The echo of the scandal in the Oval Office. Europe has agreed on four steps to support Ukraine and has tried to persuade the US not to split Euro-Atlantic unity. Thanks to Musk, the US may get dozens of Snowdens.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 3rd. It is now 07:40 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and within our souls. In general terms, all of this can be summed up as the echo of the scandal in the Oval Office and the reverberations of that echo. It has, in a way, encompassed the entire globe, returned to the United States, and is now resonating both there and in Europe.
The US Continues to Attack Ukraine Link to heading
In particular, everything that happened in London can, to some extent, be considered an echo of this scandal. For example, Ukrainian President Zelensky, in comments to the press, stated that he is still ready to sign an agreement with the United States regarding mineral resources. In response, the US Treasury Secretary commented that the deal is not currently on the negotiating table.
That Treasury Secretary, Scott Bassett, addressed the Ukrainian president in a lecturing tone, saying that all Zelensky needed to do was show up and sign the economic agreement. But instead, he decided to ruin everything. Well, the whole world saw who actually ruined everything, who staged a demonstrative scandal and attempted to publicly humiliate President Zelensky. It’s clear that a member of Trump’s team is not someone from whom objectivity can be expected. Nevertheless, this is the exchange of remarks that took place.
Several Washington officials are now insisting that the Ukrainian president step down so that a peace agreement can be signed. For example, US National Security Advisor Michael Work told CNN, and I quote: “We need a leader who can deal with us and, ultimately, deal with the Russians to end this war.” That is the position of the US National Security Advisor. Now, the question remains—do the citizens of Ukraine actually agree that the primary criterion for their president should be the ability to “deal” with the Russians and the Americans?
And, of course, we can’t forget about the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Michael Johnson, who is known for personally blocking $61 billion in US aid for six months at Trump’s direction. Now, he has expressed confidence that Zelensky should come to his senses and gratefully return to the negotiating table—or that someone else should take charge of the country. Essentially, this position suggests that, after being subjected to numerous insults from the Oval Office, the Ukrainian president is expected to behave like the Russian princes of old, crawling on their knees before the footwear of the Khan of the Golden Horde. That seems to be the concept—though, of course, without the exotic elements. The power dynamic is simply not equal here.
I really liked how Ksenia Sobchak, with a weary smile, explained that there is no equality—after all, the US president and the Ukrainian president are not equals. What kind of equality can there be between them? Well, that’s just how the world works, according to this worldview. People are not equal, you see? And this idea is deeply ingrained, not only on both sides of the ocean. So, that’s the reaction for now. We will continue discussing the echoes of the scandal in the Oval Office.
European Summit Link to heading
Now, I want to turn to the main event, which is undoubtedly also part of the echo of the White House scandal. This event took place in the British capital, where a summit was held for about two hours, bringing together leaders from European and non-European countries—around twenty in total. Unfortunately, due to what seems to have been a bureaucratic oversight, the heads of the Baltic states were not invited. The British Prime Minister later apologized for this, calling it a major mistake. Quite a mistake, indeed.
Nevertheless, during President Zelensky’s visit to London, he announced that the UK would provide Ukraine with access to £1.6 billion for the purchase of over 5,000 air defense missiles. In addition, Kyiv was granted a €2.6 billion loan, to be repaid using revenue from frozen Russian assets in the UK. This follows a broader trend, as the UK has a significant amount of frozen Russian assets—about £26 billion, plus an additional £18 billion from private individuals on sanctions lists. This means similar financial measures could be taken in the future.
So, what came out of this summit, attended by more than two dozen heads of state from the EU and beyond, including the Canadian Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Ursula von der Leyen? It was a fairly high-profile meeting, and as a result, they agreed on a four-step plan to support Ukraine. What do these four steps entail?
- Providing military aid to Ukraine and increasing economic pressure on Russia.
- Ensuring that Ukraine always has a seat at the negotiating table—essentially reaffirming the principle of “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.”
