An American citizen who criticizes Trump’s policies has been elected Pope. Victory frenzy has begun: Moscow is under siege, the Allies of the anti-Hitler coalition didn’t show up, and the light at the end of the tunnel is Xi Jinping.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 9th, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls. It is now 07:41 in Ukraine. So, what is going on?
Day of Lies and Hatred Link to heading
Victory Day is a day of remembrance and sorrow. That was yesterday, and today is a day of vile lies, hypocrisy, betrayal, and hatred. Yesterday was a day under the slogan “Never again,” and today is a day under the slogan “We can do it again.” This is a day of lies because the Third Reich signed the act of full and unconditional surrender on May 8, and Stalin decided to separate, to claim the victory for himself, to split off this global Victory Day and create his own separate holiday. For many years, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition treated this with a sort of indulgence, thinking, well, okay, let it be. After all, so many people did die. The Soviet Union’s contribution to the defeat of the Reich was indeed immense. So, fine, let them celebrate. But the moment has come when this can no longer be tolerated. And indeed, it must be said that the real Victory Day is May 8. And today is a day of betrayal, because it is a betrayal of those 7 million Ukrainians — not ethnic Ukrainians, but people who were part of the Ukrainian SSR. These 7 million fought against the Nazis. And today Russia has appropriated this day in a frenzy of victory-worship. It is killing Ukrainians. This is, without a doubt, a day of lies, a day of hatred, and a day of betrayal. Well, we’ll talk about this in a bit more detail. And of course, the utter hypocrisy of saying, well, it was signed on the evening of May 8, but it was already the ninth in the Kremlin. Excuse me, but where did the event take place? It happened in Berlin. For those soldiers who died taking Berlin — including Soviet soldiers — it was May 8. For those who were sitting in the Kremlin at the time, yes, it was the ninth. So let’s count it this way then: for Stalin, the day was the ninth, but for those who actually fought on the front lines, it was the eighth. That’s why this is a day — a day of lies, a day of hatred, and of hypocrisy.
The New Pope Link to heading
Well, let’s go in order. What has happened up to today? What other news is there? I think there’s some good news — it came yesterday from the Vatican, where white smoke appeared. White smoke means a new Pope has been elected. This is the first citizen of the United States of America in history to become a pontiff. The first Pope in the history of the Catholic Church who is a U.S. citizen. It should be said that while he is indeed a U.S. citizen, he is also a citizen of Peru, as he received citizenship there when he served as a bishop in that Latin American country. Overall, this American, Robert Francis Prava, took the name Leo XIV.
For now, it’s not entirely clear how he will differ from his predecessor, Pope Francis. Mainly, from what I can tell — although experts in the Roman Catholic Church who know the internal dynamics much better than I do may spot some distinctions — I don’t personally see them. His focus seems to remain on defending the poor and migrants, condemning Nazism and xenophobia, and maintaining a rather conservative approach both to the structure of the Church and to today’s most pressing issues. For instance, the issue of homosexuality, the role of women — yes, he includes women, but he does not hold the position that women can build a career within the Church. So overall, it seems to me that for now this will be a continuation of Francis’s course.
Donald Trump, of course, expressed joy. The only thing he didn’t say was that the election of a U.S. citizen as Pope was only made possible thanks to him — although that is certainly implied. He congratulated the new Pope and emphasized that he is the first American Pope. However, it should be noted that the new Pope frequently criticizes Donald Trump’s policies — specifically, he condemns the separation of immigrant families, the travel ban on citizens of several predominantly Muslim countries, and mass deportations, stating these actions are inconsistent with Christian values.
Moreover, he has also criticized the U.S. Vice President — Vince, a Catholic — for distorting the Christian teaching on love. Vince had tried to use the concept of order and love to justify unequal treatment of people based on social status and background. The new Pope, even back when he was a bishop, said that Christ did not teach us to prioritize love for certain groups over others. So, one could say that in the person of the first U.S. citizen to hold the papacy, Trump has rather gained an opponent. But these are secondary matters, really.
Moscow Under Martial Law Link to heading
Now to the main thing — and the main thing is that the day of victory frenzy has arrived, and Moscow has found itself under martial law, effectively under martial law. Because the security measures implemented in Moscow are essentially martial law. On this day — the 80th anniversary of Victory, the day of victory frenzy — Muscovites will face it without mobile internet. ATMs and delivery services have been shut down, and so on. Some airports are blocked. Over 100 flights have been delayed in Moscow. Some passengers waited over 30 hours to depart. Today, new restrictions are expected. Central metro stations will be limited in operation. All cafés and shops along the parade route will be closed. Restrictions will be placed on taxi services and electric scooters. In the morning, mobile internet will be completely shut off in the city center, and it may be impossible to use cellular service at all.
Peskov explained that Muscovites should be understanding about the authorities jamming the internet and shutting down mobile phones. “These are not malfunctions,” Peskov reassured. “These are restrictions on the operation of mobile internet. For understandable reasons, we must take into account the dangerous neighborhood we live in.” What dangerous neighborhood has to do with turning off the internet is unclear — but, as they say, everyone should understand on their own. So, in reality, is this the cost? Well, let’s say it’s not the full price, of course, that Russians — and Muscovites in particular — will pay for this war, but at least part of it. Now, as for the celebration of Victory Frenzy itself.
