The prosecutor demanded 18 years for dissident Skobov. Trump spoke with Putin on the phone. They agreed to continue negotiations and, in the meantime, play hockey. Five reasons why Trump’s mission is impossible.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 19, in Kyiv. It is now 07:42, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
The Prosecutor Requested 18 Years for Skobov Link to heading
Yesterday, the prosecutor requested an 18-year prison sentence for Alexander Valeryevich Skobov, who is now 68 years old and whose health has been severely undermined by long periods of imprisonment in Stalinist— or rather, Soviet— dungeons. He is a former Soviet dissident who was repeatedly punished for his protest activities in the Soviet Union. Now, he is facing another 18 years, including three years in prison and 15 years in a high-security penal colony. He is accused of justifying terrorism and participating in a terrorist organization. The so-called terrorist organization in question is the Free Russia Forum. In addition to this, there are numerous fines and other penalties.
The prosecution’s case is built on the fact that, during the indictment, the prosecutor stated that Skobov opposes the war in Ukraine. This is the main reason for his persecution— he considers Russia an aggressor, calls the Russian political regime a regime of murderers, and expresses strong negative opinions about the activities of the Russian president. In other words, 18 years in prison for telling the truth.
Alexander Valeryevich’s position, as he stated in his closing remarks, is that he has no intention of discussing human rights and freedom of speech with a Nazi dictatorship. He said that his case is not about freedom of speech, but about war— that this is his front line, his battlefield. He holds his position on this front, which is why he refused to emigrate and deliberately went to prison— because from behind bars, his words carry more weight and are heard more loudly. And this is true. What is happening to Skobov is his battle on his section of the front.
Undoubtedly, people like Alexander Valeryevich Skobov play a crucial role— what he does is an important part of the resistance, a demonstration that a person who truly believes in their cause cannot be broken. The KGB couldn’t break him, Soviet repressions couldn’t break him, and now he continues to stand his ground in this criminal war, on the side of Ukraine.
All we can do is try to support Alexander Valeryevich by continuing to publish his prison writings. I will ask our colleagues fighting on the Ukrainian side to sign shells destined for the occupiers with Skobov’s name. Of course, I understand that this will not save his life, but it will ensure that Skobov’s sacrifice is not in vain.
By the way, in his closing remarks, Skobov proudly stated that shells bearing his name were being sent toward the occupiers. I want to thank those of our colleagues who have done this, including those who did so at our request.
Now, let’s move on to the main event. Although, in this case, I’m not sure what the main event actually is— what is happening on Skobov’s front is, in my opinion, no less significant than yesterday’s phone conversation between Trump and Putin.
Results of the Trump-Putin Negotiations Link to heading
It’s unclear how to weigh the significance of different events, but nonetheless, let’s discuss the conversation between Trump and Putin. First, a few words on how both sides characterized the discussion.
Trump said, “My conversation with Putin was very good and productive. We agreed on an immediate ceasefire at all energy and infrastructure sites.” Putin also stated that he had immediately ordered a halt to strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure.
And Ukrainians immediately felt the effects of this decision— because, ever since the conversation ended, monitoring channels reported that Russia had launched attacks on energy facilities, particularly in the city of Sloviansk, Donetsk region.
We’ll analyze and reflect on what happened a bit later, but first, let’s establish the facts. The Kremlin’s official website published a lengthy statement on how they reacted— essentially, their official commentary on the negotiations with Trump. I’ll highlight the key points, of which there are several.
Russia’s Demand #1: The End of Ukraine as an Independent State Link to heading
First, the Kremlin’s website states that Russia demands a settlement that must be comprehensive, stable, and long-term, while also taking into account the absolute necessity of eliminating the root causes of the crisis— namely, Russia’s so-called legitimate security interests.
It is obvious that Russia considers the very existence of an independent Ukrainian state to be the root cause of the crisis. This is proven by Putin’s numerous speeches, by Russian propaganda as a whole, and by the very fact of the invasion, which was in no way provoked by Ukraine.
In other words, the mere existence of an independent Ukraine is seen as the root cause of the war, and Putin’s hatred toward it is the driving force. So, in this regard, everything is quite clear.
Russia’s Demand #2: An End to Mobilization and a Change of Power in Ukraine Link to heading
Second— and this numbering is mine, as I’m structuring the information to make it easier to comprehend, given how convoluted the Kremlin’s statements tend to be.
The Kremlin states that several key points were outlined regarding effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire front line, the necessity of stopping forced mobilization in Ukraine, and halting the rearmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Additionally— and here I am quoting the Kremlin— “serious risks were noted regarding the unreliability of the Kyiv regime, which has repeatedly sabotaged and violated previously reached agreements.” Pay close attention to this wording.
The statement goes on to highlight “barbaric terrorist crimes committed by Ukrainian militants against civilians in the Kursk region.” Again, take note of this phrasing and how it is framed.
Russia’s Demand #3: An End to Foreign Aid to Ukraine Link to heading
Third, a key condition for preventing further escalation of the conflict and working toward a political and diplomatic resolution, according to the Kremlin, must be the complete cessation of foreign military aid to Ukraine and the termination of intelligence sharing with Kyiv.
