The results of the 12-day war: Iran is not giving up on nuclear weapons, some killed generals have come back to life, and the IRGC is tightening the screws. At NATO, Zelensky was welcomed like family by everyone except Trump, Orbán, and Fico.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 25. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv right now, and, as usual, we continue our daily morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls.
Missile Strike on Dnipro Link to heading
Another crime by the Russian occupiers. They launched a missile strike on Dnipro. According to the latest, updated reports, 17 people were killed and 186 wounded, including 23 children. Frankly speaking, it’s becoming impossible to comment on all this, to hear it, and to look at Putin’s face as he claims that Russia only targets military facilities. Here’s that military target. Twenty-three children. Seventeen people killed, none of whom were military.
Results of the 12-Day War Link to heading
Now we continue summing up the results of the 12-day war. Trump is donning a laurel wreath—a symbol of pride in victory. He proclaims a crushing, brilliant triumph. Meanwhile, Iran also declares victory over Israel, with mass celebrations taking place across the country. Let’s take a look at what that looks like. So, this is what the 12-day war has turned out to be: a bizarre situation where, after it’s over, everyone declares victory. A triumph—or rather, a complete failure. A complete failure of the zero-sum game system. Apparently, there are wars in which all participants believe they have won. You know, in such cases we can recall the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It all depends on perspective. Still, this is quite telling, because it’s hard to imagine, for example, Germany celebrating victory after World War II. So here, it’s not just about subjectivity—there’s some foundation to it.
For example, the commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, General Ismail Qaani, whom Israel had buried and declared dead, showed up at the victory celebration over Israel in Tehran today. Let’s take a look. It’s something a cut above second-rate. But—it brings to mind that old children’s rhyme: “One, two, three, four, five, a bunny went out for a walk. They brought him home—turned out he was alive.” Same story here. He rose from the dead. I’m not saying this to totally downplay what Israel and the United States accomplished—but, still, a sense of triumph may not be entirely appropriate right now.
Ah yes, a few quotes from Iranian leaders. Iran’s own “Lavrov” is named Abbas Araghchi. Araghchi declares that Iran will not abandon its nuclear program. According to him, after the 12-day war, Tehran has become even more determined. I’ll quote: “We’ve invested too much in these technologies. Scientists have died, the people have endured sanctions, war was imposed on us. No one in Iran will abandon this program. It has always been under IAEA control.” Then the President of Iran states that Israel failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and scientific potential. “The aggressor enemy,” the Iranian president says, “was defeated.” He also declares that the damage inflicted on Israel exceeds imagination. There are plenty of quotes in this triumphant tone from the Iranian side.
CNN, citing U.S. intelligence, reports that the U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites did not destroy the key components of Iran’s nuclear program but likely delayed its progress by several months. Trump was furious about these reports. He called them fake news. The New York Times also published similar claims. Trump is outraged, insisting it’s fake news from CNN and the New York Times, copied deliberately to downplay one of the most successful strikes in history. “Iranian nuclear facilities were completely destroyed,” Trump declared.
At the same time, one can now assume that CNN and the New York Times are left-leaning media that dislike Trump and therefore try to undermine him. But the same can’t really be said about the IAEA, whose director Rafael Grossi stated that they don’t know the whereabouts of nearly 90 pounds of potentially enriched uranium. This means that—well, let’s flip to the other side of this conflict, the side of the U.S. government. State Department spokesperson Tommy Bruce said it would take time to publish the results of the strike on Iran.
As for us, I return again to the words of IAEA Director Grossi. Iran has maintained small, secret uranium enrichment facilities built specifically to ensure the continuation of its nuclear program in the event of attacks on major sites. That’s according to Israeli officials. What particularly outraged Trump was a New York Times report citing Israeli officials and U.S. intelligence that most of the enriched uranium had been moved before the U.S. bombing, during which only a small amount of material was actually destroyed. In the end, I think the investigation will reveal the true outcomes. It likely won’t be possible to hide it. I believe the truth will eventually be made public and presented to the world.
But for now, this is the situation. Regarding the durability of this peace—perhaps an even more important question—Trump, furious and angry, lashed out primarily at Israel, and also at Iran for balance. Toward Israel, he said: “Stop dropping bombs. Bring the pilots home.” This was in response to Israel retaliating against the Iranian missile strike even after the ceasefire had been declared. On the eve of the NATO summit, Trump angrily stated that both Iran and Israel had violated the ceasefire. He said he was displeased with both countries, but especially with Israel.