How Victory Day Turned Into Victory Frenzy Link to heading
Well, the most logical thing is to compare what has happened. When we try to understand what’s going on now, it makes sense to compare it with what was. For example, when the 60th Victory Day was celebrated — that was in 2005. Under Putin, notably. Back then, the world had not yet fully understood who Putin was. I recently spoke with someone I deeply respect, Dmitry Borisovich Oreshkin, and he said he only understood what Putin was about in 2008. You see, and he’s a very smart, insightful person — but only realized it in 2008. So, everything that happened before that seemed more or less okay. That really surprised me. It was a revelation. So by 2005, the world still didn’t understand Putin. This was evident in how the 60th anniversary was celebrated on May 9, 2005. I just want to list the guests who took part in the parade on Red Square. I’ll read it out, as I don’t have the ability to display the list on screen today — but I think it’s important.
The attendees included: U.S. President George Bush, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, French President Jacques Chirac, former King of Romania Michael I, Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi, Chinese President Hu Jintao, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, Indian Prime Minister Singh, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the President of Chile. Then I’ll just list by position: the President of Serbia and Montenegro, UK Deputy Prime Minister, President of Latvia, and practically all CIS leaders, including the presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and so on. Senior international officials: the President of the European Commission, the UN Secretary-General, the Director-General of UNESCO, etc. This is not even a full list. Practically all key participants of the anti-Hitler coalition were represented. There’s really nothing more to add. Yes, some — such as the presidents of Lithuania and Georgia — declined to attend, for understandable reasons. But the main and most important members of the anti-Hitler coalition were present in 2005.
Now let’s compare that with today. Not a single representative from the main countries of the anti-Hitler coalition came. The only person of similar stature, arguably, is Xi Jinping. One could say Brazilian President Lula da Silva is also a significant figure. But today, on the mausoleum’s stands, there will be the leaders of unrecognized states — Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Palestine. The only European Union member present is Mr. Fico, who, like Vučić, traveled through multiple countries to get there. Vučić came via Azerbaijan, Fico — as far as I know — through Georgia. Even Orbán refused. Orbán refused! That’s quite something. It’s clearly a staggering drop in the level of representation. No, it’s not total isolation — Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Palestine showed up. It’s not total isolation. And, of course, Xi Jinping’s broad back hides a lot. But still, this is truly a catastrophe. It reflects not just the isolation Russia finds itself in, but an official abandonment of May 9 as some kind of Victory Day. No, it’s a lie. It’s a holiday of lies, hypocrisy, and hatred. Victory Day is on the 8th. I believe that eventually humanity will recognize that this day should be celebrated on the 8th.
And now we see these “remarkable” countries that supposedly played a decisive role in defeating fascism: Myanmar, Laos, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, and so on. These countries didn’t even exist during the time of the anti-Hitler coalition. They didn’t exist at all. But still, they came. So, in fact, none of the anti-Hitler coalition members came. There are various theories circulating, for example, about why Aliyev didn’t come — some say his security service identified threats, others suggest dissatisfaction with the investigation of the downed Azerbaijani aircraft. I won’t speculate. But in any case, the collapse in the level of attendance is obvious. And really, the only thing that could be presented as a success is the four-day talks with Xi Jinping. This is the kind of descent, the staircase down which Putin is walking. Xi Jinping’s presence is, without doubt, a triumph for Putin, because — and I didn’t have time to fully analyze the conversation — part of it is published on Kremlin.ru. But from what I saw in preparation for today’s talk, Xi Jinping stated that the two countries — Russia and China — must be and have become friends. Both Putin and Xi pledged to take cooperation to a new level amid rising confrontation with the West.
Since Trump launched a trade war against China, this has not driven China away from Russia — quite the opposite, it has brought them closer. The idea of simultaneously launching a trade war on China and trying to pry China away from Russia is sheer madness. It’s top-tier idiocy, which is often on display in the administration of the 47th President of the United States. Naturally, they’ve grown closer. They now call themselves friends. And in these talks, both Putin and Xi presented themselves as defenders of a new world order — one no longer dominated by the United States. Well, Trump is clearly achieving his goal. He’s relentlessly making America great again. And the result is a real loss of dominance. In this, Trump is succeeding. But still, the main event is ahead. Tomorrow is Sunday — we’ll sum things up. And on Monday we’ll return to this event, because even though the day itself has nothing to do with victory, the event is still worth analyzing.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Let’s see. And we’ll talk more on this topic later today as well, because we have two very interesting guests today. One is our traditional Friday guest, Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky — we’ll be having a conversation with him at 7:00 PM. And since I promised to invite someone who can explain what’s going on in Romania — and beyond — we’ll have a conversation at 8:00 PM with Moldovan parliamentarian Oazu Nantoi. I think we’ll be able to talk with him not only about Romania, where he clearly knows more than almost any other expert accessible to me, but also about the global situation in general. So, 7:00 PM — Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky, 8:00 PM — “Axis of Evil” Nantoi. And now, I’ll move on to answering your questions. Okay?