- Committing to prevent any future invasion of Ukraine in the event of a peace agreement.
- Creating a “coalition of the willing” to protect Ukraine.
These points seem somewhat vague to me. When a plan is presented in “steps,” each step should logically build on the previous one, but I don’t see that structure here. Perhaps it’s just the nature of such declarative documents, which don’t always form a coherent strategy.
However, the key takeaway is that Ukraine received full and unconditional support from almost all participants. Of course, there are always outliers—Hungary and Slovakia, the well-known Trojan horses within the EU, are clearly working against this. But aside from them, Ukraine enjoyed broad backing. Most European leaders supported Zelensky after the Oval Office scandal.
What stands out, however, is that apart from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, most leaders were very careful to emphasize that all actions must be coordinated with the United States. They fully supported Zelensky but went to great lengths to ensure that their support was not interpreted as a confrontation with Trump. This is important because, as we’ve all seen, anti-European sentiment is strong in certain US circles—whether in J.D. Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, Elon Musk’s disrespectful behavior, or Trump’s outright hostility toward Europe. His actions speak for themselves: from attempting to “buy” Greenland from Denmark to imposing harsh tariffs on European goods. This isn’t just criticism—it’s direct attacks on the very foundation of the European order.
Yet, European leaders are not responding with equal hostility. They are making every effort to maintain transatlantic unity. Figures like Donald Tusk repeatedly stressed that any support measures for Ukraine would be undertaken strictly in coordination with the United States. This highlights a fundamental asymmetry: while the US is clearly moving toward distancing itself from Europe and even considering closer ties with Russia, Europe is desperately trying to mend the cracks caused by the Oval Office scandal. But so far, there’s been little effort from the other side of the Atlantic to meet them halfway.
Of course, beyond the European leaders, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is also deeply concerned. Given his position, it’s understandable why he is worried about the US undermining global security structures. There’s serious talk in Washington about withdrawing from the United Nations. While this hasn’t taken concrete form yet, considering Trump’s rhetoric and actions, nothing seems out of the question—including a US withdrawal from NATO. Again, this is not an immediate reality, but the trajectory suggests that such a scenario isn’t beyond the realm of possibility. And Rutte is surely aware of this, which is why, in his speech, he urged the media to “stop gossiping” about what the US might or might not do. His message was clear: “The US remains committed to NATO. Period.”
As for “gossip,” well, I don’t know—maybe he’s right, maybe not. But for me, historical parallels are worth discussing, which is why I’ve moved some of these reflections to my Telegram channel to keep our morning broadcasts more concise. But since today is March 3rd, I’ll take a moment to remind everyone that it’s World Press Freedom Day. The right to free speech was formally recognized in 1901 with an international agreement signed by most countries. So, what Rutte calls “gossip” is, in fact, the exercise of free speech. And given Trump and his team’s behavior, is it really so far-fetched to think that the US could withdraw from NATO under his leadership?
Understandably, Rutte doesn’t want to acknowledge this possibility, because if it happens, it could mean NATO’s dissolution and the creation of an entirely new alliance—perhaps a European-led defense pact that includes Canada, Australia, South Korea, or even Japan. That might sound speculative, but it doesn’t contradict the direction in which US policy is heading. This is why Rutte is so worried—his position depends on NATO’s survival. And, as is often the case with politicians, when they see a problem, their instinct is to suppress the media rather than address the issue itself. In that, European and American officials aren’t so different from their Russian counterparts—though, of course, their methods vary.
Finally, among all the leaders’ statements, one stands out—Trudeau’s. He was the only one to directly address Trump. After all, Trump not only referred to him as a “governor” but also suggested that Canada should become the 51st US state. In response, Trudeau stated that for Canada, nothing is more important than defending its sovereignty. He also announced plans to discuss the matter with King Charles III, given Canada’s continued formal ties to the British monarchy.
