I believe historical research is very helpful for understanding what’s happening now. In journalism, it’s perfectly appropriate. And in science, too, it’s a valid method. But using it as legal justification is not acceptable.
For example, saying that Crimea once belonged to the Russian Empire or the RSFSR and therefore should be returned—that’s absurd. That must not be done. But using historical research to understand what’s going on—that’s allowed. That really works.
What theory of the origin of life does the author adhere to? Link to heading
Natalia. Wow, what a question. I’d like to know your opinion on the origin of life on Earth. I’m also, like you, an atheistic agnostic, but I can’t answer this question for myself. I understand it requires a broad answer, but maybe just in general strokes.
Dear Natalia! I can say right away that I don’t consider myself a professional in this field. Moreover, as far as I know, there are different viewpoints on the matter. I can only give a very brief answer. I’m a proponent of what’s called chemical evolution. Again, that’s my layperson’s view, but I think it’s also tied to certain worldview aspects. And to me, the theory of chemical evolution—or so-called biological evolution, referring to the stage preceding the emergence of life, during which organic compounds arose from inorganic molecules—seems convincing.
That is, everything that was present in the secondary atmosphere: hydrogen sulfide, methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, hydrogen, water vapor, and so on. This chemical environment that formed in the secondary atmosphere, under the influence of external energy sources—lightning, natural radioactivity (which, by the way, was significantly higher during that early period in which life began, spanning several billion years), volcanic activity, ultraviolet radiation, etc.—gave rise to selection factors and processes of self-organization that are typical of almost all relatively complex systems.
So, approximately—that’s the general direction you asked for, in broad strokes. That’s about what I can offer. A more specific answer, of course, would require something like a science lecture. I don’t know—maybe, but that would need different resources, especially in terms of time. So, that’s my view: I’m a firm and convinced supporter of chemical—or what’s sometimes called “prebiotic”—evolution, meaning the emergence of organic compounds from inorganic molecules.
What would have happened if Prigozhin had seized power in Russia? Link to heading
Andrey: What do you think—did Prigozhin have a chance of success in June 2023? And what would have happened if he had suddenly seized power in Russia?
You know, I think he simply didn’t have that goal—he just didn’t. So this thought experiment—what if he had seized power in Russia?—doesn’t quite apply, because he wasn’t preparing for it. That scenario seems a bit far-fetched to me.
But still, if the criminal Prigozhin had had serious political ambitions, then I think his behavior would’ve been different. He would’ve looked for allies, he would’ve prepared differently. And in that case, yes, I think he would’ve had a chance—at least to overthrow the current regime temporarily. He had a chance. His standing with the army was fairly positive.
So again, if he had had those plans, I think he could’ve done it—formed a military junta, most likely. Yes. So, if we’re speculating and imagining that Prigozhin wasn’t just heading to a criminal showdown with Putin demanding the Defense Ministry resume funding his gang from the state budget—if he had actual plans to seize political power—then yes, I think he would’ve had a chance. A military junta was quite possible in the context of 2023.
Accusation against the author of ignoring Ukrainian problems Link to heading
Yuriy: Tell me, why in none of your broadcasts have you or your guests ever addressed the issue of legal lawlessness—or rather, the lack of rights and justice—in Ukraine? Now, due to Russian aggression and mobilization, this problem has reached an unprecedented level: corruption and lawlessness have split society. This issue is no less significant than the Russian occupiers. You’d have to be blind not to see what’s happening on the internet—thousands of videos of people being beaten in the streets and thrown into vans, and so on. The silence of Ukrainian journalists and public figures is understandable. The Constitution is on pause, freedom of speech is on pause, and as for politicians—there’s nothing even to say. But you’re not blind. How can you ignore this? Your silence partially undermines your efforts to stand on the side of good and to be objective.
Well, first of all, I want to say that I disagree. I’m certainly not blind—I see those clips, I see those videos—but I don’t agree with your fundamental claim that this issue is no less significant than the Russian occupiers. I believe that the Russian occupiers are the core issue here.
Before answering your question about why I don’t raise this topic, I would separate two issues: corruption, and what you’re calling lawlessness. First, Ukrainian society does push back against certain negative phenomena. Second, the problem of corruption isn’t directly tied to the war. The problem of lawlessness, as you describe it—if it exists—is connected to the war. So these are different problems.
I categorically disagree with the claim that this problem is on par with Russian occupation. Absolutely not.
My position is very simple. I believe there are people in Ukraine who are already discussing these issues. And Ukraine still has freedom of speech—there are ways to discuss them. I don’t believe it’s my task to do that. I’ve clearly defined this for myself: this is Ukraine’s internal issue, and Ukraine will deal with it. I don’t see any need to address this question myself. That’s it.
