Trump gives Putin two more weeks and wants a new “Yalta”, Zelensky is ready for a trilateral meeting with Trump and Putin, Putin demands to “eliminate the root cause”, and Europe is preparing for war.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 29. It is now 7:40 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Unacceptable Conditions from Russia Link to heading
Well, let’s start with a brief overview of what’s happening within this quadrangle of Putin, Ukraine, Trump, and Europe, so to speak. This is how one can describe the key players surrounding the main event of our current era — the war in the heart of Europe. So, what happened over the past day? Russia proposed that Ukraine attend a second round of negotiations in Istanbul. This is supposed to happen next Monday, June 2. This was stated in a declaration by Lavrov. According to him, Russia has developed a memorandum for a peace treaty with Ukraine, which, once again, is to be presented by the same Medinsky. At the previous meeting, the parties agreed to prepare documents outlining each side’s position. As far as can be understood, Russia’s position has not changed, the venue has not changed, and the participants — at least the head of the Russian delegation — have not changed either. So if everything repeats exactly, then why expect a different result? That slightly inaccurate quote from Einstein fits very well in this case. Because no journalist has seen the document outlining Russia’s position. There are some Reuters sources claiming that Russia insists on no further NATO expansion to the east — primarily, of course, at Ukraine’s expense — the lifting of Western sanctions, a resolution regarding frozen assets, and protection of Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine. Lavrov was very indignant about some unknown Ukrainian laws that allegedly need to be repealed. Well, this is yet another step toward the absolute impossibility of agreeing to such terms. In addition, Putin would like to receive written guarantees from Western countries that NATO will not expand to the east. In other words, to actually restrict the foreign policy freedom of a number of countries. So it is clear that, all in all, these demands are completely unfeasible. In the end, the so-called root cause is still present. In short, it’s clear that it all comes down once again to conditions that are absolutely unacceptable for Ukraine.
Ukraine’s Readiness for Any Format of Negotiations Link to heading
So, Zelensky proposed holding a trilateral meeting with Trump, Putin, and himself. He stated that if a bilateral meeting doesn’t suit Putin, and if everyone wants it to be trilateral, then he has no objections. In other words, he’s ready. Zelensky confirmed that he is ready for a meeting — Trump, Putin, Zelensky. If we assess the likelihood of this meeting actually taking place, I believe the probability is very close to zero. But in this case, Zelensky’s goal is clear — to consistently and visibly, almost daily, demonstrate his willingness to consider any format that could in any way lead to peace, in order to show that Ukraine is genuinely striving for peace. That requires embracing any format that even formally signifies movement toward peace. In stark contrast to Russia, Ukraine’s position here is absolutely clear.
Trump’s Tripartite Division of the World Link to heading
Another very weighty player in this quadrangle is, without a doubt, Trump — and I emphasize, not the United States of America, because this has nothing to do with the USA as such, but specifically with Trump himself. Here, I’d like to comment on a publication from The New York Times, which reports that Trump’s recent statements and decisions indicate his desire to divide the world into spheres of influence with Russia and China — essentially, a new Yalta.
What are the arguments presented by The New York Times? First, that Trump has expressed a desire to normalize trade with Russia and is trying to limit the consequences of his own global trade war, repeatedly urging Xi Jinping to get in touch. That is, some sort of movement toward a triangle. The New York Times suggests this is enough to assume that Trump is preparing a larger-scale plan for engagement with Moscow and Beijing — essentially, once again, the idea of a new Yalta. International analysts have already commented on this and believe Trump’s behavior reflects a desire for a world order in which the United States, China, and Russia dominate in their respective regions. That’s a kind of 19th-century imperial governance model.
So, what’s the danger? I’ve already shared in some interviews that I consider this a utopia — but a fairly dangerous one. What’s dangerous about this utopia, these dreams of a new Yalta, despite their impracticality? The issue is that there’s some danger in playing with utopias, and I’ll return to that in a minute. First, the danger of this new Yalta is that it prompts Trump to move from a policy of soft opposition to Russian aggression — or at least verbal opposition, including the reintroduction of some sanctions and ongoing support for Ukraine under Biden — to potentially halting that support altogether. Trump could easily do that. As the saying goes, he could cut it off cold — but he hasn’t yet.
Now, if Trump starts trying to implement this utopia, he will inevitably move from a policy of soft opposition to Putin to a policy of direct alliance with the aggressor. Trump is quite capable of such flips.
The second key difference between this proposed “Yalta” and the historical Yalta of 1945 is this: back then, two democracies faced off against one dictatorship. In this new triangle, it’s inverted — two dictatorships against one democracy, led potentially by a future dictator. The sharp point of that triangle is clearly aimed at Europe — who else would it be aimed at?
So yes, it’s certainly a utopia. It appears utopian because attempts to constrain, say, China today within any kind of framework seem highly unrealistic. And regarding the glaring asymmetry of this triangle — that too is obvious. Two economic and political giants — the United States and, secondly, China — and then economic dwarf Russia. Aside from nuclear weapons, Russia has no basis for claiming a place at this table.
Still, despite how utopian this movement is — even just speaking about it, thinking about it, or trying to implement it — it’s quite dangerous. Let me refer to a well-known principle, so I don’t dwell on this too long. It’s the famous Thomas theorem: if people define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. That means people act not according to the actual situation, but according to how they interpret it. That’s what is meant by self-fulfilling prophecies — when something is predicted, the world shifts accordingly. If the prophecy is made publicly, then people adjust and plan their actions around it, and the prophecy comes true.
This is a well-known scenario in the banking world: if someone loudly declares that a bank is collapsing, people start pulling their money out, and the bank collapses. Classic.
So right now — whether Trump is preparing for a new Yalta or simply doesn’t want to clash with Putin — the fact remains: the United States isn’t introducing new sanctions. Publicly, this is explained as not wanting to disrupt the negotiation process. Trump said that one must know when to use sanctions: “If I believe it could harm the deal — it’s not my war.” As for the notion that this is “Zelensky’s war,” or “Biden’s and Putin’s war,” we’ve heard that before from Trump’s previous statements.