Another highly important statement from the Kremlin is related to Trump’s recent appeal to save the lives of Ukrainian soldiers allegedly surrounded in the Kursk region. Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russia is willing to act on humanitarian grounds and, in the event of surrender, guarantees the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) soldiers both their lives and dignified treatment in accordance with Russian laws and international norms.
Of course, it is obvious that no such “1,000 encircled UAF soldiers” exist in reality. This is one of the key reasons why we will further analyze and discuss my skepticism toward Trump’s mission.
During the conversation, Trump proposed a mutual suspension of strikes for 30 days. Putin responded positively to this initiative— and I continue quoting the Kremlin— “and immediately gave the corresponding order to the Russian military.”
However, as we know, Ukrainians immediately felt the impact of this “order” in the form of air raid alarms, missile attacks, and drones raining down on their cities.
Russia’s Demand #4: Lifting the Economic Blockade on Russia Link to heading
And finally— well, not finally, but another crucial part of this statement— is that “a number of ideas were discussed regarding the development of mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy and energy sector.”
Let’s emphasize this point once again. This means that Trump plans to funnel money into Russia and engage in economic and energy cooperation.
And what does this actually mean? It means directly financing Russia’s military-industrial complex, enabling it to continue the war. There’s simply no other way to interpret this.
Agreement on an NHL Match Link to heading
Additionally, one of the most talked-about points— which has already been widely commented on— is that Donald Trump supported Vladimir Putin’s idea to organize hockey matches in the U.S. and Russia between Russian and American players from the NHL and KHL.
The only thing I can say here is that I don’t quite understand how this would work. Since the NHL consists of both American and Canadian teams, I have no idea how Trump plans to ensure the participation of teams like the Montreal Canadiens and other Canadian clubs in this event, especially given Canada’s rather specific attitude toward Trump at the moment.
Would they really be willing to take part in a proposal coming from both an aggressor state (Russia) and a U.S. president whom many in Canada also perceive as an aggressor? That remains highly questionable.
As for the KHL— from which Putin made the announcement— it includes not only Russian teams but also clubs from Kazakhstan and China. However, I don’t see that as a major issue. Unlike in the NHL, where Canadians play a crucial role despite having fewer teams, their clubs are at least on par with, if not stronger than, the American ones.
So, this could definitely be a problem. But when it comes to the KHL, if I’m not mistaken— though I haven’t followed hockey in a long time— I believe there’s one or two Chinese teams and the same number of Kazakh teams. But whatever, let them entertain themselves.
5 Reasons Why Trump’s Mission Is Impossible Link to heading
Now, I just want to, well, not exactly sum things up, but simply explain why these negotiations—so long-awaited, so widely discussed—have once again highlighted the impossibility of Trump’s mission. Why, despite the fact that so many people believe, hope, and wait for peace—and of course, I do too, like any normal person—I would really like at least one day, just one, or even a week, let alone a month, of peaceful skies over Ukraine. Because that would mean that people who truly deserve peace would at least get it for a few days.
Why do I have doubts, first and foremost, about establishing any lasting peace? Let’s discuss. Why do I believe that Trump’s mission is impossible? Here are five reasons. First, I want us to take a moment to focus on this list of reasons. Let’s display it on the screen. Yes, thank you.
So, let’s go through these reasons. What are they exactly?
Reason 1: Lies at the Core of the Deal Link to heading
This entire agreement, this whole interaction between the key players in what I would call a “peace deal”—why is it impossible? Why won’t it happen? Because it’s built on lies. And not just any lies, but mutual deception.
It is simply impossible to establish or finalize any deal when both sides—meaning both the Russian side and, more importantly, the moderator and supposed arbiter of this deal, Donald Trump himself—lie constantly. Lies are heard all the time. For example, there’s the claim about 1,000 encircled Ukrainian servicemen, whom, according to Trump, face a gruesome death—a massacre unprecedented since World War II. These are Trump’s words. And now he says he has personally negotiated with Putin, begged him to spare them, and that they are alive solely thanks to him.
But do you see the problem? When negotiations are based on continuous deceit—when it is blatantly obvious that Putin lies (he always does, that’s a given), but also that Trump must know there is no such encirclement—then the whole premise collapses. I have no doubt that his intelligence services keep him well-informed. After all, U.S. intelligence, particularly its military and satellite surveillance, is arguably the most advanced in the world. There is no way they could fail to see that there are no encircled Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast. So, Trump is knowingly lying.
And this is just one example. But it illustrates the point: the entire foundation of this so-called peace deal is built on lies, and therefore, the deal will never materialize.
Reason 2: Mutual Distrust Link to heading
As a direct consequence of the pervasive lies coming from both Russia and Trump, distrust inevitably arises—this is the second key issue.
Where does this distrust manifest? For instance, the Kremlin’s official website contains a statement questioning the Kyiv regime’s ability to negotiate. And once again, the Kremlin repeats the false claim about alleged mass crimes committed by Ukrainian forces in Kursk Oblast. This has been debunked multiple times—specific fabrications have been exposed, and no evidence of any such crimes by Ukrainian troops in that region exists.