Trudeau was also one of the strongest supporters of Zelensky at the summit—unsurprising, given that he, too, has been a target of Trump’s attacks. Musk even went so far as to mock Trudeau by calling him a “girl”—which, aside from being a childish insult, also raises questions about Musk’s grasp of gender issues.
Zelensky’s Meeting with the King of the United Kingdom Link to heading
After meeting with the Prime Minister, President Zelensky met with the King of the United Kingdom. Interestingly, during this meeting, neither the King nor anyone in his entourage seemed to have any concerns about the fact that Zelensky was not wearing a tuxedo, a suit jacket, or even a tie. Apparently, the King’s royal blood is not quite as “blue” as Donald Trump’s, given that Trump and his circle made a point of mocking Zelensky’s attire. Trump himself made rude, sarcastic remarks about Zelensky’s clothing, while his sycophants in the friendly press went so far as to ask whether the Ukrainian president even owned a suit.
In contrast, the King of the United Kingdom and his entourage showed no such pettiness. The King was warm and welcoming, unfazed by Zelensky’s lack of a tie. It seems that, when it comes to noble lineage, Trump considers himself far more aristocratic than actual royalty.
Underestimation of the Danger of US-Russia Rapprochement Link to heading
It seems to me that there is a significant underestimation of the Trump administration’s push for closer ties with Russia. I’ve spoken with several people, including guests on our program, and I get the sense that many fail to grasp the speed and seriousness of this trend. The distance between Russia and the United States is shrinking at a rapid pace.
I don’t know how reliable the Financial Times report is, but it claims that the US is actively discussing the revival of the Russian Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Allegedly, representatives of Trump’s team see this initiative as a way to improve relations with Moscow and are working to restart the pipeline. And the motive here is obvious—to make Europe once again dependent on Russian gas. A very “brilliant” and clear-cut project.
I want to emphasize once again that there seems to be a major underestimation of what is happening. The process of restoring full-scale diplomatic representation has already been set in motion. If this truly means a complete diplomatic reopening, it is an incredibly significant move—one that could fundamentally alter the geopolitical landscape. Anyone familiar with how embassies operate understands that they involve hundreds of officials stationed in a foreign country, holding multiple meetings every day.
For those who have ever encountered the work of diplomatic missions—be it embassies or consulates—you’ll know that American, British, or Czech diplomats, for example, tend to be well-spoken, smiling individuals who constantly engage in negotiations at every level. Cultural attachés meet with their counterparts, military attachés do the same, information officers interact with the press, secretaries liaise with local authorities, and ambassadors work at the highest levels. Their primary function is to establish connections—to weave thousands of ties between nations. In addition to diplomacy, of course, there is also intelligence work, which Russian diplomats engage in just as actively.
Embassies and consulates are not just visa-processing offices; they are powerful instruments of influence. And for that reason, this development should not be taken lightly.
Beyond diplomacy, there are also other indicators of deepening ties—Nord Stream discussions, the resumption of direct air travel, and more. Will this lead to a formal political alliance? It’s too early to say. But what is clear is that Trump does not see Russia as an aggressor state. Instead, he views Putin’s Russia as just another key partner—perhaps not on the same level as the UK, but at least as an ordinary European country.
This shift in perspective is deeply concerning.
Norwegian Company Refuses to Refuel US Submarine Link to heading
Speaking of the echoes of the Oval Office events, I must highlight that a Norwegian fuel company has refused to refuel US military ships in solidarity with Ukraine. As far as I know, at least one US submarine has already had to leave Norwegian waters empty-handed after being denied fuel.
What stood out to me was a statement posted on the company’s official corporate Facebook page. I will quote:
“We have witnessed the disgraceful show put on by the American president and vice president. We have immense respect for the President of Ukraine for remaining composed while the US staged this spectacle. We are immediately halting the refueling of US military vessels in Norway and urge all Norwegian and European companies to follow our example. Glory to Ukraine!”