I looked at the Israeli press today. There was not so much outrage as confusion and surprise that Trump singled out Israel for criticism. So, who’s to blame for all this? It’s typical of his style to equate warring sides. I’ll quote: “We have two countries fighting so hard and for so long that they no longer know what the hell they’re doing.” And then: “As soon as we made the deal, Israel started dropping bombs like I’ve never seen before.” Whether or not he’s seen anything like it before isn’t the point. The point is: What does he mean by not knowing what the hell they’re doing? Iran knows exactly what it’s doing. Its goal is to destroy Israel. Israel knows exactly what it’s doing. Its goal is to survive.
And yet, here we are.
Alexis Rinkevich Link to heading
You know, by analogy with the rather disgraceful term “good Russian,” which is being widely used, I think it’s time to introduce the term “good American.” And against the backdrop of what’s happening, and who has come to power in the United States, I want to share some good news. One of Trump’s appointments, which has either just happened or is in the process of happening—Trump has nominated Lieutenant General Alexis Rinkevich to the post of Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. By the way, his ancestors are from Belarus.
So, as I understand it, during his Senate confirmation, General Rinkevich said that Ukraine can win the military conflict with Russia. This happened yesterday. He said, “I believe Ukraine can win. Every time their homeland—Ukraine—is threatened, they fight with a determination that is hard for us to imagine.”
But what’s particularly noteworthy is that this directly contradicts the position of the person who appointed him—Donald Trump—who constantly says that this conflict has no military solution, that Ukraine is losing, and therefore a deal is needed. So you see, the general appointed by Trump to a key position holds a diametrically opposite view. Healthy pluralism. A good American. What can I say? It’s encouraging.
Anti-Ukrainian Alliance in NATO Link to heading
Now let’s move on—it’s too early to draw conclusions about the NATO summit, since the main events are still ahead. But what seems most important to me is this: Ukraine has been promised military aid—at the very least. As I understand it, it’s about €70 billion, since over €50 billion has already been allocated, and the support continues. In the first not-quite-six months of 2025, Europe and Canada have provided Ukraine with €1 billion in military aid. It’s entirely possible that by the end, the total will reach €70 billion—more than the United States has ever allocated.
Overall, the atmosphere at the NATO summit, especially concerning Ukraine, is of greatest interest to us. Zelensky was warmly welcomed—truly, like family. The only exception was the barely concealed irritation that the Ukrainian president provokes in Trump. Notably, during the group photo, organizers placed Zelensky as far from Trump as possible—apparently to avoid triggering the U.S. president’s overt hostility.
In NATO, a clear anti-Ukrainian alliance has emerged. The spokesman for this alliance is the President and Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, who declared that several NATO member states did not want to see President Zelensky at the summit in The Hague. He literally said: “The Americans, the Turks, the Slovaks—we made it clear that we do not want to sit at the same table with Mr. Zelensky when it comes to NATO.”
With undisguised glee, Orbán stated that Zelensky’s absence from the closed NATO leaders’ meeting happening today, June 25, is a clear signal. He smugly added that in diplomacy, the issue isn’t where you are, but where you’re not—that’s what matters more.
And lastly—the cherry on top, so to speak—was his statement that it is in Hungary’s national interest not to be part of any integration community with Ukraine, neither in NATO nor in the EU. This is blatant, unfiltered Ukrainophobia. Frankly, I don’t know how it looks to you, dear friends, but to me, this feels like a complete breach of decency. Such open hatred toward a country—a people—that, after all, never attacked Hungary. Ukraine hasn’t done anything personally to Orbán. It’s pathological. Roughly the same kind of pathology we see in Trump, in my opinion.
Poll: “How Do You Assess the Outcome of the 12-Day War?” Link to heading
So, I—many of you voted both on the website, on our YouTube channel, and I also ran a poll on Telegram. The question was: How do you assess the outcome of the 12-day war in the Middle East? Let’s look at the results. As you can see—although the text is quite small—“A brilliant victory for Israel and the U.S., Iran was defeated” received 10%. “Nothing is over yet, Iran remains a threat to Israel” got 83%. “Hard to say” received 7%.
In total, nearly 4,500 people voted. So I think this is fairly representative, more or less reflecting the mood of our channel’s audience. The overwhelming majority believes that nothing is over yet and that Iran remains a threat to Israel.