Bitter Words About the Modern World Link to heading
A question from Elena. I would like to add a few words of bitterness about Ukraine, which also apply to Syria over the last 14 years. There is no crime that has not been committed by the cannibalistic regimes of Assad, Khomeini, and Putin in Syria — including the repeated use of chemical weapons. Shoigu boasted that Russia was testing its weapons on Syrians, and the world didn’t even look in our direction, just as the citizens of the Reich didn’t look toward Auschwitz and Oswiecim. And only when Assad was overthrown and emaciated, skeletal-like people began emerging from dungeons, having endured torture and humiliation, did the world recoil in horror. And Elena continues: Today I heard children in St. Petersburg being taught to sing that Russian soldiers died in Aleppo and Sloviansk for Russia. Why go so far and die, hoping that one day children will ask why the soldiers didn’t stay in Russia to build a peaceful country? And then the Syrians — thousands of Syrians are returning to their homes, which no longer exist. Only ruins. Everything will have to be rebuilt from scratch. We build cities, but we’ll have to heal the souls.
There is nothing more to add here but to fully agree with Elena’s bitter words. This is truly one of the many crimes committed by Putin, in this case together with his accomplice, Assad.
How a Proper State Should Be Structured Link to heading
A question from someone who calls themselves V-2. I would very much like to know your opinion on how a proper state should be structured. For example, comparing Norway, Switzerland, the USA, China, Russia, and Myanmar.
You know, dear colleague, there is no universal answer to your question, because a state must reflect and take into account factors such as geography, the country’s size, population, historical heterogeneity, religious and other factors. That is to say, you cannot simply build a state according to the same principles as Switzerland, the United States, or China. Size matters, heterogeneity, and so on. Of course, there are some universal principles — democracy, free markets, human rights, and so on. But there is no one-size-fits-all model of government for all countries. So unfortunately, I can’t point to a single example and say, “Let’s build every state according to the Norwegian model.” Norway’s suit just doesn’t fit China or the United States of America.
Why Philosophy Is Necessary Link to heading
A question from Sergey. A question that has long interested me — in your opinion, why is philosophy even needed, and what has it given to the world? Ilyin is a philosopher and Kant is a philosopher. Dugin, God forgive us, is also a philosopher. So why do we need philosophy, in your view?
Dear Sergey! Well, the answer has to be either very short or very long. Neither will quite do here. So let me offer something in between. I’ll start with a bit of history. You see, when philosophy first emerged, it essentially encompassed all of science. The first philosophers — like Thales, Heraclitus, Pythagoras, and later Plato and Aristotle — were simultaneously the first scientists. When Aristotle created his system, he included within philosophy virtually everything that would later become physics, biology, political science, psychology, and so on. In the beginning, philosophy and science were one and the same.
Later, as different areas of knowledge began to take shape as true sciences — with clearly defined subjects and specialized terminology — they branched off from philosophy. The subject matter of philosophy began to narrow. Natural sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, linguistics, political science — all these emerged as distinct fields. So what remained? Philosophy did not disappear. What remained was epistemology, primarily — questions of knowledge. What is truth? What is human understanding? What is the relationship between the individual and society? In other words, what remained was what could not be formalized — and that became the core of philosophy.
Philosophy continues to serve as a methodological foundation for both the natural and social sciences, and that’s why it retains its relevance. The most general questions still belong to philosophy. Yes, its domain continues to shrink: for example, epistemology becomes more structured, logic has increasingly moved into its own scientific field. But philosophy is like a womb — it gives birth to sciences, which grow into independent disciplines. This process of sciences branching off from philosophy has continued for thousands of years.
Yet philosophy remains as the methodology and the attempt to answer the most fundamental questions. Another key feature is that, unlike natural and social sciences, which aim to produce new knowledge and definitive answers, philosophy deepens the questions. Its method is fundamentally different. Philosophy doesn’t settle questions — it explores them more deeply. And that is essential for the methodology of understanding the world. So it continues to be an important part of human knowledge.
Is There a Higher Justice Link to heading
John Vito Corleone. Here’s the question — do you believe in some kind of higher justice? Justice in the purest sense? Just you personally. And the second question — what would it look like?
No. I don’t believe there is any higher justice. And that follows from my view on so-called higher powers. I don’t believe in any kind of higher justice. I think justice is specific and created by people — through laws, through moral norms. At the very least, this is not higher justice, but real justice, established through specific laws and rules of human behavior. You see, the idea of higher justice, in my opinion, is somewhat infantilizing. Because if you say there’s some kind of higher justice, then that means you can rely on it and do nothing — it’ll just come by itself and judge us all. I believe that’s a mistake. That doesn’t exist. Justice is in our hands. We establish it based on our understanding. There is no higher justice independent of people. That’s what I believe.