Reaction in America Link to heading
Yet another echo of the White House scandal. I won’t list everything, but there have been protests along the route of Vice President Vance’s vacation, forcing him to change locations and go into hiding. In other words, the reaction has been far from one-sided. Not everyone in the United States supports Trump and Vance’s rude antics—let alone people abroad. The US will have to deal with the consequences of what their president and vice president have done for a long time.
The US Is Creating New Snowdens Link to heading
Another development, which hasn’t fully unfolded yet but is clearly brewing, is the fallout from the mass layoffs orchestrated by Elon Musk’s team—whether you call them his oprichniki or his youthful Red Guards. These so-called “young talents” are firing employees by the dozens, soon to be by the hundreds and even thousands. Among those let go are many individuals with access to classified materials.
Naturally, this has caught the keen interest of Russian and Chinese intelligence, which have now received direct orders to ramp up recruitment efforts targeting these dismissed employees with security clearances. If we’re talking about several thousand people, it’s likely that at least a couple dozen new Snowdens will emerge from this mess.
Well, what can I say? Bravo, Elon Musk and his team—these “alternative geniuses” really know what they’re doing. Make America Great Again, right? Sure, sure. Just another echo of the events that took place in the Oval Office.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that today is Monday, which means at 20:00 we will have Sergey Maratovich Grabsky with us. That’s why I haven’t said anything about the situation on the front—I believe it’s best for a professional to comment on that.
And now, dear friends, I’ll begin answering your questions.
Proposal on How to Stop the War Link to heading
The author of the question calls himself Bibigon.
“Igor, what do you think of my idea? There is a proven way to stop the war. The key word is ‘protectorate.’ Under international law, Donbas and Crimea are Ukrainian territories. Ukraine could make a deal with the US and Europe, transferring these territories under an economic protectorate for, say, 50 years. The US and Europe would bring in their businesses, and to protect those businesses, they would deploy a limited military contingent. From there, the protectorate would develop just as it has in many other countries around the world.”
Dear colleagues, I believe this is quite a fantastical plan for the simple reason that, at present, these regions are de facto incorporated into the Russian Constitution and occupied by Russian troops.
Even if we hypothetically assume that everything you described happens, it would automatically put the countries involved in a direct state of war with Russia. That’s obvious. The moment foreign military forces are introduced, it would lead to an immediate conflict.
Some argue that under Trump’s plan, the mere presence of Americans would serve as protection against a Russian invasion. But that’s complete nonsense. If American civilians were deployed there, they would be easily accessible to Russian special services, who would simply capture them and use them as bargaining chips. That has happened many times before—Americans have been taken hostage, only to be exchanged later for criminals. So, there’s no real protection in this scenario.
As for your idea, dear Bibigon, I think the same logic applies. If foreign businesses move in, they and their representatives would quickly become targets. And if US or European troops are stationed there, it would mean open war. Do you really think Putin would just say, “Oh, it’s a protectorate now? Okay, I’ll leave”? Of course not.
So, while this idea is interesting, I don’t see it as realistically implementable.
About Andrey Illarionov Link to heading
Sokol. Kukushkin “What happened to Illarionov? Why did he suddenly start criticizing Trump? Do you have your own theory?”
Well, naturally, I’m not Andrey Nikolaevich’s biographer, nor do I follow his every move closely. I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that something changed in his life, leading to this shift. However, if there were no personal life changes influencing his stance, then the most plausible explanation is quite simple.
Andrey Nikolaevich is undoubtedly an intelligent, meticulous person who understands global affairs. Likely, the recent rhetoric and actions of Donald Trump and his team have reached a point where supporting them has become damaging to one’s reputation—or even financial credibility. As a pragmatic individual, he may have decided to jump off the “Trumpism” ship and return to his usual role: criticizing any and all authorities.