In any case, that’s where things stand. By the way, our audience poll — a small pragmatic experiment — showed the sentiment. At the beginning of the week, we polled whether Trump would impose sanctions within the week. At that time, it was announced that sanctions might come in a week. Well, 10% of our audience believed Trump would impose sanctions, and 90% said no. And I think it’s already clear — though it’s only Thursday — that Trump definitely won’t impose any sanctions this week. Let’s see what happens next.
Russia’s Reaction to Trump Link to heading
So, Russia, for its part, responds to all of Trump’s sharp statements — as we’ve noted in previous broadcasts, where Trump accused Putin of going crazy and criticized him in various ways, albeit mildly and in a somewhat friendly tone — with extraordinary loyalty, I would even say tenderness. Putin himself remains completely silent on the matter.
A very telling moment was yesterday’s interview with Ushakov. Yuri Ushakov is Putin’s aide. He gave an interview to the usual Kremlin microphone, a journalist named Zarubin. Ushakov said that Trump doesn’t fully understand that Russia is only striking military targets in Ukraine. He went on to say that Trump is not sufficiently informed about the real situation in what Ushakov called the “Ukrainian crisis,” and complained about the increasing number of massive terrorist attacks that Ukraine is allegedly conducting against peaceful Russian cities.
So, clearly, those evil advisors are keeping poor Trump on an informational starvation diet — they’re not telling him the whole truth. As usual, it’s the classic story: “Czar Trump is good, but the boyars” — in this case, his advisors — “are bad.” They’re depriving him of information. If it weren’t for Ushakov, Zarubin, and sometimes Lavrov, Trump would remain completely ignorant. It’s laughable, of course.
Trump’s Tariffs Blocked Link to heading
Here’s another small detail regarding the sanctions situation. Just yesterday, news came out that a U.S. court has blocked the tariffs imposed by Trump, as the court believes Trump overstepped his authority. So, the court’s decision on the trade tariffs suspends the 30% tariffs that Trump imposed on China — with the exception of tariffs on automobiles, which remain in effect.
This highlights the situation of a fascist-type dictator operating within a democratic country that still maintains a separation of powers. Some of Trump’s particularly foolish decisions are neutralized through court rulings. And this, of course, is a fundamental difference between what the United States under Trump represents and what Russia under Putin represents. There are no limits on Putin’s actions in Russia — but there are limits on Trump. And that gives some reason for cautious optimism about the future.
Finland’s Readiness for War Link to heading
One more reason for optimism. I still want to end this part of our conversation on an optimistic note — and I have grounds to do so. We’ve mentioned several times that the growth point of resistance to Putinism — and not only Putinism, but also Trumpism — is Europe. And in such cases, we usually talk about what’s happening in Germany, France, or the UK — in other words, the big countries. But now I want to draw attention to Finland.
Just recently, Finnish President Stubb stated that Finland is prepared for a potential attack from Russia. The Finns have experience resisting the Soviet Union — and resisting successfully. Yes, during those Finnish wars, Finland did lose some territory, but overall, it unquestionably managed to defend its independence. That became the foundation for it to turn into one of the most prosperous and successful countries in the world.
And now, just a few highlights of what Finland — which has now joined NATO — currently represents. The Finnish president said: “We have mandatory military service, which 900,000 men and women have already completed. We have 60 F-16 fighter jets. And we’ve just acquired 64 F-35s. The largest artillery in Europe, together with Poland. So one of the borders Europe should worry least about is the Finnish border.”
And the president of Finland very calmly, in that Finnish manner, stated: “We’ll manage.” Well, as they say — they managed in the last century, and they’ll manage in this one too. There’s really no doubt about it.
It’s also very important that, like many other European countries, Finland is now closely cooperating with Ukraine on security matters. In particular, Ukraine and Finland have launched the International Shelter Coalition — civil protection in support of the Ukrainian state. According to the Finnish prime minister, 2,300 civil defense structures are planned to be built by 2027, and another 3,000 by 2030. This is just one of the many areas in which Finland supports Ukraine.
It is from such European efforts that the European security system is taking shape. And I think this is, perhaps, the decisive development — maybe not as flashy as the negotiation frenzy, but one that will ultimately determine the outcome of this war. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and the evolving system of European security — of which Ukraine will unquestionably be an organic part — that’s the real outlook, as I see it.
Against this, the Putin regime, in my view, is powerless. Against this powerful European iron hedgehog, Putin won’t be able to prevail. So there’s your note of optimism — in an otherwise not very pleasant situation.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
I’m moving on to answering your questions.
On Inviting Stanislav Kucher Link to heading
So, there have been several suggestions regarding guests. Arkady, would you consider expanding your regular circle of interlocutors to include Stanislav Kucher? He’s interesting, versatile, has lived in America for a long time, and knows it well from the inside.
Dear Arkady! This wouldn’t really be an expansion, because Stanislav Kucher has already appeared on our channel, and I think he will again. So I can’t say he’s a regular guest, but he has been on. And besides, we know each other personally and have a good, normal human relationship. So there’s no problem here.
On Experts on Israeli Topics Link to heading
Marina, regarding Israel. There’s no need to invite two people from different camps. One neutral truth-teller is enough — either Sharp or Outslander. You don’t invite Svetov, Latynina, and the like to talk. So why should we have to listen to Israeli leftists like Svetlova, Shlemovich, and so on? We already have enough of them.
You know, dear Marina, the situation here is that you seem to believe certain experts come with a stamp on their foreheads — this one tells the truth, that one lies. And yes, I agree, sometimes such marks do show. But I interpret things a bit differently. For example, I don’t think that either Shlemovich — whom I know personally — or Svetlova are some sort of leftists who lie. I haven’t seen any blatant dishonesty from them.
The issue is this: yes, Shlemovich and Svetlova probably do lean toward the left. But here’s the problem, dear Marina. If we simply want a flat declaration that Netanyahu is right about everything, and to reduce the entire Israeli-Palestinian topic to “Israel is always flawless and the Netanyahu government has done absolutely nothing wrong” — then why even have a discussion? Why bring up the topic at all? Just say: there is no issue. There’s nothing to discuss. Just crush the enemy — a kind of Bolshevik logic, where the ends justify the means.
Yes, some obvious things can be said — that Hamas must be destroyed. Absolutely true. But the real question is: how many civilians can be killed in the process of destroying Hamas? That’s the question. This is precisely what’s driving the current highly negative stance toward Israel among leading European countries. So what — do we label them all leftists, idiots, anti-Semites? That’s oversimplifying.