About Andrei Bilzho Link to heading
Another question from Lemeshev. A few months ago, I expressed a wish to see Andrei Bilzho on your channel. At the time, it seemed from your response that you would also be interested in speaking with him. My question is: Have you tried to contact him, to invite him onto the channel? I don’t have any scientific background in psychology or psychiatry, but after watching about a dozen of his appearances, he struck me as a very deep and systematic thinker on issues of psychiatry. This concerns the psychology and psychiatry of Trump and Putin.
Dear colleague, I have to tell you that in our very small team, responsibilities are divided such that my colleagues handle guest invitations, and I pass along all such requests from viewers to them. So I can’t say exactly how the talks with Bilzho are progressing. But the request was passed on, and discussions are happening in some form — though I don’t know the outcome. I have no objections; I’d be very interested in having that conversation. As for when and how — life will show.
On the Benefits of Vegetarianism Link to heading
So, Lilia writes again on the topic of vegetarianism. And I just want to announce that I’m concluding the discussion on our channel regarding dietetics. This will be the final comment — simply for balance, because there was a comment against, and now this one is in favor. I just don’t want to turn the channel into a platform for constant debates on nutrition. If I manage to do so, perhaps I’ll organize a discussion on our channel between experts for and against vegetarianism — or simply invite a dietitian I consider authoritative. So, here’s the final comment from Lilia. Lilia writes: The ignorance about vegetarianism on your channel is already infuriating. The main issue is the ignorance and backwardness of Russian and post-Soviet society. Facts show that the more developed a society is, the higher the life expectancy and the greater the spread of vegetarianism. In Europe, vegetarianism is very common even in schools and government institutions. In many schools, vegetarian options are mandatory at least a few days a week for everyone. It’s a widespread practice. Aside from vitamin B12, there’s nothing in meat that can’t be found in vegetarian alternatives. I was appalled by the comment from Svetikov, who has a medical background, regarding collagen — whether vegetarians get enough or not. If someone is very active and over 40, they should be supplementing with collagen anyway. You can’t get enough of it from meat alone. There is very pure and high-quality plant-based collagen available. If you monitor your health, eat properly, exercise, and regularly run comprehensive blood tests, the body ages more slowly and with fewer problems. But if you eat meat and potatoes, and then only potatoes, the problem isn’t vegetarianism — it’s ignorance. Before changing something your body is used to, you need years of good preparation, consultations with doctors, and then a gradual and responsible lifestyle shift.
I’ll stop the comment here, as it’s quite long. But the general point is that vegetarianism benefits animals, human health, and the environment. Thank you. I’ve published and read out this subscriber’s comment. And with that, I’ll wrap it up. I won’t be reading any more comments for or against vegetarianism. I will indeed try to find some specialists on both sides. Maybe it’s worth holding a debate — though I’ll say right away, it doesn’t feel like the most pressing issue at the moment. Still, people might find it interesting. We’ll see. If I find such experts, I’ll invite them and we’ll talk.
Post-Traumatic Syndrome for Ukraine Link to heading
Alex Ivanov You point out serious problems ahead for the Reich when the boys — the orcs — return home. I agree. It’s one of the factors that will lead to the collapse of Russia. My question is: How will the heroes of the Ukrainian Armed Forces return to Ukraine, traumatized by hatred and death? How will they be affected by the Afghan, Vietnam, Chechnya syndrome? It’s obviously a problem for Ukraine. Please comment.
Dear Alex! Yes, absolutely — there can be no war without post-traumatic syndrome. War inevitably changes people’s consciousness. But I would like to offer the following hypothesis. First, there is a very significant difference between the Ukrainian and Russian armies. I’ll exaggerate slightly for effect, but I think you’ll agree with the overall point: the Russian army is fighting with the worst representatives of Russian society, while the Ukrainian army is fighting with the best. That doesn’t mean everyone who isn’t on the front is a bad person — of course not — but from my conversations with representatives of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, I’m constantly struck by their intelligence and strong moral qualities. These are truly some of the best people. So, to some extent — and I speak here in broad generalizations — today’s Ukrainian soldier is someone of strong character and values.
Of course, they too will experience post-traumatic stress. But I believe — and I allow myself this assumption — to a lesser extent. Motivation matters greatly. One thing is soldiers who came to the front for money and clearly cannot feel any sense of justice in the war they are fighting. Ukrainian soldiers are defending their country. And there is one more fundamental difference: the Ukrainian Armed Forces are fighting on their own land. They do not face the temptation of impunity that comes with invading foreign territory. All the lies about alleged atrocities by Ukrainians in places like the Kursk region have been disproven time and again. But I believe that if the Ukrainian military were advancing on Russian soil, then yes, there might have been excesses toward civilians — because people are people, and the feeling of impunity that war brings can affect anyone. However, that is not the case here.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are liberating their own land. The Russian occupiers are fighting on foreign soil — and that’s why they commit atrocities against the local population. This, too, contributes to the development of post-traumatic syndrome. So I believe the scale of the consequences will differ radically. Yes, Ukraine will face adaptation challenges. But they will be several orders of magnitude smaller than those in Russia. The kind of catastrophe that Russia is heading toward — that won’t happen in Ukraine. I am absolutely convinced of that.
About Friedrich Gorenstein Link to heading
Kirillovich Rubinstein. So please tell me — what do you think, what would you write about the writer Friedrich Gorenstein?