Again—I don’t believe that I must address every issue in the world. And this is one I do not need to address. As a citizen of the aggressor country, I find it inappropriate to interfere in Ukraine’s internal politics or to assess its politicians—except those who are outright traitors. That’s a topic I am willing to discuss.
As for what’s happening there—yes, of course, in wartime, rights and freedoms don’t coexist well. When you say the Constitution is on pause, freedom of speech is on pause—I’m somewhat inclined to agree. Because war and freedom and human rights are poorly compatible under such conditions. The primary human right—the right to life—is violated. Freedom of movement is restricted, freedom of speech is limited by military censorship—all of that exists.
So I don’t see any reason to focus deliberately on Ukraine’s domestic politics. I’ve said that before. If you believe that undermines my efforts to be on the side of good—that’s your position.
Accusation against the author for criticizing Ukrainian leadership Link to heading
A question from Flame of Victory. Why are you making the exact opposite point? Or rather, the exact opposite accusation: Why are you saying they have shortcomings? That Ukrainians should do this or that—as if they don’t know themselves what to do. That foreign broadcasting and the diaspora are good—but you end up sounding like you’re making excuses. Didn’t you say you were refraining from criticizing the Ukrainian leadership for now?
Dear colleague! First of all, together with Mikhail Mikhaylovich, I don’t set out to criticize Ukraine. Contrary to what you say, I simply asked him a question—and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one—about what he sees as the main mistakes. My main question was: what mistakes does Mykhailo Podolyak see in the actions of Ukraine’s leadership? Is that an illegitimate question? No—it’s a normal question from one journalist to another, or to an adviser to the president, in this case.
As for my suggestion that the diaspora and international broadcasting should be used more actively—I still believe that. Your claim that “they already know what to do”—well, pardon me, but if authorities always know everything, then what’s the point of journalists or sociologists at all? I think it’s important. I see this as an issue—and this is not criticism I’m withholding of the Ukrainian leadership. It’s well-intentioned advice. And I believe that using a conversation with a representative of the Ukrainian government to offer such advice is absolutely appropriate.
So I don’t see the issue here. It’s not criticism—it’s constructive advice. Can you feel the difference?
How many Russians support the war and the idea that Ukrainians should not live independently Link to heading
Sokol Kruzhkin. “And who gave you permission to live better than us?” — this is a phrase once thrown by someone named Shvets at a Ukrainian plenary meeting, and it was mentioned by a commentator on a Ukrainian YouTube channel. It stuck with me — if you omit the last two words, it becomes a phrase that essentially expresses the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry, echoed as a refrain since the very beginning. The word ‘denazification’ in this context means that no one in Ukraine should live without the Kremlin’s permission. Sociology doesn’t work in Russia, so I’ll ask for your impressions. What do you think, as of today, what is the approximate percentage of peaceful Russian citizens — I emphasize, peaceful, meaning not in uniform — who hold the same opinion? What percentage are against it? What percentage are neutral?
Well, look, there’s a whole range of indirect evidence that shows there are supporters. Now, you’ve cited an extreme statement — that is, people who believe that Ukrainians shouldn’t live at all. But I would say the number of supporters of that exact phrasing, I don’t know. That would require a proper study, which is impossible under our current conditions. In general, as I’ve already said, according to my estimates — and there’s indirect proof and a range of studies — about 20% are against the war. These are people in internal exile, so to speak, or in prison. Meaning they’re not heard or seen. And if they are seen, they end up in prison right away. But according to indirect estimates, about 20%. The main mass is the silent majority. And roughly 20% are viewers and fans of Solovyov, Kiselyov, Kabaeva, Medvedev — all those ghouls. How many among those 20% are people who just really want to kill all Ukrainians? That’s a question that needs research. I don’t know. But about 20% are active supporters — those ghouls who want more war and a more decisive war with Ukraine than Putin is waging today. Nuclear bombs, mobilization, and so on. What matters is the fact. These 20% ghouls and approximately 60% of the silent majority together make up the support base. So you can say that 80% is the real support for the war. Because people who bury their heads in the sand and try to distance themselves, saying “this has nothing to do with me,” in fact represent silent support. From a moral standpoint, of course, there’s a difference between passive silence and active support. But politically, what difference does it make to Putin whether support is active or passive? So, politically, I would like to separate this. Politically speaking, support for the war is 80%, including the silent majority. Morally, of course, there is a difference between those who just silently comply and those who actively support. But that doesn’t matter to Putin. He’s satisfied with this 80% majority, including the 60% silent majority.