If we want to talk — and this is a tough topic, especially for me, because I’ve always and unequivocally stood with Israel — but that doesn’t mean I always and in everything stand with Netanyahu. That’s an important nuance.
So I’m not sure we’ll be organizing a debate on this topic on our channel — I don’t know. But I do think there’s interest, and there are questions. It’s a heavy issue. In any case, to say that truth lies only with those who don’t criticize Netanyahu’s position — that’s a mistake. It’s all about how you criticize. And to me, dialogue seems more valuable here than monologue.
On Inviting Illarionov Link to heading
Sergey Igor Aleksandrovich, could you invite Illarionov?
No, I can’t. Dear Sergey, there are several reasons why I won’t be able to do that. First, it just so happened that we once had a collegial debate — but over time that turned into something personal, and there were several rather serious insults from his side. It’s not that I’m offended, but I just don’t see the point.
And beyond that, you see, for years the man distorted statistics and consistently pushed pro-Trump narratives — even when everything was already clear. Now he’s changed his tune, having hit the wall, so to speak. Yes, he’s switched positions. He’s an adult, unquestionably intelligent and educated. But first — he lied a lot, especially with statistics, distorted facts. And second — there’s no way someone like him, competent and smart, couldn’t have understood what Trump really is.
What — did he suddenly have an epiphany? Before, Trump was fine, and now, like Trump himself, he suddenly realized Putin kills Ukrainians? That Trump is evil? Suddenly, out of nowhere? It’s strange. It’s not interesting. Just not interesting.
On Inviting Yuri Ivanov Link to heading
Sokol Krushki, Would you consider inviting Yuri Ivanov to your program? I saw a stream with him on Mark Feygin’s channel — it was a very interesting conversation. Yuri has a rich biography and a difficult life path. Who in Russia has had an easy one? Even Anatoly Borisovich Chubais probably wouldn’t say his life has been simple.
You know, I haven’t seen that stream with Yuri Ivanov. I’m not quite sure in what capacity I’d speak with him. Honestly, I don’t have much interest in him as an analyst. He’s clearly had an interesting life — traveled a lot, climbed high mountains — that’s all great. But as for what kind of conversation to have with him, I’m not sure yet. I’ll need to look into it.
On Inviting Uber-Marginal Link to heading
And now I have the next guest suggestion — and I’d like to take this opportunity to give a more detailed response about the criteria I use when deciding whom to invite or not invite. I want to check in with you as well, to see how reasonable and sufficient you find these criteria. The question is from TIK — and I’d like to remind you that if you prefer to be addressed differently, just let me know; otherwise, I’ll go with whatever abbreviation YouTube assigns.
So, the question is: Would you be interested in talking to a streamer like Uber-Marginal? He apparently has an American education in philosophy, and seems to have pursued the same academic path as someone you also once pursued.
Now, I’ll remind you that I streamed with Reis, because he’s a commander of a unit fighting on Ukraine’s side against Russian occupiers. I’m very interested in people like that. So, whenever I get the chance, I do interviews with them. As you know, we raise money for drones and provide support for these people — they’re a special concern for us. So that stream with Reis was connected specifically to his role as a commander of a Ukrainian-aligned combat unit.
Now, back to Uber-Marginal. Marginal now seems to actively support Ukraine in this war. My question is based on the fact that both of you have a background in philosophy, though at different levels — you were a lecturer, after all. Still, you’re both for Ukraine, and both Russians. There are clear differences, of course — but wouldn’t it be interesting to stream with him? He’s long been known among young audiences, and so on.
Dear colleague, here’s what I’d like to say regarding guest suggestions. Specifically about this young man — Marginal — I’m not sure a conversation between us would work. Let me explain the criteria I use for guests on our channel.
First type: the guest is an expert. Someone who knows something I don’t — or know very little about. For example, Sergey Maratovich Grabskiy or Fedorov — military experts. They understand areas where I have no expertise. Or Lipsits, or Inozemtsev — people who understand economics, where again, I don’t. That’s one guest model: the expert.
Second type: the guest as interlocutor. This is someone with whom I share many points of overlap — but who may have deeper or simply different views on certain things. Interlocutors for me include Piontkovsky, Portnikov, Shaitelman, and so on. These are the two main models. Some guests may partly fit both.
But in any case, there has to be some shared field of commonality — a foundation we both stand on. From there, we explore differences, start a conversation or debate, and maybe even gain new insight. In the case of this young man, I don’t see him as an expert.
There’s one more format — revealing a person as a phenomenon. That can be interesting too. Maybe it’s worth trying — but I’d need to study it. Overall, at this point I don’t see a conversation happening with him. I don’t quite understand how it would come together — or, more importantly, why. I can’t say I’ve watched a lot of his content, but what I’ve seen struck me as very far from my view of the world.
Is Putin a Genius and the Panchenko–Solovyov Debate Link to heading
So, a couple of questions out of general curiosity. From Giorgio: Igor Aleksandrovich, yesterday Vladimir Osechkin called Putin an evil genius and said it’s a mistake to consider him crazy or stupid — that he should be regarded specifically as an evil genius. Do you agree with that? And secondly, did you watch the Panchenko–Solovyov debate? What do you think of Solovyov?
I’ll start from the end. I didn’t watch the debate, and as for Solovyov, I’m extremely skeptical. You see, he considers himself an Orthodox Christian — fine, that’s his business — but he insists on statements like materialism being absolutely incompatible with modern science, and that the best scientists are Orthodox ones. He criticizes Judaism and Protestantism, but believes Orthodoxy is “just right.” For me, that alone makes him personally uninteresting.
Furthermore, he holds the belief that society should be governed by ideology rooted in religion. No thanks. We already have a kind of Orthodox Taliban. He’s expressed ideas like exporting spirituality from Russia to Western countries in exchange for professionalism. I’m not sure there’s any demand for a product like “Russian spirituality.”
From a political standpoint, I have major doubts about his views — for example, in 2021 he ran for office in the State Duma from Sevastopol. This indicates a lack of understanding that Sevastopol is actually a foreign city, occupied by Russian aggression. Participating in elections there is completely unacceptable. So I find him entirely uninteresting. I view him negatively.