Dear colleague, I try very hard not to go beyond the bounds of my expertise. Sometimes I have to, but I try to do it rarely and carefully. That is, I try not to engage in literary criticism for many reasons — not because I don’t have opinions about various writers and their work (I do), but because I prefer to share those thoughts only in a narrow circle, so to speak. You know, nearly all of us have written poetry at some point — maybe still do — but not everyone believes it must be published. This is the same. I could be considered a literary critic, but only for personal use.
But since you’re asking, I’ll say briefly: I know Gorenstein more as a screenwriter. His scripts, such as Solaris and Slave of Love, for example — I don’t know, maybe he’s a genius. Not sure. As for Solaris, it’s clear that the film is based on Lem’s work, but the screenplay was written by Gorenstein. And that screenplay differs greatly from the original. It’s no coincidence that there was a well-known dispute between Lem and Tarkovsky, with Lem insisting he had written something entirely different. But the way Gorenstein adapted it — I think it was a valid alternative, a serious alternative. Without going into detail, Gorenstein really created an entirely independent literary work, fundamentally different from what Lem wrote. And in my view, it turned out no worse. In this case, the great Lem was matched by the great Gorenstein. That’s my amateur opinion. So yes, I would say I know Gorenstein fairly well — let’s put it that way.
Church Degradation Link to heading
And Yulia, have you seen the latest sermon by Father Tkachyov? I know you don’t trust secondhand accounts, but I assure you — Tkachyov spoke about his flock as if the world is evil, a devilish, satanic delusion. Why do you need the world? To sin? Or to lust after Rasputin again and want to travel? That’s the kind of rhetoric he used. You can watch it on Anton Harding’s evening show. What shocked me most were the women in headscarves nodding along. Has there ever been such degradation in Christianity?
Faith — I mean the teaching of Christ — or have there been worse times? I know about the Inquisition, of course, but I have a sense that what’s happening in the Church now is even more repulsive than the Inquisition.
You know, I think to say that something is worse, we shouldn’t compare periods in Christian history directly. Because if we compare today’s degradation of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Inquisition, the Crusades, or other madness in Church history, I think it’s not productive. You know what would be interesting? A sociological analysis — one I can’t do at the moment — but it would be fascinating to compare the overall level of evil that occurs in the secular world versus the religious sphere. If we took that approach, then perhaps… You see, we have to compare the morals that exist inside and outside the Church.
The issue is that in previous periods the Church was all-encompassing, and there was only a limited space outside of it. But today, the Church clearly plays a diminishing role — clearly a degrading one. So in that sense, we can say the degradation today is perhaps greater than ever before. The Church today — at least in Russia — clearly functions in a regressive way. That’s the nature of the totalitarian sect the Church has become. So yes, I would say the degradation is worse than usual — in the sense that the Church, as an institution, works only to degrade. I’m not talking about Christianity itself — which can work both upward and downward — but the ROC, as a totalitarian sect, functions solely downward. In that sense, yes — it’s never been worse.
On How Totalitarian Regimes Manipulate Concepts Link to heading
Nikodim Pan Putin Don’t you think we need a different political vocabulary to describe our officials and institutions? In my view, people confuse — or rather manipulate — concepts. “Law” in France and in the Russian Federation is called by the same word, but it’s not the same thing. Macron and Putin are both called “president,” but that’s just a label. The Constitutional Court in the U.S. and in Russia — same title, different meaning. Lavrov is called a “diplomat,” but again, that’s just a tag. Until people grasp the difference between courts and “courts,” presidents and “presidents,” nothing will change. It’s like a gangster walking through town wearing a sheriff’s star, claiming to be the sheriff — not the one who killed him. And around him are bandits in the masks of judges, deputies, presidents, journalists — all waiting to hear what “the judge” or “the president” will say. Maybe countries need to first remove the bandits — and only then deal with legality?
You know, dear colleague, in fact you’re asking two different questions here — one being that perhaps the bandits simply need to be removed first. Well, the mechanics of that are another matter. Ukraine, for example, is now trying precisely to remove the bandits. As for the broader idea — yes, I’ve said many times it would be good if the world’s number one terrorist today were eliminated. But there’s no political will for that yet. So it remains more of a wish than a plan.
As for creating a new political language — I’m not in favor of it. And here’s why. The distortion of the original meaning of words like “parliament,” “president,” “elections” — it happens in many countries. Or let’s take a topic close to me — journalism. If we define a journalist as someone who adheres to the best norms of the profession, then anyone working in the media who doesn’t meet that standard should be called something else. But that means inventing a thousand new words — one for Simonyan, another for Solovyov, a third for some journalists at The Guardian who stray from norms, but not as drastically, a fourth for people at Charlie Hebdo, if you have criticisms there too. You see what I mean?
That kind of categorization leads to an unnecessary multiplication of terms — an enormous glossary just to understand each other. And we still wouldn’t understand each other fully. Yes, of course, when we call Putin a “president” or Lavrov a “diplomat,” it causes discomfort — understandably so. Or Zorkin, head of the Constitutional Court — of course it feels awkward. In some cases, alternative labels have already caught on — we no longer call Solovyov a journalist, but a propagandist. Not a perfect word, but at least clearer.