Can silent Russians be called accomplices to crimes Link to heading
Friend of a Chekist. Please comment on the following thesis: If peaceful Russians cannot, do not want to, or fail to notice the endless stream of terrorists flooding into Ukrainian land, then they are not peaceful — they are accomplices.
You know, it’s not by chance that you call yourself “friend of a Chekist,” because your judgments are quite extreme. I just said that these passive people who don’t care about anything are, in fact, the support base. But they cannot be called accomplices. There is a difference, you see? What you’re saying now — that kind of statement devalues the concept of complicity. This is a classic example of the argument that since there is no widespread resistance among Russians, then everyone is basically the same — war criminals and those who just passively live without storming the Kremlin with a pitchfork. You know, that’s a huge gift to Putin and a huge gift to the war criminals. An enormous gift. Because if everyone is guilty, then no one is guilty. Do you understand? That disgusting slogan, “I don’t want to sort through types of crap” — well, don’t sort it, then. But by doing so, you’re giving a tremendous gift to the war criminals. Because if you don’t want to distinguish between types of crap and call everyone accomplices — not peaceful, but accomplices — then you’re essentially making it impossible to single out and categorize war criminals separately, because everyone is guilty: peaceful people, soldiers, everyone. Do you realize what you’re doing? If the aftermath of World War II had been handled that way, and if all Germans had been condemned at the Nuremberg trials, it would have been a colossal gift to the main war criminals who were hanged. Because “all Germans were guilty,” right? Do you see what you’re doing? I just want to draw your attention to the fact that a differentiated approach is very important. It’s essential to separate the main war criminals — those who initiated and unleashed the war, primarily Putin — from the war criminals who committed crimes, from participants in the war — that’s a separate category. Then a third category: those who worked in military factories. A fourth category: propagandists, who are closely connected. All those who were the core of the Putin regime, and so on. And finally, people who bear moral responsibility. And here, I don’t exempt myself from those who, living in Russia, protest against this or live in internal exile. But these are different things, you understand? Different people. There must be a differentiated approach. You say you don’t distinguish between types of crap. I say a differentiated approach is the only possible way to eradicate Putinism. So let’s not give gifts to war criminals by equating them with peaceful citizens.
The author’s attitude toward The Master and Margarita Link to heading
Okay, two questions about literature. You up for it? A question from Anzhela. You said you don’t discuss literature, but what is your attitude toward Bulgakov and The Master and Margarita?
Well, what can I say? I hold Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita in very high regard. It was a significant event in my life. You say you don’t believe in God, but The Master and Margarita has nothing to do with religion. The fact that religious themes are touched upon — that’s an artistic device. I think The Master and Margarita was an important event in my life. It’s one of those books that had a serious impact on me. So my attitude is the same as toward Heart of a Dog, and others. Bulgakov is truly a major, important writer. I’m not going to — again, I’ll say that for me, literary criticism is an undesirable area because it’s full of subjectivity. I don’t consider my literary tastes a standard by any means. That’s why I try not to talk about it too much.
The author’s favorite poets Link to heading
Oh! So, Yulia? I’ve noticed you often quote Mayakovsky. I like him too — or rather, some of his poems, like the lyrical ones or the one about how life will pass, like those islands and all that. Are there poets you feel close to? Who are they? Pasternak, Shelley, Eduard Asadov, Byron, Brodsky? Personally, I’m swept away by Pasternak — does he affect you in any way?
Again, Yulia, I’m very reluctant to talk about my literary preferences. Once again, because I don’t consider my literary tastes to be particularly refined or exemplary. For me, what matters — what’s important — is Mandelshtam, in particular, if we’re talking about poets who’ve had an influence on me. Mandelshtam is important, Brodsky is important, Pasternak is important. The classics, of course, are also important. But I would probably still single out Mandelshtam. I’ll go back to my idea of the instrumental workshop. At one time, Einstein said that for him, Dostoevsky was more important than — I don’t remember — maybe some mathematician. Because Dostoevsky stimulates thought. For me, Mandelshtam is someone who stirs thought. His metaphors, his incompleteness — they make you think. That’s very useful. And Pasternak, certainly, too. And Brodsky as well. In this sense, the literary harmony you find in Pushkin, for example, provokes less creative thought. You know, what I see here is the reason for the emergence of modernism, of abstract cynicism. Because in the collapse of modernity — especially after the First and Second World Wars — harmony was broken. And that literary form found in Pushkin, Lermontov, Byron, Shakespeare — it reflects modernity to a lesser degree. Modernity is reflected in those fragmented literary forms you find in Pasternak, Mandelshtam, and Brodsky. That’s closer to me than the classics. Again, I’m not imposing anything — that’s just my perspective. It’s part of my creative laboratory. Pasternak is part of that laboratory. Pushkin is not — with all due respect to him as the founder of the Russian language.