I ran the exact same poll on our Telegram channel. The results were similar: 7% for “brilliant victory,” 85% for “nothing is over yet,” and 8% found it hard to answer. So the YouTube and Telegram audiences are voting in roughly the same way. In this case—though it doesn’t always happen—I’m on the side of the majority.
Q&A Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that today we have two very interesting guests on the channel. At 17:00, there will be a discussion of current issues and analysis from sociologist Igor Eidman. And at 21:00—Vitaly Portnikov. So I won’t be saying goodbye for long today. We have several broadcasts ahead, including these interesting ones—17:00, Igor Eidman; 21:00, Vitaly Portnikov.
Now I’ll move on to your questions. I want to let you know in advance, dear friends, that unfortunately, today’s stream will be a short one. It’s clear that I won’t have time to answer all of your questions, but I promise to respond tomorrow to the ones I don’t get to today.
On Electronic Warfare, the Kremlin, and Bot Activity Link to heading
So, here’s a question from a subscriber called “Crying Sky”: I encountered an interesting situation when it became clear that Israel, using electronic warfare and fifth-generation stealth aircraft, had achieved complete air superiority over Iran and completely suppressed Iranian air defenses. Two or three times, under relevant YouTube videos, I posted a rhetorical question like: So, Iranian air defenses of Russian origin couldn’t do anything against fifth-generation U.S.-made Israeli aircraft? And, as if by magic, I started seeing identical replies in the comments—things like “Russia never supplied air defenses to Iran.” It looked very much like bot activity. Could this mean that Moscow was seriously spooked by seeing such overwhelming U.S. military superiority and realized what could await them in a direct confrontation with that kind of tech?
Well, I think—I’m inclined to agree with you that the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense watched what happened in Iran with great interest and concern. But I’m not sure there’s a direct link between the bots’ activity and the mood in the Kremlin. Possibly. It’s hard for me to draw a clear causal relationship here. But the fact that the Kremlin closely observed what was essentially a window into Russia’s potential future—that’s a fact.
How Did Israeli Intelligence Miss the Trucks with the Bomb? Link to heading
Irina: How is it that both Israeli and U.S. intelligence missed the trucks that transported some kind of nuclear equipment? It’s confusing—they knew the bomb was nearly ready, but didn’t know it was being moved? This isn’t like hiding a needle in your pocket. And they were driving out in the open, not underground. Also, these kinds of operations take much more than a couple of hours. I just can’t wrap my head around it. Especially since Israeli intelligence is considered one of the best in the world. And American intelligence isn’t exactly weak either.
Irina, I share your confusion. I don’t know. You see, the whole situation is full of uncertainty and missing information. So all I can say is that I completely support your question. Maybe one of the experts will be able to answer it.
On Nuclear Weapons and the IAEA Statement Link to heading
ARD van der Lay. Van den Ven. Delay. Here’s his question: Joking with Hrabskiy on Monday, you said that this means Trump pushed IAEA experts to declare that Iran has a ready nuclear weapon. Today you confirmed that. When and where was such a statement made? Please quote it.
Well, I can only quote statements made by IAEA leadership. The IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that Iran is violating its non-proliferation obligations. He further reported—the IAEA Director General, I quote: “Iran has repeatedly either failed to respond to IAEA inquiries or has not provided credible answers.” Grossi then expressed concern that Iran had rapidly accumulated 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which is one of the components needed to build a nuclear bomb. Furthermore, Grossi said that artificially produced uranium particles were found at three undeclared Iranian sites. According to him, Iran failed to provide technically credible explanations for the presence of these particles.
So, while there was no direct statement that Iran already has a nuclear bomb, what was said indirectly points to that quite convincingly.
On Warnings About Attacks by Israel and Iran Link to heading
So, Mikhey Ararat writes: Iran always gives warnings. Israel attacked Iran during negotiations, and the U.S. gave Iran two weeks to decide on peace—and attacked the next day. So which country is the aggressor and the real “Satan”? Watch the interview with Makarevich—you respect him, don’t you, gentlemen?
Here’s what I can say to you, dear Mikhey. First: Iran, at the level of state policy, has the stated goal of destroying Israel. Israel has no such goal. Not a single Israeli politician has called for the destruction of Iran. Iran, on the other hand, has been saying this directly for decades.
Second: You are mistaken. I won’t use harsher words, but you are mistaken. Iran has never warned of its attacks on Israel. Never. The three major strikes on Israel were carried out by Iranian proxies—like on October 7th. That massive terrorist attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis, also came without warning, didn’t it?