You can certainly refer to Putin not as a president, but as a war criminal — as many Ukrainian colleagues do. Or a usurper — that’s valid too. But as for a full-fledged new political vocabulary — I’m against it. It’s semantic inflation. Everyone understands what’s really meant. When President Biden was asked whether Putin is a killer, he said yes — but didn’t invent a new title for him. Yes, “president” — but unlawfully elected and unlawfully holding power. So, in short, I’m not enthusiastic about building a whole new political language that would require inventing not one replacement term per concept, but many — each reflecting the degree of departure from the original meaning of “president,” “judge,” “journalist,” and so on.
Was There Any Good in the Actions of the Third Reich Link to heading
Yevgeny Matuzov I’d like to clarify your position — do you consider it good that people were freed from NKVD torture chambers or that Nazi forces destroyed collective farms, or even the Nazi invasion of Stalin’s USSR itself? Isn’t that also, in some way, a kind of good? And postscript — I ask without any hidden agenda.
No, thank you for the question — it’s an important one. It relates to whether the Soviet Union, at any point, was on the side of good. That’s a good question — thank you for asking it. One of the many historical debates going on now concerns the Russian Liberation Army of Vlasov. There are people — a majority, including many who oppose Putinism — who still consider Vlasov a collaborator with Hitler, a traitor, and so on. Many people opposed to Putin are, on this issue, in agreement with official narratives.
But then there are others — and I know some of them — who believe Vlasov wasn’t a traitor at all, but a patriot who made a deal with Hitler because he saw Stalin as the main evil. So, yes — this is a debatable issue. You see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder — and often, so is truth. It depends on one’s perspective. For the prisoners of Auschwitz, the Red Army soldiers who liberated them — Stalin’s soldiers — were indeed a form of good. That’s why there is still a fairly widespread positive attitude in parts of Israel toward Russia, even toward Putin. Some people there still hold that view — because the Red Army did indeed prevent the final stage of the “Final Solution.”
That Stalin later tried to finish what Hitler started — well, that’s another matter. He died before he could. So yes, truth and justice here are in the eye of the beholder. If someone was freed by German troops from an NKVD dungeon, then for them, in that moment, those fascist soldiers were liberators — they were “the good.” That’s true.
So, from my point of view, both Hitler and Stalin were absolute evil. But in the course of their clash, sometimes sparks of good emerged. Forgive the metaphor, but that’s how I see it: from the collision of two evils, occasional sparks of good may fly. Whether that image convinces you, I don’t know — but it reflects my thinking. The world isn’t so simple. It’s not just one side good, the other evil. Even in “the good side,” like the United States or Great Britain during WWII, there were serious moral compromises — the U.S. wasn’t pure good, nor was Britain, which after the war handed over to the Soviets people fleeing from the USSR, sending them to their deaths.
So yes — even within large chunks of “good,” there’s a fair amount of rot.
The Court Makes the King Link to heading
A question from Olich. So does the phrase “the court makes the king” not apply to Putin? He handpicked his court to suit himself and didn’t miscalculate. He’s been in power for 25 years, not worried about anything, mocking everyone — and, worst of all, doing his dark work. No one knows how much longer he’ll stay.
Dear colleague (or dear lady — I’m not sure who you are), you know, this phrase “the court makes the king” is often attributed to Machiavelli. I’m not a great specialist on that founding father of political technology, but I did read The Prince quite carefully at one point, as it’s an important text in the social sciences — I even remember once lecturing on it. But I never found that phrase in his writings. I don’t know where exactly it comes from.
Assuming it really does come from Machiavelli, I believe it can have at least two meanings. The first is image-related — that the king’s court supports and enhances his public image, compensates for his weaknesses, covers them up, and, by creating an adoring chorus around him, builds a cult. In that sense, “the court makes the king” refers to image-making.
The second possible meaning, which would also align with Machiavellian thought, is that the court controls the king — that it makes and manages him from behind the scenes. That, of course, has a completely different tone and implication.
Which meaning Machiavelli originally had in mind — I have no idea. But in Putin’s case, it’s obvious to me that the first meaning fits: his court creates his image, builds his cult. That’s real. But the second meaning — that the court controls the king — I don’t think that applies here. So I don’t see a contradiction in saying that Putin selects his entourage to glorify him. That all seems quite logical to me.
The Marina Salye Report as Interpreted by Dmitry Zapolsky Link to heading
A question from “Did you want good?” This question was prompted by your answer yesterday to a listener. You’ve often mentioned Marina Salye’s report as a document that changed how people viewed Putin early in his presidency, when most still saw him positively. That’s why I was surprised to read St. Petersburg journalist Dmitry Zapolsky’s take, claiming the document was weak, written in a way that allowed it to be ignored. Zapolsky also describes Sobchak as pathologically stupid and poorly educated, but eloquent. As I understand, you’re familiar with Zapolsky and his writing. So here’s my question: in your view, how trustworthy are Zapolsky’s publications? And how suspicious is it that he died so young — at 62?