On Jung’s mystical practices Link to heading
A question from Artyom What is your opinion on the phenomenon Jung called “synchronistic” — that is, irrational, mystical events that occur in life? And generally, the mystical themes in Jung. I’d like to hear your comment.
You know, I draw a very strict line, for example, regarding Jung’s fascination with alchemy. And as far as I understand, that fascination was, I’d say, of a technical nature. Let’s put it this way: all of this psychotherapeutic technique — and I emphasize, technique — like Jung’s so-called active imagination technique, essentially developed certain methods of entering a trance state. You see, when someone enters a trance or engages in relaxation, for example, certain technical methods are used — such as, typically, imagining a warm ball that moves through your hands, through your body, and so on. But that doesn’t mean you actually believe that a warm ball exists. It’s a technique. And in Jung’s case, I think it was a method — a technical method. So I definitely do not want to equate his use of technologies of a mystical nature — as trance-inducing techniques — with those of mystics or esoteric thinkers who treat this mysticism as reality. I don’t equate them. Jung’s teaching is fundamentally different from classical esotericism — like, say, Ouspensky — in that for Jung, it was a technique, a mechanism for relaxation, for example. So it’s something entirely different. As for his specific statements on alchemy, I believe he also used it as a mechanism for some kind of historical study, and so on. So, overall, I don’t think Jung can be placed in the same category as esoterics like even Castaneda or others. He was still a scholar, unlike those classical mystics whose work is completely unscientific.
Assessment of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations Link to heading
Well, once again, I’m not sure how to properly address the person who asked the question — it came through to me as “Kaban.” Will you answer the question — what is your opinion on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations? Can you keep it brief?
Well, dear colleague, if briefly — I’ll reply with a cliché. The relations are bad. How else can you answer this question? Either you give a lecture on the history and current state of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, or you simply say: the relations are bad — very bad.
Why Rubio is assessed negatively Link to heading
So? Yevgeny Matuzov Despite my dislike for Rubio, he is now a diplomat, not a senator. A diplomat participates in negotiations but doesn’t call things by their real names. Rubio may have sold his soul to the devil — Trump — but I don’t think that’s the case here. Not when he refuses to call Putin a war criminal on camera. Negotiators with terrorists, trying to save hostages, also won’t call them what they are. Attention! I’m not evaluating the effectiveness or usefulness of negotiations with Putin. I’m evaluating Rubio’s role and his corresponding discourse. And I don’t understand how you connect the role and effectiveness of negotiations with Rubio’s position. That’s what I don’t understand.
Let’s put the dots over the i’s, dear Yevgeny. Look, by “selling his soul to the devil,” specifically Trump, I mean that Rubio is engaged in an absolutely harmful activity. He’s creating the illusion of negotiations. He supports the illusion — the illusion that it’s possible to negotiate with Putin. And, by the way, he took part in that disgraceful scene in the Oval Office, where he, along with Trump, mocked Zelensky. He was a part of that, you see? And the fact that he supports this illusion of negotiations, and the fact that — as I’ve said in the main part of the stream — what’s happening now is essentially a creeping Munich, and Rubio supports this creeping Munich. That’s it. And no arguments about him being a diplomat, or this being negotiations with terrorists — well, yes. But they are absolutely ineffective. They have no prospects. That’s exactly why I think it’s bad. And the fact that he refuses to call Putin a criminal on camera — that’s bad. I think that’s bad. Because what, he’s not a criminal? Everything’s fine? A good guy? Just making mistakes? This is precisely why a proper plan to end the war isn’t being implemented — a plan involving truly serious sanctions on the one hand, and most importantly, providing Ukraine with a large amount of weapons. That’s the issue. That’s why I insist that Rubio has sold his soul to the devil and is now taking a position that’s extremely harmful — to Ukraine, and to the entire world.
Was it justified to vote for Trump, even as a protest vote? On electoral systems. Link to heading
Question from IRA In your streams, you sometimes express the idea that American voters caused a massive headache for the whole world by electing Trump. In my view, that criticism isn’t entirely fair, since many votes for Trump were protest votes — that is, against Harris. So my question is more about aligning perspectives. In my view of an electoral system, there must be a mechanism for voters to send unwanted candidates “the Russian warship route.” That could be a “none of the above” option or a minimum turnout threshold below which elections are invalid. What does an ideal electoral system look like to you? Which countries would you cite as examples of systems close to that ideal?