And finally: I don’t know since when Makarevich became a respected expert in international affairs. That’s in regard to your viewing recommendation. I’ll gladly watch it—but I just don’t understand why you’re relying on Makarevich rather than on people who are actual experts in international relations.
Differences Between Russia and Iran Link to heading
Natalya: Why doesn’t Trump want to end the war in Ukraine the same way, if the method turned out to be so effective?
Well, first of all, as it turned out, the method wasn’t all that effective. And second, the answer seems obvious to me—because Russia is definitely not Iran. It’s a country with nuclear weapons, a country that is, well… simply put, not Iran. Explaining the deep and fundamental differences between Russia and Iran—differences that clearly show why the same methods can’t be applied to Russia as were used with Iran—seems unnecessary.
About Igor Vakhshtein Link to heading
Elena. Elena asks: On the Dozhd channel on June 22, there was a conversation with sociologist Viktor Vakhshtein. He currently lives in Israel. It was a very interesting discussion, so I wanted to draw your attention to him. Perhaps you’d be interested in having a conversation with him on air—as a colleague to a colleague.
Thank you for the reminder. He’s indeed an interesting scholar, an engaging sociologist, and I should take another look at that appearance of his. And of course, thank you for the suggestion—he would make for a very compelling guest.
On “Vatniks” Link to heading
Tatyana: Igor Aleksandrovich, why do you think there are so many “vatniks” in Russia—people completely lacking in critical thinking? There are an awful lot of them. I’d say 70–75% at my workplace. Practically everyone. Is it the result of a poor education system multiplied by aggressive propaganda? But we’re all in the same conditions. Why is it that even within one family people can have different beliefs? And age doesn’t seem to matter—at my work, all the young people are either pro-Western or just don’t care.
You know, dear Tatyana, this is actually not a superficial question—it’s not in the spirit of “how much longer,” it’s in the spirit of serious reflection. I see several factors here. Propaganda is a factor, yes, but I would place it third or even fourth.
First: in Russia, critical thinking is not a competitive advantage. A person with critical thinking skills doesn’t gain any edge when it comes to access to social mobility. On the contrary, such a person often fails to pass the “face control” of the social elevator.
Second: being a “vatnik” or indifferent in today’s Russia is a zone of comfort—for obvious reasons. A person with critical thinking is at serious risk of coming under FSB scrutiny, and so on. To remain in a comfort zone, one must either be a “vatnik,” be apathetic, or be in a deep state of internal exile—so to speak. In other words, pretend to be either a “vatnik” or indifferent.
And finally: propaganda. Propaganda and fear. So it’s this combination of factors.
Has the Author Changed His View on Prigozhin? Link to heading
So, a question from MTS: After Prigozhin’s mutiny, a narrative began to circulate in the information space that advancing to Moscow is a solvable task for the Ukrainian Armed Forces—it just takes political will. Prigozhin was seen as a clear example. Today you’ve expressed a different opinion. When did you change your view on this? Do you experience cognitive dissonance, and how do you deal with it?
Dear MTS, I have a counter-question for you: When did you start drinking cognac? Actually—no, not cognac—you’ve already moved on to drinking the blood of infants in the morning. So how’s that affecting your body? Please answer. Because that’s about the level and tone of the question you’ve just asked me.
I’ve never changed my view on this issue. Where did you get that from? The thing is, the Prigozhin example by no means proves that the Ukrainian Armed Forces can reach Moscow. I’ve never supported that idea. Prigozhin was an insider, close to Putin. He was just as much a bloodthirsty ghoul as Putin himself. And that’s why, for many in Russia—especially in the military—Wagner fighters are seen as war heroes.
As for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, during their operation in the Kursk region, they encountered resistance. So you really need to pay attention to who says what. Yes, Prigozhin’s example shows that if an internal armed force emerges—emphasis on internal—then it’s capable of toppling the regime. But capturing Moscow from the outside? I believe that, at this moment, is highly unlikely.
So we should carefully follow what people actually say. Of course, I can make mistakes—we all can—but I’d like to be held accountable for my own words, not ones attributed to me.
Russian Opposition Activists Link to heading
A question from someone calling themselves “Doc Wisdom”: Could you give a brief breakdown of the current Russian opposition activists? Who’s out there at all? Who, in your opinion, is worth working with? I know about the FBI—I assume the author meant FBK—Katz, Khodorkovsky’s Free Russia Forum, the “Colonizers.” I just can’t systematize them. Who’s doing what, how do they differ, what are their ideologies and goals? If you ever decide to dedicate a full episode to this topic, that would be ideal.