I always operate under the presumption of innocence, so I first try to find a rational and human explanation for such shifts. If new facts emerge suggesting otherwise, then I’ll adjust my perspective accordingly.
On Jeffrey Sachs’ Speech Link to heading
A question from Lyudmila Koroleva. First of all, thank you for your kind words. I won’t read them aloud—it feels a bit improper—but I truly appreciate them.
Now, Lyudmila’s question:
“I’d like to hear your opinion on the speech given by American economist Jeffrey Sachs in the European Parliament on February 25, which shocked the world. Could it have been commissioned, perhaps even paid for? Or is it simply that in free democracies, people can express any subjective opinion about past political events, even decades later? At the same time, in my view, this speech seems to justify the crimes of dictators, wars, and aggression over the last three decades, especially the current one in Russia and Ukraine.”
I agree with your assessment. Indeed, this speech contained clear justifications and an attempt to shift all the blame onto the West—on the US, on NATO expansion, and so on. In essence, it was a reiteration of what gets repeated daily on Solovyov’s show, in Maria Zakharova’s briefings, in Lavrov’s speeches, and across Russian state media.
As for Jeffrey Sachs himself, I don’t believe Putin or anyone else handed him an envelope of cash or wired money to his account. That seems unlikely. Rather, Sachs has always had these views. We simply knew him more as an economist and less as a political analyst or commentator. But if you look at his long-standing connections to Russian authorities—his involvement in economic reforms in Russia and Eastern Europe—it becomes clear that his worldview was shaped by that experience. He seems to believe that countries have the right to respond to challenges in ways similar to Putin’s actions.
So no, I don’t think he was paid for this speech—at least not now. He was paid long ago for his work in Russia, Poland, and elsewhere.
As for the speech itself, I fully agree with your evaluation. With a good translation, it would fit right in on Russian state television. He could easily replace the usual lineup of commentators—Mikheev, Kulikov, Zhuravlyov, and the like. I doubt he’ll become a regular guest, but his words will certainly be quoted and broadcast on large screens as “proof” that a Western economic guru supports Putin.
Historically, people like this have been referred to as “useful idiots.”
How Trump Influences His Party Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who calls themselves Ali Akbar? Ali Alga Kaz:
“Every Republican in Congress understands that their political future depends on Trump.” This is a quote—I assume it’s my own statement that a colleague is reflecting back to me. But does Trump also have other abilities, if not outright hypnotic influence, then at least a way of projecting an unspoken threat that people subconsciously shrink before and obey? That is, a purely biological impact of a specific biological specimen. Death. Death. Biopower and personality. Have you ever heard anything like this about Trump?"
To be honest, I haven’t heard anything quite like this before. As for biopower—I have no idea. But in terms of reputation, yes, Trump’s image is exactly that: his favorite catchphrase is “You’re fired,” and he is well known for being vengeful.
Did Stalin emit some kind of energy waves or possess a biopower field? No—he was a small, unremarkable man with no outwardly “demonic” features. The same applies here. Trump’s influence is not supernatural; it’s rooted in reputation and theatrics. His aggressive persona, combined with the dramatic flair of his “You’re fired” act, still holds sway over many in the United States.
On Left-Wing Parties in Germany. Why Do Eastern Germans Support the AfD? Link to heading
Nadya Volgina:
“I asked some German acquaintances why the Left Party is being replaced by the AfD in the eastern states. They explained that left-wing politicians were in charge at the local level but failed to achieve anything meaningful, leading to public disappointment. Fair enough. But my acquaintances keep asking me why so-called Russian Germans have been supporting the AfD en masse since the time when right-wing demonstrations were being held in Dresden a couple of times a week. I don’t have an answer, as I’m not a Russian German myself. What do you think? Why do they support the right instead of the left?”
Well, there’s the so-called horseshoe theory, which suggests that the far left and the far right often converge. As I understand it, Russian Germans support those who align with their priorities.