Dear colleague! First of all, I don’t see what your objection is to the idea that American voters caused a headache for the whole world by electing Trump, especially if your explanation is that the vote for Trump was largely a protest vote. You’re trying to explain the reasons behind the foolish decision made by 77 million American voters. But the reasons for that foolishness don’t cancel the fact that it was foolish — or at the very least, that it caused serious harm. You’re explaining the reasons, and I understand that. I understand the reasoning. It’s like that classic interpersonal thesis: understanding does not mean forgiving. I get it. But that doesn’t undo the damage American voters inflicted — primarily on the United States itself, and on the whole world, by extension. That’s all. So yes, it was a protest vote — quite right. But you know, it’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Protest vote. Russian voters used to vote for LDPR as a protest. And so on. It’s that kind of story.
Now, as for electoral systems. There is no single ideal electoral system, because an electoral system can’t be separated from society — from its socio-cultural and historical background. Personally, I like the electoral systems of the Scandinavian countries. But that doesn’t mean they can be mechanically transplanted elsewhere. The United States, for example, is essentially made up of 50 different countries — the states are very different from one another. It can’t adopt an electoral system from more uniform countries like those in Scandinavia. Yes, they’re multi-ethnic too, but still relatively small and mono-structured states. The U.S., of course, can’t have such a system. But at the same time, yes — there are serious flaws. And those flaws are manifesting in the deep political crisis we’re witnessing in the United States today.
If we’re talking about preferences — as I said, Scandinavian countries. If we’re talking about a much tougher question, it’s this: to what extent does a country’s socio-cultural foundation contradict its electoral system? That’s a question that requires a huge and very interesting study. Back in the early 2000s, we conducted such a study — not as part of a party, but specifically about Russia — it was called “The Constitutional Structure of Russia.” It was naive. I understood full well who Putin was, but it was an attempt — something like Speransky — an attempt to create an optimal constitution for Russia. I led that project myself. Among the participants were Georgy Satarov, Mikhail Fedotov. At that time, Fedotov still seemed like a decent person to me. So yes, it was a major study. We even published a book. Of course, it had no practical effect. But it was a serious effort.
So — one thing is my personal preferences. Another is how well a given electoral system fits the socio-cultural foundations of a specific country. What works in Switzerland, for example, is absolutely unacceptable in the U.S. — for obvious reasons.
Did Harvard break the law Link to heading
So, by the way — “Kerry” is what this person calls themselves. Harvard refused to release the names of participants in antisemitic demonstrations. As I understand it, this refers to Alexander Filippenko. That’s why all foreigners were banned from the university. The question is: why weren’t the names released?
Well. Let’s put it this way — I’m not sure anyone actually refused anything. And by the way, I don’t understand why Harvard would be expected to do that. If the law was broken, it’s a matter for the police, for investigative authorities.
Is Harvard prohibited from educating foreign students Link to heading
And here I can immediately address both questions at once. The second question is also related to Harvard. A question from Lena Bobkova. I’ll answer both at once. Igor Aleksandrovich, Trump didn’t ban foreign students from studying — he banned Harvard from issuing student visas.
Dear Elena! That’s what you call “six of one, half a dozen of the other.” No, he didn’t kill — he hanged. No, he didn’t rob — he forcibly took the property. Banning Harvard from issuing student visas is effectively a ban on educating foreign students, because a foreign student cannot enter or remain in the United States without a student visa. Period. So this is just a misunderstanding on your part.
On the harm of attacking Harvard Link to heading
Now, regarding the overall issue — yes, and here’s another question from Dimon, also about Harvard. So I’ll answer right away. Dimon essentially asks: Why should taxpayers fund this monstrosity that steals billions annually from the deficit-ridden state budget? In the end, it’s dominated by pro-Palestinian leftists. I’m just wondering what exactly Trump did that was so terrible. Should we keep training, with grants, a guard of lawyers who will then call for Israel to be destroyed?
Dear Dimon, judging by your comment, you simply don’t understand what Harvard is. Let me address what’s happening there. Any antisemitic incidents are matters for police investigation — of specific individuals. No one in Harvard’s administration is capable of shielding criminals from the police. It’s not like Harvard is some kind of fortress hiding criminals. If there are statements about, as you put it, “destroying Israel,” those individuals should be prosecuted. If they’re foreigners, they should be deported. There should be proper investigation of specific offenders.
Now, as for Harvard — when you see something unpleasant happening there, just take a moment to look up some publications on what Harvard actually is. Harvard has produced 75 Nobel laureates — 75! And cutting off its funding is a crime. Harvard has produced eight U.S. presidents. Harvard is one of the greatest treasures of American culture and science. Destroying it is idiocy. This is part of Trump’s idiocy — alongside a serious, serious assault on science. Trump has waged a major attack on science, appointing, for instance, someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a deeply ignorant fool — as a health minister. A man who is destroying entire branches of science, particularly in medicine, which are in fact a source of pride for the United States.