People say he’s made some good educational videos on mathematics — well, good for him, if that’s true. I haven’t watched them, because the person doesn’t interest me.
As for Osechkin’s statement that Putin is an evil genius — I disagree. He’s evil, yes, but not a genius. I also don’t think it’s accurate to call him a fool. But I feel that Osechkin may be overreaching a bit with that label.
Is It Appropriate to Post About a Good Life These Days Link to heading
Svetlana Ovchinnikova: Hello. And this is all about him. Osechkin regularly posts videos and photos on Facebook about his wonderful life by the sea. Do you think this is appropriate? P.S. Feygin also showed America, so to speak, but that came across as informative — unlike Osechkin, whose posts seem like a display of wealth.
Dear Svetlana, I also don’t really relate — just like you — to this kind of display of, well, whatever. I haven’t seen those videos about the beautiful life by the sea. But it all depends on how it’s done. If that’s what they’re like, then yes — maybe it is inappropriate. I don’t know.
But what I don’t agree with is the idea that “this is all about him.” No — that’s not all there is to him. Because what really defines him is his role as the founder of Gulagu.net. As a human rights defender, he’s done a great deal to shape our current understanding of the prison system, the role of the FSB, things like in-cell surveillance operations, and so on.
So no — those Facebook videos about scenic France are not all that define him. What truly defines him is his work with Gulagu.net. That’s when we can say it’s “all about him.”
Tribunal Project Link to heading
So, Yulia, I have two questions. Did I understand correctly that you were planning a Tribunal project with Vladimir Vasiliev? And sorry, but is there any ongoing work about Putin’s war criminals, or not yet?
I can say right away — no. During a broadcast with him, we did seem to agree that we would work in that direction, but that’s where it ended. That agreement didn’t lead to anything further.
Yulia also expressed concern that such a project might be dangerous for me. Well, you know, that definitely wouldn’t have stopped me. But it just so happened that the project didn’t move forward.
Does a Higher Intelligence Exist Link to heading
And Yulia’s second question: You’ve said you consider yourself an agnostic, since there’s no evidence of a higher intelligence. But what would count as irrefutable evidence for you — even if we discovered a civilization on Alpha Centauri? That wouldn’t mean much — just different conditions, a different atmosphere, a different mind. For me, no proof is needed. One look at a cat’s face is enough to see that a higher intelligence of love exists. But surely you’re not waiting for someone to knock on your window and shout “Hi Igor, it’s me! The higher intelligence!” So what events or discoveries would convince an agnostic in general, and you in particular, of the existence of a higher intelligence?
None. None would convince me. As for the cat’s face — I’m happy to agree with you. There really is something there. I didn’t name this project “Religion” by accident. Because these are, indeed, stirrings of the soul — similar to religious ones. So on that point, I agree with you — but only on that point. Just the cat’s face. Well, and also the dog’s, the kangaroo’s, the chickadee’s, and so on.
But beyond that — absolutely right — there are no such proofs. That’s the whole point. Just as there’s no proof of the existence of a higher intelligence, and there can’t be. That’s precisely why I remain an agnostic — not a militant atheist, not a religious person — but specifically an agnostic. Because there’s no proof whatsoever.
Hypnosis, Propaganda, and Mass Psychosis Link to heading
Limitov: Igor Aleksandrovich, Andrey Bilzho, as a psychiatrist, has repeatedly claimed that 90–95% of people are highly susceptible to hypnosis — meaning, suggestible and prone to believe all kinds of nonsense if influenced. He wasn’t saying this to excuse Russians, but rather as a reality. If the induction — say, propaganda radio — is still active, there’s no point in trying to change someone’s mind. Only after the induction ends might there be a chance. What do you, as a psychologist, think about this? I’d be very interested to hear your conversations with Bilzho on the topic. How can we help lonely people in Russia who, overall, share our beliefs? Also, I came across a quote somewhere — possibly from Jung — claiming that in the future, the real threat to humanity won’t be natural disasters or pandemics, but mass psychosis that could consume most of the population. And that this could be the end. Please correct me — who said that and what was the context? I remember it being dark, but convincing.
Dear colleague, I don’t know exactly which text you came across. But if we’re talking about Jung, I was once very struck by one of his interviews — from 1945, with a Swiss newspaper whose name I can’t recall. It was conducted literally right after Germany’s surrender — I think it was in the first ten days of May 1945.
That interview was titled “Will the Soul Find Peace?” In it, Jung reflected on the causes of the mass psychosis that overtook the German nation in the 1930s and 40s. He used terms like “demons” — saying these demons were just waiting to crawl out from the depths of the psyche. And that after Germany, this evil would seek out other nations in which to incarnate.
Jung described the Germans as a people particularly vulnerable to these forces. He believed that Germans were extraordinarily suggestible — and that their traits, such as discipline and obedience, were in fact expressions of this susceptibility to suggestion. An interesting point of view.
If that’s the text you had in mind — yes, Jung did explore ideas of mass psychosis. It may very well be the one you remembered. It’s indeed a fascinating and powerful read.
Dubious Views Are Defended More Aggressively Link to heading
So, Yakov Shulman: A question for you as a philosopher and psychologist. I’ve noticed in life — and now even more while listening to the questions and comments during your streams — that the more dubious someone’s opinion is, the more categorically they seem to defend it. If you agree with me, why do you think that is?
Yes, dear Yakov, I agree with you. If a viewpoint is clearly flawed, there’s a very simple causal chain at work. When someone defends a clearly mistaken position, and yet chooses to stand by it, they lack real arguments to support it. That’s why the defense of such a position inevitably relies on volume, expressiveness, emotion, categorical tone, and personal attacks.
That’s all there is to it. If you’re defending a viewpoint that can be backed up by many arguments, then — depending on temperament, of course — you can calmly lay out those arguments. There’s no need to get personal. But if you have no proof — and your position is clearly incorrect — then you’re left with only one tactic: not attacking the thesis, but attacking the person.
Is the Brain Evidence of a Higher Intelligence Link to heading
Liliya Petrova: Please tell me, what phenomena could be considered traces of cosmic consciousness? According to scientists, the brain is the most complex structure to study. Could it be seen as a trace of a higher intelligence?