First, in terms of goals—the AfD strongly focuses on anti-immigration policies and security concerns, which resonate with many Russian Germans. Second, in terms of style—the way a party presents itself matters a lot. The aesthetic and rhetoric of the far right and far left often overlap, and people are drawn to that familiar style.
On the Opposition March Link to heading
A second question from Nadya Vovk:
“It seems to me,” writes Nadya, “that you were being a bit disingenuous on Friday when you said that the opposition march should have been held on February 24 instead of March 1. The thing is, Yashin originally wanted that, but he was strongly urged not to ‘cling to’ the Ukrainians on that day. They didn’t want anything to do with this opposition. From February 25 to 28, various other Russian émigré organizations held their own actions, and they also didn’t want to march alongside Yashin. That’s how it ended up on March 1. Both Yashin and Eidman have spoken about this. Did you not know?”
I didn’t know that—so, here’s my direct answer.
She continues:
“It’s very sad that this divide has become so sharp and is turning everyone against them, especially Ukrainians. Nemtsov was able to talk to both Ukrainians and Russians. Meanwhile, this newly anointed Kantor is now declaring that they have no common path with Ukrainians because, and I quote, ‘they won’t be able to help overthrow Putin.’ What do you think are the chances of the Russian opposition—understanding that ‘opposition’ is a loose term—producing someone who can communicate effectively with both Russians and Ukrainians?”
I have no idea. So far, I don’t see anyone like that on the horizon.
And what does “talking to Ukrainians” really mean? That’s relatively clear. But “talking to Russians”—which Russians? Those in exile? Given how fractured the émigré opposition scene is today, it’s impossible to speak to everyone at once.
I know people who are respected within certain factions of the Russian political opposition or political exile circles. But I don’t see one person who could match Nemtsov’s ability to communicate across divides. His assassination wasn’t random. It was a deliberate strike at the heart of Russia’s protest movement.
Why Has a Fifth Column Formed Within the Russian Diaspora? Link to heading
Question from Margarita:
“How did it happen that a ‘fifth column’ emerged within the Russian diaspora in Europe—and not just among long-established communities? I remember a video from Germany where a Russian émigré said something like: ‘We love Putin, but we have to live and endure here,’ while his wife nodded in agreement. Not to be rude, but the man looked quite well-fed and content. Here in Finland, for example, there are many Russians with so-called ‘Ingrian roots’ who have never worked a day here, yet they live comfortably with a roof over their heads. This migration wave came when President Kokorin apologized to the descendants of those who remained in the Stalin-occupied part of Karelia and opened the borders. Ironically, Finland apologized rather than the other way around. Many people moved here back then, including plenty with no actual Finnish ancestry who just took advantage of the situation. These people installed satellite dishes, spend their days hanging onto Putin’s every word, and express outrage over sanctions that prevent them from transferring their pensions from Russia. Traveling to Russia to collect them has also become difficult, and they expect Finns to sympathize with their plight.
Where does this arrogance within the diaspora come from? Is it imperial nostalgia, or the belief that Russia is still a ‘great country’? Many of them already have grandchildren who don’t even speak Russian. Do these people really think that if, God forbid, Putin attacks the country they live in, he will check their passports before killing them? And what about Estonia? Where does this influence come from? After all, life in exile isn’t so bad.”*
The classic saying applies here—though it’s not exactly politically correct: You can take the girl out of the village, but you can’t take the village out of the girl. The same principle holds: you can take people out of Russia, but you can’t necessarily take Russia out of them. They carry it with them—on the soles of their shoes, in their mindset, in their worldview.
Why would a person’s imperialist thinking suddenly vanish just because they moved to another country? It doesn’t get amputated upon arrival. These people settle in a foreign land—be it the US, Finland, or anywhere else—but they often struggle to integrate. Many immigrants, especially in the first generation, experience downshifting—a loss of status, lower social standing, and various hardships. And how do some compensate for this? By clinging to a sense of superiority over the “natives” around them. “You’re just locals, but I am from a great and mighty Russia.”