Stripping Harvard of funding and banning foreign students — let me remind you again: 75 Nobel laureates. That’s like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m talking about Trump, of course. You support him because you don’t understand what Harvard is. Sure, one can be skeptical of the fact that it has produced eight presidents — but let me note, not only left-wing presidents. There were Republicans, too. So this is just foolishness.
As for fighting antisemitism — yes, that’s something the police can and should do. And yes, Harvard’s resistance to external interference is rooted in one of the core principles of democracy: the autonomy of universities. That’s one of democracy’s cornerstones. Influence? Yes — some moral condemnation may be necessary. In the case of real antisemitism, police intervention is absolutely necessary. And in such a case, Harvard’s administration would not be able to resist if the police came in to arrest those committing antisemitic acts. That’s entirely normal — and academic autonomy doesn’t prevent it.
But this idiotic ban on foreign students? That’s sheer stupidity, plain and simple. And the motive is obvious: America’s intellectuals oppose Trump — they oppose an ignorant demagogue who spreads chaos. They oppose Trump. And Trump fights intellectuals, Trump fights education, Trump fights medicine, Trump fights science in the U.S. by slashing funding — including for universities.
So, you see, we need to look into things — not just follow populist opinions and sound bites. I believe that addresses the questions related to Harvard, yes?
On the scandal Trump caused toward the president of South Africa Link to heading
And here’s another question from Dimon: If Trump says an apple falls because it’s green, should we cancel the law of universal gravitation? Alexander the Great was a hero, sure — but why break the chairs? What, is something not happening in South Africa? A creeping expulsion of the white population. If no one’s fleeing Lithuania, we’ve got plenty here on Cyprus. Of course, you can sympathize with the poor and oppressed. And Mandela is, of course, immortal — but where is all this leading? Let the country go to hell for its leftist ideas. And yet it used to be an oasis.
Dear Dimon! What I was talking about in this case is a very simple matter. I feel no joy, no sympathy for what’s happening to the white population in South Africa. But first of all, when Trump lashed out, he simply lied outright — because of his pathological ignorance, illiteracy, and stupidity. He cited, as proof, events that didn’t even happen in South Africa, all those crosses. I explained in detail what actually happened — Trump, in the Oval Office, started attacking Ramaphosa. Why? For what purpose? What’s the point of creating a scandal when someone’s come to visit you? Especially when he lied about everything. When he showed that video with the crosses and claimed a thousand white farmers were buried there — that’s a lie. It was a protest installation — crosses along a road, under which there were no graves. It was staged in protest over the murder of two farmers — for which the perpetrator is already in prison.
So no one is claiming everything is fine in South Africa — it’s not. But Trump used absolutely fake, staged videos. His attack was an exact remake of his attack on Zelensky. It’s idiocy — to invite a president to a meeting and then publicly scold him on camera. I think that’s a great way to isolate the United States even more. So once again, I’ll reiterate: I’m not a supporter of policies that oppress the white population of South Africa — not at all. But what Trump did was idiotic. That’s all. And, as usual — a lie. And that’s already been proven.
On the morality of actions by the Israeli army Link to heading
So, a few questions about Israel. Anton: You misunderstood my question about the moral right to strike militants — the backdrop being Israel’s struggle, maybe even a civil war of sorts. Under what circumstances is it justified? Or unjustified? Personally, I agree with everything you said — I’m Israeli. Thank you for your position. Still, if we try to find a moral mirror to evaluate the situation — what is the moral compass here? How can we assess what Israel is doing as right or wrong? My personal opinion is that proportionality matters. Even things like prisoner exchanges — 1,000 for 1. But still, what is your compass? How to navigate the moral side of this? I believe in the humanitarian core of our army, but some tactics — warning messages, deploying ground troops when they didn’t have to — speak for themselves. What are your standards?
Well, to put it briefly. Look, your original question was a quantitative one. In my view, it was a question — you know, there are some questions that simply shouldn’t be asked because they are wrong by design. Your question was quantitative: what exact number of civilians do I consider acceptable to eliminate Hamas? You see, that’s an absurd question. Should I say a thousand? Then I’m a bloodthirsty monster who thinks killing a thousand civilians is fine? Or should I say a million? Or ten? What should I say? How do you expect such a question to be answered? I believe it’s impossible to give a numerical answer. The question can only be addressed qualitatively.