For me, no phenomena can be considered traces of cosmic consciousness. Can the brain be regarded as evidence of a higher intelligence? Yes, certainly, there are people who believe that. And I see no reason to outright refute that view — because it’s not proven either way. And how could it be proven?
If it were somehow demonstrated that it is fundamentally impossible to understand the brain — that there’s a boundary we can’t cross — then maybe. But brain research continues, and continues to yield results. So we can’t say the brain is unknowable.
To me, there’s currently no direct evidence that the brain is a structure brought in from outside, from beyond Earth. No such evidence exists so far — nor are there real prerequisites for thinking that way. Although I do know people — including highly educated ones — who hold that belief.
Alternative Models for Structuring Society Link to heading
A question from Igor — oh, what a question. Well, it’s been asked: You’ve studied the works of many thinkers, past and present. Are there any theories proposing alternative ways of structuring society, aside from capitalism, communism, and the like? I mean fundamentally different models, like Utopia, City of the Sun, etc.
Well, Utopia and City of the Sun are communism — different versions of communist ideas. So they’re not really alternatives.
If yes, could you name some authors and briefly describe the ideas? Are any of them potentially successful or implementable, given current human psychology? Or is our current path of civilization development completely without alternatives? Let’s take even a basic aspect like finance. Is the banking system of deposits and unsecured loans really something humanity is stuck with forever?
You know, dear namesake, that’s a question fit for at least a couple of hour-and-a-half lectures. But I’ll try to be brief.
Humanity has come up with — or thought up — a great many alternative models through various authors. Let’s start with the most topical: Trumpism — or more precisely, the theoretical foundation surrounding Trump — is connected with what’s called technocracy, or even “techno-fascism.” This is a governance model where technical experts and scientists make decisions. A variant of this techno-reactionary model is the “Dark Enlightenment” of Curtis Yarvin (not Collins). Trump himself may not have read him, but people in his circle — like J.D. Vance and others — are proponents of this concept. So that’s one clear alternative model.
There’s the concept of a resource-based economy — a model in which production and resource distribution are governed by principles of rational use and availability.
Then there are classical models that are alternatives to both capitalism and socialism — like anarchism. Various forms of anarchism propose political structures with no centralized state or hierarchy.
A widely adopted model in Europe is “social capitalism” — a theory that challenges the notion that socialism and capitalism are antagonistic. This model is being implemented before our eyes in Northern Europe — and as far as I know, also in Canada — and shows some real successes.
A very particular model was proposed by Alvin Toffler — a well-known futurist — in his forecasts and proposals. One of his ideas was a “throwaway economy” (not in the ecological sense, but meaning a model where resources and production are governed not centrally but via decentralized horizontal networks). This is laid out in detail in Toffler’s works.
What else? Well, even from memory, there’s anarcho-communism — a mix of anarchism and communism: no private property, no centralized state, and so on.
Nationalism — there’s another model. Fascism — yet another.
Then there’s the concept of post-capitalism — the idea of transitioning from capitalism to a new economic system. So in reality, there are many such models. Some are already being partially realized.
On Blavatsky Link to heading
Valentina Volkova: Igor Aleksandrovich, what do you think of Blavatsky? She dealt only with mysticism and esotericism — she can’t be called a scholar, can she?
Well, of course not. She was certainly no scholar — she was a mystic. She dabbled in some racism, some antisemitism. This is absolutely not science.
And the reason is simple: science always involves verifiability. Science always requires evidence. She had none of that. She only had belief — just assertions of certain “truths,” and that’s all. So no, this is absolutely not science — though, like any religion or belief system, it has many followers.
On Potapenko’s Prediction That the Front Will Collapse by Fall Link to heading
A question from Yuri: Are you familiar with the economist Dmitry Potapenko?
No, not personally.
He often speaks on the Grani platform, shares pessimistic scenarios, says it’s all hypocrisy — that if the West really wanted to, it would’ve defeated Putin long ago. But as it stands, the current situation benefits everyone. As for Trump — what’s the issue? He only cares about himself and Americans. It’s more profitable for him to trade with Russia than to help Ukraine, so he doesn’t help. He says U.S. aid from Biden will end by mid-summer. Just another month and a half or two, and everything will be depleted. He predicts a collapse of the front in the fall. That’s why Putin is stalling — to wait for autumn. What do you think about these forecasts?
I think he’s mistaken. Honestly, I haven’t been listening to him much lately. One moment — excuse me, colleagues, I need to close the window because there’s a loud chainsaw going outside. One second.
Okay, dear friends, sorry for the interruption — thanks to those who waited. I hope someone’s still listening.
So, I’m not enthusiastic about these kinds of predictions. I think they’re not based on reality. A front-line collapse in the fall? I don’t see Putin having the capacity to make that happen. And I don’t see a catastrophic situation on the Ukrainian side either. I don’t believe that forecast will come true.
On Whether Europe Understands Its Insufficient Support for Ukraine Link to heading
Elvira Mamedova: Do you think the EU understands that if they had given Ukraine proper support in the first months of the full-scale war — everything needed, full-scale — the war would already be over?
Dear Elvira, I think this is still more of a question for the United States, because the EU likely didn’t have — and still doesn’t have — the necessary military resources. We can see now that Europe’s attempts to compensate for the shortfall in U.S. military (not financial) aid are running up against the simple limitation of European military capacity.
So I think the question is more directed at the U.S. Did the United States understand this? I don’t know — because “the United States” is not a single entity, it’s individual people. Some surely understood, others didn’t. But in any case, their primary concern has always been themselves.
Can Russia’s Neighbors Join Military Alliances Link to heading
GERMAN: Creating military alliances with my neighbors without my consent is a hostile act toward me. That’s just an axiom. The Yalta agreements on spheres of influence were never repealed. And the gas station was just trampled. Or beaten. Sanych, don’t you agree?
Dear German, look — the Yalta system began to collapse at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, with the onset of perestroika. And it fully collapsed in 1991. The Soviet Union — one of the pillars of the Yalta system — ceased to exist. Central and Eastern European countries suddenly found themselves without the demarcation lines that the Yalta system had set up. So they rebuilt — and a new map of Europe was formed.
This wasn’t because someone trampled a “gas station,” dear German — and by “gas station” you clearly mean Russia, right? But the Yalta system was not built by Russia — it was built by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is gone. And Russia is not the USSR. No one built a Yalta system with Russia. So there was no betrayal — none.