These attitudes are fueled by a toxic mix of inferiority complex and delusions of grandeur. A person with little real influence or achievement in their new country seeks to compensate by identifying with a “great power”—a country that can supposedly “destroy the whole world if it wants to.”
I’ve seen this firsthand in the infamous Russian-American diaspora—people who have spent their entire lives in the United States yet never truly learned to speak English. It’s the same pattern, just in a different setting.
About Leonid Gozman Link to heading
Maria Vedeneeva:
“Leonid Gozman has completely disappeared from local news broadcasts. What’s going on with him and his wife?”
As far as I know, Leonid Gozman’s wife is still in Russia, and she is not being allowed to leave. This explains his silence—his wife has essentially been taken hostage by the Putin regime. That’s the whole story. As long as she remains a hostage, Gozman has no choice but to stay quiet.
About Elvira Vikhareva Link to heading
Arthur asks: “Does anyone know what’s going on with Eva? I can’t find any news.”
I don’t know her current situation—we haven’t spoken in a long time. However, I still occasionally come across her posts on Facebook, at least on the rare occasions I check in there. In fact, I recently saw a fresh link mentioning Elvira Vikhareva. Based on that, I’d say nothing catastrophic has happened. She’s clearly alive and active, so there’s no need to worry.
On the Poll Regarding the Death Penalty Link to heading
Boris Ivanov:
“Two days ago, VCIOM conducted a poll on reinstating the death penalty. The results: 49% support lifting the moratorium, 26% favor keeping it, and 15% are for a full abolition of the death penalty. To me, this result was actually more optimistic than expected—I thought the number of supporters for reinstating executions would be higher. But the key takeaway, in my view, is that the government is treating the return of the death penalty as a bone it can throw to the public when things get particularly bad. What do you think of these results?”
Well, I won’t pretend that I foresaw this outcome—I didn’t. If you had asked me to predict the results without revealing them first, I would have guessed around 70% in favor of the death penalty. I thought this idea had even stronger support.
That said, I suppose it’s not a bad thing that at least 51%—or rather, 51% aren’t in favor of lifting the moratorium. The remaining 49%, let’s be honest, are people who believe in state-sanctioned killing without fully grasping the risks of judicial errors and abuses.
Why is the support lower than I expected? I don’t know. It would also be interesting to see how many people refused to answer.
And of course, we should consider the source. VCIOM is hardly the most trustworthy organization. In fact, now that I think about it, seeing their name on this survey makes me even more skeptical about the numbers.
Proposal to Analyze Arestovych as a Trumpist Link to heading
Alex Sánchez:
“Have you considered analyzing Arestovych as a Trumpist in a future Trumpophrenia episode? I watched his latest interview with Latynina, and it was just pure madness—an absolute disgrace. What has this man become?”
Well, what can I say? Mission accomplished, dear Alex Sánchez! Yesterday’s Trumpophrenia episode featured Latynina once again, this time alongside Arestovych.
By the way, there was a bit of a technical mishap—I had to restart the broadcast, reissue announcements, and gather the audience again. So, if anyone missed it, the episode is available now. I really believe Trumpophrenia is a valuable project, and we’ll continue it because Trumpism, in my view, is just as dangerous as Putinism—at least for now, without the bloodshed. But that’s for now. Unlike the more localized phenomenon of Putinism, Trumpism has global implications.
As for Arestovych—yes, of course, he’s putting on a show, of course, he’s anxious, but beneath all the theatrics, his and Latynina’s beliefs mark a serious step toward fascism. The glorification of the strong, the dismissal of those who can’t keep up—all of this echoes the ideology of the Third Reich. And yes, it’s pure, unfiltered Trumpism.