In every case, yes, of course, when eliminating Hamas, some number of people will die who are not militants. I’ve already addressed this at length. Hamas today isn’t just armed fighters — it’s also an entire infrastructure, and people who support it. I would very much like to know how many among those who attacked on October 7 — those who slaughtered, killed, and took hostages — how many were actual Hamas militants and how many were just teenagers or so-called civilians. They were there. And how do you draw the line? Where’s the boundary? Many of those people supported Hamas, celebrated, cheered — we saw that. We saw the reaction in Gaza. There are videos of them welcoming it all with joy. They supported it. You see?
So in Gaza, the line between Hamas militants and so-called civilians is very blurred. That’s the first point. Second — a crucial feature of Gaza, what makes it radically different from other theaters of war, is that Hamas militants are embedded within civilian infrastructure. They’re there. The tunnel system makes it nearly impossible to extract the militants without civilian casualties.
In the end, Israel is defending itself. It’s saving its own citizens’ lives. And how do you do that without civilian casualties occurring alongside militant deaths? Tell me, during World War II, what number of civilian deaths was considered “acceptable” when attacking German cities? No one said that, no one did that, no one set such parameters. Of course, in every war there are war crimes. And when people claim exceptions — like, “the Ukrainian army doesn’t commit war crimes” — I don’t know, I don’t investigate these things. But I do know for sure: in every major, bloody war, crimes happen. That’s obvious.
And yes, of course, they happen. But trying to establish some numerical benchmark — I find that absurd. I don’t think it’s really my place to decide. I think that’s the job of Israeli society, of the Israeli police, of Israeli intelligence, of the Israeli army — to investigate war crimes when they happen. And they do happen — in every war. Wars are not fought in white gloves, and not by angels.
So I believe that’s a question, in the end, for Israeli civil society, for Israeli human rights defenders, and for Israel’s prosecutor’s office — which is perfectly capable of investigating such crimes.
The author’s attitude toward Netanyahu Link to heading
A question from Aleksandr. Also about the justification of actions in Gaza. If you live for many years — even decades — in a besieged fortress, lifting the siege will inevitably disrupt the way of life you’ve developed. But for those who deliver goods, weapons, etc., to the fortress, it would simply be a blow to their economic interests. But the right-wing government — and it’s been the only one for nearly 30 years — is not interested in those who genuinely want to destroy Israel, like Hamas with their jihad, but rather in declaring: “Look, these people can’t be negotiated with.” A nightmare scenario would be if moderates appeared on the other side and said, “We recognize your right to exist, we’re ending armed attacks, let’s negotiate over territories.” You once answered a question about Zheglov and Sharapov. Well, now Zheglov is in power in Israel. Remember the description Gruzdev gave of Zheglov? “To him, people are garbage.” For the current government, people are garbage. Not only Arabs in Gaza. The Russian-speaking world doesn’t see that a Gaza resident may have just one-fifth of a mug of water a day. But the world knows. And the hostages too — there are countless cases of hostages and their relatives being insulted and forcibly removed from cabinet meetings. And the protesters too. In short, everyone except the loyal supporters of this government.
Dear Aleksandr! I don’t understand what the question is. If you’re trying to tell me that you’re against Netanyahu’s government — well, I don’t like Netanyahu either. I really don’t. And I’ve repeatedly expressed my negative attitude toward Netanyahu’s government. What more can I say? I’ve been criticized and insulted many times by Netanyahu’s supporters for this. What can I do? I sincerely don’t understand what the question is, dear Aleksandr.
On the author’s teaching experience Link to heading
So. Viktor Kats: Mr. Yakovenko. A question — you didn’t answer the last three questions. Now explain to me, a simpleton, what new can be heard from the Mordovian fascists? Degradation of the Pacific Fleet.
Well, I don’t even know. I’ve just been reminded that a question from Viktor on May 20 was left unanswered. That question was: As a professor, did you ever make a deal with your conscience?
No, I didn’t. And I can’t say that’s any special merit of mine. The fact is, with rare exceptions, I only occasionally held a full-time teaching position. I did have some periods when I was officially on staff, but for the most part, my 45-year teaching career consisted of me being almost always a part-timer. So I had no administrative responsibilities. And that probably helped me never to have to compromise my conscience.
There were cases — for example, during my time teaching at MGIMO — when I failed a student or refused to give credit. And no one ever pressured me. I just knew that student would go take the exam with another professor. That happened. Sure, I could’ve staged a protest in front of MGIMO and said I was against it. I didn’t do that. There were students at MGIMO from very influential families. And sometimes, those students — the ones I gave failing grades to — would simply go and pass with someone else, often the department chair. I knew that. But in those cases, I followed a simple principle: you know, the coming of evil into the world is inevitable, but woe unto the one through whom it comes. And it didn’t come through me.