As for the idea that creating alliances with your neighbors without your consent is a hostile act — you’re free to feel that way, but neighbors have the right to form military alliances. Why should Ukraine have to ask Russia for permission to form alliances with Europe or the U.S.? On what basis? Is Ukraine a vassal?
Should Russia, for symmetry’s sake, ask Ukraine whether it can form an alliance with China? In the very framing of your question, dear German, there’s a deep imperial notion — that Russia has some inherent rights, and Ukraine does not. That’s the real issue.
Any country has the right to form alliances with whomever it sees fit. The other country, in turn, has the right to respond — within the limits of international law, and without violence. Strengthening one’s defenses, reinforcing borders — sure. But coercion and demands? No.
On the Reasons Behind the Uyghur Genocide in China Link to heading
Is that right? Marina, Could you please explain where and when the Uyghurs crossed paths with the Chinese in a negative way? Why do the Chinese harbor such hatred toward this nation?
Dear Marina! You know, well, I won’t go into a long discussion about the history of the Uyghur people. The Uyghurs are Muslims, and generally they don’t speak Chinese well. They don’t write in Chinese characters; they use Arabic script. In addition, all of this is compounded by the extreme poverty of the Uyghur people. That led to clashes and, so to speak, China… China. The People’s Republic of China began to perceive the Uyghurs as enemies. That is, the Uyghurs are undeniably a distinct people who appear to be a foreign body within China. I emphasize again—they speak Chinese poorly. Visually as well. They wear beards, like many Muslims. They wear different clothing, and so on. That is, they stand out among the other Chinese ethnic groups and religions by their appearance, language, way of life, and so forth. They are Muslims. Even a small detail like the fact that they don’t eat pork—while pork is, as we know, a very common part of the diet in China. That’s a small thing, of course, but still. So, in fact, the Uyghurs are very much isolated. And in addition to this, due to their deep poverty, there have been ongoing conflicts. And therefore, the Chinese government began to perceive the Uyghurs as a threat, as terrorists, and took rather uncivilized measures against them, such as concentration camps. That’s what the Chinese call “re-education.” This is truly a monstrous… a monstrous formation on the body of the People’s Republic of China. These so-called re-education camps for the Uyghurs. The scale is more than 1,000,000 people, while the total number of Uyghurs, as I understand it, is around 12 million. Out of those, 1,000,000 are in re-education camps. So it’s a tragic, tragic history.
Where Have the Historical Analogies Gone Link to heading
A question from Marat For some reason, there haven’t been any historical analogies for a while. Have you deemed this column no longer relevant, or have there just been no suitable events?
You know, sometimes, in certain cases, it’s simply a matter of not having the time, and in other cases, yes, indeed, there just aren’t any events to be found. You see, historical rhymes are things that have occurred in history. And right now, it’s a very relevant topic. Well, sometimes I just don’t—don’t—don’t find such events. That’s just how it is. And besides, forgive me, I’m not a professional historian after all—I’m undoubtedly an amateur when it comes to history. So my historical knowledge is quite limited. If there were a professional historian in my place, perhaps this column could be updated daily. But I can’t manage that.
What Happens If Putin’s Double Is Killed Link to heading
Nadezhda Kotik. Here’s the question: if an assassination attempt on Putin is successful, but it’s his double who is killed, would it be considered that Putin is dead or not? That is, would the Kremlin announce that it was the double who was killed and present the real Putin, or would they be forced to acknowledge the dictator’s death?
Well, dear Nadezhda, I think that, obviously, they wouldn’t be able to acknowledge the dictator’s death because the dictator is alive. So I believe that, most likely, they wouldn’t announce anything at all. They’d say there was an attempt on Putin’s life, but it failed. That’s all. That’s most likely how it would go. Or maybe they wouldn’t say anything at all.
On the Importance of Elections in Poland Link to heading
Andrey Zima. Dear Igor, wouldn’t you like to draw attention to the elections in Poland?
I most certainly would. Absolutely. It’s one of the key events in the near future.
On the Ban of Murakami in Russia Link to heading
Why do you think Murakami was banned? Haruki. Could it be that the authorities grasped the depth of his philosophy?
No, I think that nowadays they’re just banning things. They banned Yerofeyev, they banned a whole bunch of other authors—it’s just… just try to understand. They’re banning all good literature, you see? They’ll leave just Prilepin, and in music—only Shaman. So go ahead, enjoy that.
Teenage Cruelty Link to heading
Natalya Zhuravleva I’ve been in shock for two days. Omsk. Two 13-year-old girls from different families bought a puppy on Avito and brutally killed it with a brick. They also stabbed it. I don’t understand—are they mentally ill? Is mental illness spreading like the flu from person to person? What’s happening to people? The cruelty is off the charts. I’m afraid to step on a bug—I watch where I walk. This is entertainment to them. Idiots are multiplying. What is going on?
You know, when it comes to the causes of cruelty in general—especially among children and teenagers—sometimes it’s simply pathology. And in those cases, the roots of it are difficult to trace. Just pathology. But as a rule, these are children from troubled families, children from homes where there is violence. They themselves are abused and try to compensate for it. So, in reality, this problem of monstrous, pathological teenage cruelty… Well, now, forgive me, when violence is widespread throughout society due to the war and even being acted out—then there’s no need to search for the causes. They’re right on the surface. It’s a tragedy. You could also read Gorky’s text on Russian cruelty. It’s a very, very powerful piece. I think it explains a lot.
Why Pay Attention to Trump Link to heading
Alex Ivanov You’re absolutely right that we should pay attention to Trump’s words. But on the other hand, isn’t it obvious that he just blurted something out? What sanctions from him, what harm to Russia? The question is: why don’t you clearly and directly articulate that Trump, through his own mouth, is a greedy creature. Period. Trump is only about corruption, enrichment, his cronies and billionaire friends—he gets a cut of everything. Period. Trump is an absolute amateur who’s so dumb he doesn’t even try to understand the essence of problems. Period. So why analyze his cheap statements if it’s obvious he’s an empty pie, or in other words, a nobody?
Well, you know, since this nobody leads the most powerful country in the world, we have to. We have to pay attention.