On Elections in Ukraine Link to heading
Vera:
“I understand that elections in Ukraine are impossible right now, but what if, under pressure—a bad scenario—they happen anyway? One of the candidates could be Zaluzhny. Given his popularity, he wins and becomes president. Let’s just imagine: with his military background, would this improve the course of the war? And in that case, what would Russia scream? ‘Illegitimate! A military man can’t be president!’
Would any choice made by Ukrainians ever be acceptable to Russia? Or would they eventually accept it? General Zaluzhny as president—do I still have any illusions about this, or am I wrong?”*
First of all, it’s difficult for me to conduct a thought experiment without clear initial conditions. Right now, we know that elections won’t be held. But when the time for elections does come, will the situation be the same as today? Will the war be over? There are too many variables that need to be defined before we can even speculate.
Will Zaluzhny even want to run? That’s unclear. I’ve read in the Ukrainian press that Zelensky and Zaluzhny are considering running as part of a unified team in the next election. If that happens, the question becomes irrelevant.
But regardless of who runs, I don’t believe Ukraine could ever elect a president that would be acceptable to Putin and his regime. Ukrainians will inevitably choose a pro-Ukrainian leader—someone committed to defending Ukraine, even with weapons in hand.
Does the Author Play Chess? Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who calls themselves “Cosmic Wars”:
“Do you play chess?”
Well, how can I put it? The last time I played against a real, live opponent was probably about 50 years ago. Nowadays, I occasionally play online—either against a bot or an unknown opponent—when I need to switch gears for a bit. But that’s not quite the same thing. Yes, it’s still chess, but it doesn’t compare to what it was 50 years ago when I played face-to-face with real people.
On the Last Bundestag Elections Link to heading
Viktor from Hamburg:
“My question is about the last Bundestag elections in Germany. If you had the right to vote, who would you have supported?”
Well, since I don’t have voting rights in Germany, I haven’t studied all the party programs in great detail. But based on what I do know and what I’ve looked into, I’d say probably the CDU/CSU.
On the Death of the Dyatlov Group Link to heading
Svetlana Ovchinnikova:
“Does your opinion on the Dyatlov group’s death align with the official version—an avalanche?”
Yes, I’d say so. I haven’t developed any unique theory of my own because doing so would require dedicating significant time to researching the tragedy—analyzing sources, looking deeper into the evidence. Since my knowledge is primarily based on open media sources, I tend to agree with the prevailing view that it was, indeed, an avalanche.
Can NATO Hire Ukrainians to Defend Europe? Link to heading
A question from a subscriber:
“Could NATO hire Ukrainians instead of defending Europe themselves?”
This question splits into two parts. After the war, could some Ukrainians join private military companies or work as mercenaries? Sure, some might. But the idea that the entire Ukrainian army could become a contracted force to protect other countries seems unlikely.
A major factor in Ukraine’s military effectiveness is that they are defending their own land. Fighting for another country as mercenaries—like the famous Swiss guards in early modern Europe—would be a different story. Some might choose that path, but many would not.
If you’re asking whether NATO could financially support Ukraine’s armed forces to keep them operational, that’s a different matter. The key issue isn’t just hiring soldiers—it’s maintaining proper command structures and military strategy. So, rather than “hiring Ukrainians,” a more realistic approach would be for NATO to continue funding and equipping the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU).
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, I want to clarify that today I only answered questions from Friday’s stream. The last Saturday morning stream generated a lot of views and comments, so I’m sure there are many unanswered questions. I will try to address those tomorrow, along with any new questions you leave in the comments for this stream.
With that, I’m wrapping up our morning session. A reminder that today at 20:00, Sergey Maratovich Grabsky will be joining us—I think it will be an interesting discussion.
Thank you, dear friends. Please take care of yourselves.
Glory to Ukraine! Glory to those defending this country from invaders! Freedom for Alexander Zhukov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives!
See you at 20:00! All the best!
Source: https://youtu.be/3RoGO28C6AI