Well, first of all, regarding Zapolsky’s death — yes, I know there are different theories, including the idea that it was a poisoning. And of course, the idea that Putin’s reach extended even to Finland, where Zapolsky died, can’t be ruled out. I have no proof either way — no evidence to confirm or deny this theory.
Now to the main point. Again, this is a matter of concrete knowledge. I’ve never come across any serious investigations into Zapolsky’s death or evidence that it was violent. Could it be? Yes. Especially considering his last and most high-profile book, Putinburg, was written while in exile and was very sharply critical of Putin.
Now, about his comments on Salye, Sobchak, and so on. Zapolsky was a deputy in the Leningrad City Council at the same time as Salye and Sobchak, and part of that St. Petersburg political scene. He was a political consultant who helped Sobchak get elected. He also worked with Yeltsin. So when a person who was part of Sobchak’s campaign — part of his inner circle, so to speak — later makes such harsh statements about him, it does raise questions. Either you were wrong then, or you’re being unfair now. That seems logically inconsistent to me.
As for Salye, I must admit I’m a Muscovite, not a Petersburg native, and I don’t know the inner workings of that city council well. I don’t want to use a harsh term, but what happened there was a real “terrarium of like-minded people” — it was no less intense than the Moscow City Council of the Popov-Luzhkov perestroika era, which was already pretty turbulent. By all accounts, the Leningrad council was even more intense.
According to what I know — from people like Pyotr Sergeyevich Filippov, with whom I worked on an educational project — Salye was a serious rival to Sobchak in the struggle over who would lead St. Petersburg. Filippov himself was also a strong candidate. Sobchak, politically, was considered weaker than either of them. How he ultimately prevailed is a separate story. So when someone like Zapolsky, who was in Sobchak’s camp, evaluates Salye and her report — I tend to take that with a grain of salt.
Overall, Putinburg is a rich, detailed book. Zapolsky clearly knew the Petersburg scene well and understood the system around Putin. But I don’t believe he was in a position to discredit the Salye report. At most, he could confirm it — maybe even add to it. So I chalk up his negative comments on the Salye report to personal grievances or political history.
In sum: yes, Zapolsky had deep knowledge, but I wouldn’t fully trust his dismissal of Salye’s report. And his sudden death? Suspicious, yes — but unproven.
What the Soviet Regime Hid in Philosophy and Sociology Link to heading
Mask Kolyshki What knowledge, developed by humanity in the fields of philosophy and sociology, did the Soviet regime hide from ordinary communists and non-party citizens?
The answer is very simple: practically all modern bourgeois philosophy — starting from the late 19th and early 20th centuries — everything labeled as modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology was entirely suppressed. Literally all the books, the entire curriculum of contemporary bourgeois philosophy — which we did have as a course in the philosophy faculty — was based on censored material. And sociology as a concept barely existed at all — it was declared a pseudoscience in the Soviet Union.
As for modern bourgeois philosophy — positivism, existentialism, Weberian sociology — absolutely all of it was under strict ban. You couldn’t get those books. I remember when I started getting interested in all this back in school, I could only get those books through black-market sellers in Stoleshnikov Lane, where rare booksellers would gather. These books cost insane amounts of money. I remember getting help from my mother to buy some, since I was still a student. These were books labeled “for scientific libraries only,” kept in special storage. I remember buying The Phenomenon of Man by Teilhard de Chardin for 25 rubles — which was about half my mother’s salary at the time.
So yes — all of it was in special storage. And we studied from textbooks written under the supervision of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism. In other words — “We haven’t read it, but we condemn it.” That’s how it was. So, yes — practically everything was hidden. Absolutely everything.
Why Single Out the Jews Link to heading
Tatyana Kuznetsova Why single out the Jews? How many Russians, Ukrainians, and even Germans died? Are Jews some kind of special nation?
No, of course, Jews are not a special nation. But Russians, Ukrainians, and Germans were killed on the front lines — killed not for being Russian, Ukrainian, or German, but because they were military opponents. Jews, on the other hand — there were only two peoples who were killed solely for the fact of belonging to that people: Jews and Roma. That’s the fundamental difference.
Jews, like the Roma, were murdered for their ethnic identity — just for being who they were. Russians, Ukrainians, and Germans were not killed for being of a certain bloodline or ethnicity. So yes, in this sense, Jews — just like the Roma — stand out sharply among all others.
And then there’s the scale of the genocide. Out of approximately 12 million Jews, six million were exterminated. Actually slightly more — since the total Jewish population at the time was slightly less than 12 million. In any case, at least half were annihilated. No other nation experienced a genocide of that scale.
What Will Happen After Lukashenko’s Death Link to heading
Pan Stepan If you have enough information to offer a reasoned, realistic scenario of events in Minsk when the current local Führer finally dies — what do you think it will be? A transfer of power to someone else from his inner circle, a messenger from Moscow, full annexation by Moscow, or something else?
I don’t have any specific scenario — and I don’t think anyone does at this point. But I am absolutely convinced that if Lukashenko were to die suddenly, Putin would immediately attempt to seize control of all of Belarus’s security structures and everything happening in the country. I don’t know whether Russian troops would be sent in or whether it would happen through other means, but I believe Putin would do everything possible to bring Belarus under total control.