On Russia’s Capacity to Expand Military Power Link to heading
Alexey. Could you, at your next meeting with Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman, ask about his capabilities, his peak, and Russia’s capacity for multiple expansions and the creation of new weapons? In yesterday’s stream, he very convincingly, like a mathematician, presented a viewpoint different from yours. You think Russia can do it, but that it will take a long time. And he says the growth limit has already been reached. His opinion seems closer to the truth to me. I’d love to search for that truth with both of you on this topic.
I think that’s possible. I think we’ll talk. But in this case, with all due respect and sympathy toward Mikhail Pavlovich, I still think that, let’s say, economists have a more authoritative opinion on this matter. For example, there’s—there’s… There are various viewpoints. There’s the view of Lipsits, there’s the view of Inozemtsev. And with them, on this specific issue, I’d spend hours discussing. I’m willing to compare perspectives with Mikhail Pavlovich. It’s a good idea.
Historical Distortion in Different Countries Link to heading
Vera. Has anyone ever analyzed history textbooks in CIS countries—how historical facts are presented to children, for example about World War II, the origins of Rus’, and other wars? What’s the percentage of distortion, if it exists today, in the era of the Internet and diverse information, where many people’s minds are, to put it mildly, chaotic? In order to understand, many believe and trust verified sources. Many just don’t want to know the truth. I’d really like to hear about this. I’d love to hear specific examples.
You know, just recently I came across a report from INION, the former institute once headed by Academician Yuri Sergeyevich Pivovarov. But since he left, INION has turned into who knows what. And there was a report about how history textbooks present Russia from the perspective of historians in CIS countries. And the authors of that report were outraged that Russia is portrayed as an empire—conquest, imperialism, and so on—from a negative standpoint. I think that’s an interesting case. And, in principle, I know that comparative studies of how history is taught in different countries are always fascinating. I’ve encountered such research—they’re always interesting. Usually, there’s a certain bias toward emphasizing the importance of the country to which the textbook authors belong. That’s a natural process. So overall, yes, it’s interesting. But what I’m aware of most recently is that report—that’s from last year, 2024—from that Institute of Public Information, INION. They were very critical of the history textbooks in CIS countries.
How to Respond to Those Asking How to Keep Living Link to heading
Pavel. Igor Aleksandrovich, can your viewers who ask what to do and how to live be offered a solution from the founder of the Italian Communist Party: to combine the pessimism of the intellect with the optimism of the will—or is that just a quality? The point isn’t that it’s a quality.
Dear colleague, I don’t quite understand how this appeal, this recommendation, can be applied to life in today’s Russia. What does “optimism of the will” mean in today’s Russia? I’d like to understand that. As a phrase, it’s beautiful, sure. But I’m not going to use it, because I wouldn’t understand what it means. Let’s say someone lives in provincial Russia, surrounded by war supporters, while they themselves oppose the war. So what does “optimism of the will” mean in that context? “Pessimism of the intellect”—that I get. But “optimism of the will”? What, are they supposed to start punching every war supporter in the face? Or go blow up military enlistment offices and derail trains? I don’t understand. That kind of “optimism of the will” would be over very quickly. I definitely won’t call for that. Doing so while sitting in relative safety would be wrong. So I’m troubled by the applicability of this formula.
On the Demographic Situation Link to heading
And a second question also from Pavel. Demographic losses due primarily to excess mortality in the former USSR from 1991 to 2005 are comparable to the losses in the Great Patriotic War. Ukraine alone lost 5 million people during that period—10% of its population. Can this not be considered a catastrophe? Or is it only not considered one because Putin also called it a catastrophe?
Dear colleague, I don’t think this can be assessed in such terms. Why? Because comparing it to war—during war, people are simply killed. Someone was alive, and then they weren’t. That’s a catastrophe. But here the situation is somewhat different. It’s not so much about mortality as it is about a decline in birth rates. And you see, unlike our obscurantists, I don’t believe that one can equate the non-birth of a person with their murder. Those are different things. I mean, of course, I understand that you can take things to idiotic extremes and start demanding rights for sperm. But you know, even for me—as someone who deeply respects all life—that seems excessive. So I wouldn’t equate declining birth rates with the catastrophe of war.
On Putin’s Territorial Claims Link to heading
Okay. And here’s the third question from Pavel. What actions or statements by Putin led to the idea that he intends to dismantle the Nazi-nationalist-oligarchic state of the Russian Federation and recreate a class-based socialist state like the USSR? Especially considering that he’s very proud of his role in the USSR’s collapse. See the Carlson interview.
Dear colleague, I don’t know where you got the idea that I claimed Putin is planning to recreate a class-based USSR. I never said anything of the sort. And Putin isn’t planning to do that either. When he talks about restoring the USSR—or when I say Putin wants to restore the USSR—we’re talking about territory. In his head, it’s all about territory, you see? He’s trying to recreate not the socio-political structure of the Soviet Union, but its territory. In his mind, it’s about grabbing more land—land, you understand? So that’s something entirely different. There’s nothing like the creation of a class-based state. I mean, what class-based state, for heaven’s sake? Let’s not use clichés. That was a communist dictatorship. He’s not trying to establish any kind of communist dictatorship. Just land. Land.
On Inviting Zheleznyak Link to heading
A few comments. Irina, a clarification to your comments. At one point, you were criticized for doing a stream with Zheleznyak. You defended it by saying, “Well, he didn’t leave.” But spotters and collaborators didn’t leave either. And today your comparison—Osechkin, Katz, Zelensky. Portnov. Maybe the first pair have nothing in common ideologically, but the second pair have worked very closely together since 2019. And you know that, don’t you?