Restoring universal historical justice — that’s a separate matter. If that counts as compromising one’s conscience, then yes, that happened. But I never personally did anything I considered wrong. I never said things I didn’t believe. I never built relationships with students based on personal gain or self-interest. So no, there were no such deals with my conscience.
As for Viktor’s other question — what new can be heard from Mordovian fascists — I don’t know. I’m interested in research, in understanding what they are. One must know their enemy. So whether or not it’s something new — research matters.
Do those who left condemn those who stayed Link to heading
And the comments? A question: All those who left and settled in democratic countries denounce those who stayed behind and call for heavenly punishment upon our heads. Naturally, those who left are enterprising and talented — but not everyone can just pack up and go. We’re not needed there. We don’t have your talents, so we stay here and drink the water. By uncompromising logic, we bear responsibility for what the state does. Right?
Dear colleague, the only thing I want to say is that I include myself in that responsibility. You’re being somewhat unfair to me. The fact is, I also count myself among those who bear responsibility. I don’t draw a line — once again, if you read or heard something like that from me, then it’s a misunderstanding, because I’ve never said it. I do not separate myself from those who stayed in Russia. I absolutely do not consider myself better than those who remained. Yes, I managed to leave. Others didn’t. But I don’t see myself as better than anyone who stayed in Russia.
Let me stress again — what you’re suggesting is simply not something I’ve ever said. I consider myself equally responsible for what is happening in Russia — for what the state is doing. That idiotic phrase — “you go to the store, so you support it with your taxes” — that phrase doesn’t resonate with me either. Right now I’ve been cut off — the state has cut me off from itself — but I don’t believe you are more responsible than I am.
On affirmative action Link to heading
Antonina. So here’s the message: I said. SOLOMIN and the Scarecrow bowed and, waving, got covered in birds with a hat. They won. You presented the concept of affirmative action in strict accordance with the views of deranged provocateurs — and then were outraged that it sounded like nonsense. Yes, I agree. I agree that what you said was nonsense. But what does that have to do with what this concept actually is? I’ll just say that affirmative action is legally practiced in countries like Singapore, China, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, and so on — countries not exactly known for rampant liberalism or for frightening nervous prophets with aggressive multiculturalism and the tyranny of tolerance. That fact alone is enough to refute the claim that affirmative action is a delusion of traumatized liberal victims who’ve taken over top universities in the U.S., Western Europe, etc. Of course, there are serious problems — just like with democracy in general. Why throw out the baby with the dirty water? The real problems begin when idiots like Trump try to restore justice. I’ll say this for myself personally. And so on. So, yes, this is a compliment. But then? Sometimes you slip into shaky ground — amateurism. I’m no expert in diversity, equality, and inclusion either. But I’d be interested in hearing from someone who is.
Dear Antonina, I honestly don’t understand what scarecrows have to do with this. I’m firmly convinced that the concept of affirmative action includes distortions and excesses. That Trump is worse — I’ll repeat again — Trump is worse than those excesses associated with affirmative action. But it’s a historical fact that there has often been a kind of demonstrative appointment to certain positions — where the only distinguishing factor is that the person belongs to a minority, be it a sexual minority, transgender people, Black individuals, etc. And they are appointed solely on that basis. That is a historical fact. If you think that’s positive — I don’t. And these isolated, not very numerous cases are glaring and get blown out of proportion, fueling the spread of Trumpism. That’s a fact. What’s your objection to that? Nothing.
I believe everything you said — diversity, equality, inclusion — are all important things. But the excesses are also obvious. And that Trump is far worse than the injustices he supposedly came to fix — that’s also obvious to me. So I don’t really see any major problems or disagreements between us.
Closing remarks Link to heading
So? It seems I’ve addressed all the questions and all the important comments. Dear friends, with that we conclude our talk today — including the discussion, which I think was very useful. Before we wrap up today’s stream and discussion, I want to remind you that at 8:00 p.m. we’ll have a conversation with Serhiy Borysovych Hrabski, which I believe is very, very, very important. Now, I’m glancing at the chat — there are some questions. “You hate Trump so much.” Well, let’s put it this way — there are many people I don’t like. I don’t like Hitler, I don’t like Putin, I don’t like Trump. You’re right. I just saw that question in the chat — no further comment.
As for today’s stream — that’s it for now. We’ll see you at 8:00 p.m. for the talk with Hrabski. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Aleksandr Skobov and for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 8:00 p.m.!
Source: https://youtu.be/gsC6_fGGAFg