I’m convinced he would not allow any spontaneous development of events. That’s as much as I can realistically say — the rest is speculation.
About Andriy Baumeister Link to heading
The question comes from “September Sky.” Do you plan to invite Andriy Baumeister on your program? I watched his interview on “Grammy” yesterday and once again felt he’s an enemy of Ukraine. Like Shariy, he subtly but consistently pushes narratives favorable to the Kremlin. For example, claiming Ukraine is partly responsible for starting the war because it wasn’t slippery enough for Russia. I might be wrong, but it would be interesting if someone as direct as you tried to strip the veil from his veiled position.
Dear colleague, back in the early months of the war, when I came to understand that Ukraine was now the central issue for us, I began trying to see the situation through Ukrainian eyes. I started discovering Ukrainian voices — particularly philosophers, whom I hadn’t followed closely before. I already knew Ukraine’s main sociological centers quite well, but Ukrainian philosophers were a revelation.
Naturally, I came across Baumeister early on — this was around February–March 2022. At the time, I attempted to invite him on the show, since there was a lot of buzz around him as possibly Ukraine’s leading philosopher. I don’t remember the exact wording, but as I recall, he declined. Later, I took a closer look and realized I didn’t really want to invite him after all.
Initially, the reason was philosophical — he’s much stronger than I am in terms of formal philosophy, especially since I haven’t taught in a while. He’s very active — translating from Ancient Greek, clearly well-trained as a scholar. But as a thinker, as a philosopher, he’s not close to me at all. He’s more of a religious philosopher, leaning toward theism and such — and religious philosophy is something I find very distant. That was the first reason I stopped trying to bring him on.
Lately, I’ve also noticed that he’s more like Arestovych than Shariy. He’s in that same circle — Arestovych, Datsyuk. I had a conversation with Datsyuk once, and it made me decide never to invite anyone else from that circle. We’re too far apart to have a meaningful philosophical conversation.
So, can he be considered an enemy of Ukraine? Maybe not like Shariy, but more like Arestovych — they share a mindset. This constant line of reasoning — “Well, Putin has a point,” or “Ukraine shouldn’t have provoked” — it’s like saying, what, that she’s to blame for wearing a short skirt in the park? Come on. He invaded. What more is there to say?
I don’t see much value in engaging with that. He exposes himself well enough. Just like I’m not interested in interviewing Solovyov — he does a fine job discrediting himself. I’ve even thought about launching a new program called Traitors. In a sense, it would be about people like them — Shariy, Arestovych, Guriyev, and others.
About the Date of the Capitulation Link to heading
Yanis Gabriel It’s clear where May 9 and 8 come from, but didn’t the Reich capitulate on the 7th?
Well, where did they come from? The act of full and unconditional capitulation of the Third Reich was signed on May 8. As for May 9 — as I just said — that’s a false holiday, a false date. It doesn’t matter when someone verbally surrendered — the actual document was signed on the 8th.
Does Trump Want a Third World War Link to heading
Roman from Kremenchuk — Roman is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. What do you think about historian Yuri Felshtinsky’s theory, explained on Aliona Kurbanova’s channel, that Donald Trump is deliberately sowing chaos? Yuri said that Trump wants to make America great again by pushing Putin toward Europe, then stepping in and repeating the scenario of World War II, from which the U.S. was the main beneficiary. To my amateur eye, it seems like a coherent theory that explains a lot — including Biden’s cautious support and how Trump plans to extend his presidential term.
Dear Roman! Let me first say — with all respect and appreciation to you — that since I haven’t seen the episode in question, I’ll respond more to your summary than to Felshtinsky’s exact words. Although I deeply respect and sympathize with Yuri Georgievich, he has always leaned toward conspiratorial interpretations. And the theory you’ve outlined — which, again, I’m judging from your description — is indeed quite conspiratorial. The idea that Trump would deliberately sic Putin on Europe? I don’t think such a plan exists.
I believe things are much simpler. Regarding Biden — whether this is Felshtinsky’s view or your own addition — it’s very straightforward. Biden didn’t want to trigger a nuclear war. He didn’t want Putin, facing total defeat, to launch a nuclear strike. That’s it. That explains his caution.
As for Trump, he sees this war as someone else’s problem. His main goal is to get out of it. I don’t believe he wants to ignite a world war in order to prolong his presidency like Roosevelt once did. No. Trump is primarily about money. He prides himself on not starting wars during his term. Now, yes — India and Pakistan are causing him headaches, but he’ll still say this is all Biden’s — or Obama’s — fault.
So, no — I don’t see coherence or logic in this theory. And as for Yuri Georgievich — yes, he does lean toward conspiracies, but that’s not why we love him.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
And so, dear friends, we wrap up today’s broadcast. I want to remind you once again that today at 7:00 PM we’ll be joined by Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky, and at 8:00 PM by Oazu Nantoi. I think both broadcasts will be very interesting. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! Goodbye! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/-vi3Ggrexxg