I think you’ll agree the comparison is off. Colleagues, I honestly don’t understand what this is about. I invited Verkhovna Rada deputy Zheleznyak because I was interested in talking to a representative—well, at the time I invited him, he was a representative of what’s called the ruling party, the Servant of the People party. I was curious who these people are. Someone recommended Zheleznyak to me, I met with him. It was just, well, a chance to get acquainted. So we met—end of story. What’s so terrible about that? And your analogy, dear Irina, with “spotters”—well, that’s just too much. I understand that many people dislike the Servant of the People party, many dislike Ukraine’s president Zelensky. But to compare them with spotters or collaborators—come on, that’s extreme. I think if you reflect on it, you’ll abandon that comparison. He’s no spotter. He’s someone who understands Ukraine’s national interests in his own way. Definitely not a spotter—I’m referring to Zheleznyak. And comparing Zelensky to Portnov—I think that’s absurd, just absurd. Zelensky is the president of a country at war. He represents his country internationally and fights for its interests—as best he can. Portnov is a completely different figure, a fixer, just a fixer. So I think what’s going on here is that you really dislike President Zelensky. And you, apparently being a citizen of Ukraine, are fully entitled to that opinion—but even so, going overboard with that dislike is clearly not right either. Criticize him—yes, you have every right to do so, unlike me.
About Wikipedia Link to heading
Vladimir Prudnikov, Igor Aleksandrovich, such information is written in Wikipedia regarding Yabloko. That’s where the roots of the disinformation about you come from.
Well, you know, there are people who constantly edit their own Wikipedia biographies. I’ve never done that. From the very beginning, when a request came in for information about me, I told my assistants to just send some formal summary and that’s it. And I’ve never edited or engaged in this battle over my biography. At first, I noticed some funny mistakes on Wikipedia—about how many children I have, some biographical details. But I never tried to correct anything. After all, people often embellish their biographies there, adding made-up things. I haven’t done that. As for Yabloko, this is very simple. I was never a member of Yabloko, nor was the Yabloko party ever a faction I belonged to. The faction I was in was called—what was it again? My God! Yavlinsky, Boldyrev, Lukin. There was no Yabloko back then. It was created later, during the second convocation, with which I had nothing to do. So it’s just an inaccuracy and a trifle. Trifles, really. Just an inaccuracy.
A Question About the Book Link to heading
Oleg Popkov I was hoping to hear an answer to the question about your book.
Which book? Dear Oleg, I haven’t seen your question and don’t quite understand which book you’re referring to.
About Music Link to heading
Marat. A correction to the corrections about music. In the environment around us, there are no actual sounds. There are oscillations of continuous media, known as acoustic waves. These are either longitudinal waves of compression and rarefaction or transverse shear waves. What we perceive as sound is a model created by our brain based on the frequency of these waves—within a very limited range. Similarly, there is no such thing as color in nature. Color is also a brain-generated model of electromagnetic wave frequencies, also within a narrow range. Smell is a model of the chemical composition of molecules. The picture of the surrounding world is a set of models created by our brain through our senses. These models are constantly monitored and corrected.
I have no objections to such an interpretation. I agree. Yes, indeed, this is—this is… The point here is that it doesn’t really matter what we call these oscillations—as you rightly put it—these oscillations of continuous media, these acoustic waves contain a certain harmony, and that harmony exists in nature as well. And in fact, you haven’t refuted anything our colleagues said—nothing at all. There is a certain harmony present. The difference is that only humans can identify this harmony. In some cases, animals can perceive it too. So, really, this is a good and valid observation.
On Biden Not Signing a Law Developed Under Trump Link to heading
So, the channel sponsor, who calls himself the backbone, clearly disagrees with my statement. It’s definitely odd to blame Biden for not signing a law that emerged after he had already left office. That’s quite a strange accusation. And then our colleague, the channel sponsor, says: It’s strange to interpret the listener’s question in such a strange way. Obviously, the question implied not a specific draft law, but whether the U.S. could have developed and passed such a law during Biden’s time.
You know, we’re currently under Trump’s leadership again, and yes, the law was developed under Trump, but it hasn’t been passed yet—and it’s unclear if it will be. So I still believe that blaming Biden for not passing or signing a law that wasn’t developed during his presidency is, well, quite strange. The possibilities, yes, they existed. But once again, I want to emphasize this: all the criticisms of Biden seem to pale in comparison to what Trump is doing right now.
Comment on Trump Link to heading
A question from someone who calls themselves AI. I didn’t see any contradiction against Trump. If not for me, Trump likely meant the possible victory of the Democrats, unlike whom Trump is ready for a Munich-style deal, ready to whitewash Putin, to pull the Russian Federation out of the swamp of political isolation, to legitimize the occupied territories—all under the guise of a peacemaker. For this, Putin would have to stop at the front line, enter negotiations, and continue destroying Ukraine through political means. Trump would also help here by discrediting Ukraine’s leadership in the media and slowing European integration. Right? A further mass attack by Shahed drones would only splash blood on Trump and raise his political risks. But Putin has the bit in his teeth and won’t stop. Trump’s rationality only emboldens Putin. He has no intention of returning to civilization. He’s succeeding in intimidating Europe. Lumpens are doing the fighting—whose own lumpen mothers gladly exchange them for new ones. Putin sees no risk to his life, power, or future.
I have no objections to your interpretation.
On the Lindsey Graham Bill Link to heading
Gloomy Donkey. What does anything have to do with it? The so-called Lindsey Graham bill emerged during Trump’s presidency, so it couldn’t have been passed under Biden.
Right, and so on. This is a repetition of the idea that, yes. And Gloomy Donkey also disagrees with the notion that it supposedly won’t work.
As an argument, you say that China and India buy oil from Russia and won’t comply with sanctions because they would lose money? Besides Russia, there are about 30 other countries selling oil. If buying Russian oil at a discount brings China and India tens of billions of dollars, getting hit with U.S. and European sanctions would cost them hundreds of billions in losses.
Well, you know, let’s just see how it all plays out. I’m absolutely convinced that this bill, in the form in which it’s been proposed, won’t even be passed. Because this bill means war with the entire world. And the idea that the United States controls the world—even though it’s currently the most economically powerful country—well, it’s long since stopped being the dominant one. Just look at how China reacted. Not only China—look how China reacted to the U.S. trade war. It remained completely calm, absolutely unwilling to compromise or make deals. It imposed counter-sanctions against Iran, against the United States. And Trump backed off, you see? So I don’t think that Europe and the U.S. combined are in a position today to bring the world to its knees. They simply can’t. That’s why I think the situation with this bill will be very, very limited. Even if it is passed and enforced—I mean, of course I’d like it if this immediately destroyed the Russian economy and stopped Putin’s war. But unfortunately, I’m extremely skeptical about that.
Final Words Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream for today. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov and to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you soon!
Source: https://youtu.be/jVCIiBTYERc