Dear colleague, this isn’t a topic for a single episode—it’s a task for an entire series. It’s a genuinely interesting research project. There could be some intriguing analytical methods and insights involved here. But still, I think this is—well, let’s say, if I had 50 lifetimes, maybe my sixth would be devoted to tackling this one. Right now, I’m just not ready for it. There are already so many plans, and I’m being rightly criticized for not meeting some of my existing commitments, so I think we’ll have to set this aside for now.
Sontsev and a Number of Bloggers Link to heading
So, a subscriber I couldn’t identify asks: What’s your opinion of bloggers like Alexander Shpak, Rustam Sontsev, Kolganov, his wife—the Japanese woman—and Anton?
Well, you know, all of these people—let’s say Rustam Kolganov Sontsev is a former participant of Dom-2, a scandalous tabloid celebrity. And the rest are more or less in the same category. So, let’s just say, they’re part of that same scene—celebrities of the semi-glamorous world, fixtures of the gossip columns, that kind of crowd, known mostly for controversy.
Naturally, since I work in media criticism, these people occasionally cross my radar. But they’re what we’d call “freaks.” It’s worth noting that they all—at least as far as I know—support Ukraine. Not sure about all of them, but Kolganov, Sontsev, Anton, Alexander Shpak, and Anton Suvorin all seem to be on Ukraine’s side. Some have even been honored with the title of foreign agents—which, in this case, is a good thing.
Still, they’re not people who interest me personally. So—I wish them good health.
Video Supplement to Ogonyok Magazine and Work as a Projectionist Link to heading
So—a question from user “1 to 1,” right? Can you tell me, is it possible now to find the video supplement to Ogonyok magazine from the time when Vitaly Korotich was editor-in-chief?
Yes, there are some episodes of Manuscripts Don’t Burn still available.
And the second question: Is it true that in the late 1960s you worked part-time as a projectionist at the Aquarium cinema in Moscow?
I really did work as a projectionist—but not part-time, and not at the Aquarium cinema. I worked at the Krugovaya Panorama (Circular Panorama) cinema. That was a special kind of venue. In fact, I believe it still exists. I visited VDNKh sometime in the 2000s and, driven by nostalgia, found that same cinema still in the same place—what’s remarkable is they were still showing exactly the same two films: On the Road and Take Us with You, Tourists. It was a rather absurd project, really. The audience stands in the center of a circular panorama, supposed to spin around constantly to watch content projected on 12 different screens. Just a bizarre concept.
Anyway, I worked there. That was a period starting from my high school years, when I had a lot of different jobs—at Durov’s Corner and many other places. But this projectionist job was official—with a work record book. I also worked as a loader on the side—simply because it paid much more. So that’s the story. I really needed the money, so I took on all kinds of work.
On Delirium Tremens Link to heading
Yulia: This question isn’t exactly timely, but I’ve long wanted to ask about delirium tremens. Have you heard of the experiments by Gennady Korolyov, who supposedly managed to capture images of patients’ hallucinations during episodes of delirium? By the way, the young, sober doctor was later found hanged, and his scientific work simply disappeared. It’s understandable that people in altered states of consciousness see demons—but how do you explain cases where several people in the same room saw the same thing? Drug addicts sniffing glue in basements would describe either a talking magpie or a red monkey—on different days. This was reported by addiction specialists. Many addiction doctors often just say, “Don’t wake them—but don’t drink.” So, briefly: Korolyov believed our inner life has real physical contours. What do you think about that?
This is a very interesting topic. I absolutely agree that our inner life clearly has real physical contours—since all of it is rooted in the brain, and the brain is a physical object. So that’s fairly self-evident.
As for Korolyov—according to what I know, all documentary records and evidence of his research have indeed disappeared. His findings were requested by Moscow, and his work in the Soviet Union was blocked. Descriptions of his experiments have vanished. Still, it’s all undoubtedly fascinating.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So. Dear friends, unfortunately, I have to say goodbye for now, as I mentioned earlier—today’s stream is very short. There are still a lot of very interesting questions, and I promise to answer them tomorrow.
With that, I’m wrapping up our morning broadcast. A reminder: at 17:00—Eidman, and at 21:00—Portnikov. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Aleksandrovsky, to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian POWs! See you at 17:00 and 21:00. All the best.