As a result, distrust runs deep—not only from Ukraine toward Russia but also from Russia toward Ukraine. In such an environment of total distrust, the fundamental problem with this so-called deal is that there is no clear mechanism for enforcement. There is no institution or political entity capable of overseeing the implementation of a ceasefire agreement while being trusted by both sides. In other words, lies and distrust go hand in hand, making any meaningful deal impossible.
Reason 3: Trump Is Not an Objective Party Link to heading
This is another critical reason why Trump’s mission is impossible—Trump is not a neutral, objective party standing above the conflict. He is clearly on the side of the aggressor.
Even during these negotiations, it is evident that Trump intends to develop economic ties with Putin’s Russia in areas such as energy, resource extraction, and other industries. What does this mean in practice? Essentially, it means that Trump is planning to break the economic blockade and funnel money into Russia’s military-industrial complex. There’s no other way to interpret this.
When Trump says that the U.S. will cooperate with Russia in the energy sector, that they will work together in the Arctic, that Nord Stream 2 will be revived—what does this signify? It means that money will flow into the Russian economy through joint ventures between Russia and the United States. And how, then, is this supposed to contribute to stopping the war?
It is also clear that Trump’s tone and approach to Zelensky and Putin are fundamentally different. He pressures Zelensky and Ukraine, while appeasing Putin. Yes, some sanctions have been reinstated, and arms deliveries—initially approved under Biden—have resumed. But Trump himself has not yet taken any independent action against Russia.
Right now, Trump does not even appear as a figure like Orbán, who at least tries to maintain some ambiguity. He is not just not an ally of Ukraine—that idea should be discarded entirely—but he is increasingly acting as an ally of Putin. That places him firmly on one side of the conflict, making any “peace mission” inherently biased and unworkable.
Reason 4: Fundamental Incompatibility of Positions Link to heading
There is a fundamental incompatibility between the positions of the parties involved. Once again, Putin’s demands have been made clear: he insists on halting arms supplies and stopping mobilization. It is absolutely obvious that Ukraine will not agree to this.
Let’s break this down. Could arms supplies be stopped? Technically, yes—Trump could halt them in order to strengthen his relationship with Putin. But is Europe willing to do the same? I am certain it is not. And since Europe is not currently part of these negotiations, the famous saying applies: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. Europe does not want to be on the menu, and neither does Ukraine.
That means any agreements Trump reaches with Putin will not be binding for Ukraine or for Europe. Both will maintain their own positions. Therefore, arms supplies will continue regardless of Trump’s deal-making.
Moreover, Putin demands that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations. But this is simply not possible—it is enshrined in Ukraine’s Constitution. Why would Ukraine rewrite its own Constitution just because Putin demands it?
And then there’s Putin’s insistence on Ukrainian forces withdrawing from all territories that Russia has unilaterally declared part of its own Constitution. This is yet another completely unworkable demand.
In short, the positions of the parties are irreconcilable, making any meaningful agreement impossible.
Reason 5: The Injustice of the Deal Link to heading
And finally—the last point on my list, though in my view the most important one—is the fundamental injustice of this entire deal.
I can already imagine the skeptical smirks and the tired, world-weary expressions in response to this. “Oh, here goes that senile Yakovenko again, that leftist, talking about justice. What justice? Where have you ever seen justice?” To those who think this way, let me say this: justice is the foundation of human society, just like freedom and trust. Without it, there is no functioning society at all. It is the basis of any legal system, the cornerstone of human coexistence. Without justice, there is no law.
So what is justice? It is the idea of what is right and proper. It is the principle that actions must have consequences—that rights and responsibilities must be balanced, that work must be fairly rewarded, that crimes must be punished, and that merit must be recognized. Every legal system is built on some notion of justice, however distorted it may sometimes be.
But in this so-called “peace deal,” there is no justice at all. The deal is not based on fairness—it is based on brute force. Russia invaded Ukraine simply because it believed itself to be stronger. And this agreement does nothing but acknowledge Russia’s supposed “right” to wage war. There is no talk of punishment, no accountability, no acknowledgment that aggression is fundamentally wrong.
The United States even refused to support a United Nations resolution that explicitly identified the aggressor as the aggressor. In order to secure this deal, they have resorted to lies and, more importantly, have completely abandoned the principle of justice. The idea of holding the aggressor accountable has been discarded entirely.
That is why I believe this is the most critical reason why Trump’s mission is impossible.
Ultimately, the principle of “Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” will prevail. When Ukraine and the European Union enter the conversation—as they inevitably will—Trump’s so-called “mission” will collapse. Ukraine and Europe are not going to stand idly by, shuffling their feet and waiting for Putin and Trump to decide their fate. Neither Ukraine nor Europe is willing to accept that.
Voting on the Results of the Negotiations Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to do two things. First, I conducted a poll on our channel in the community tab. In a relatively short time, 5,100 people responded. The number has since grown, but I recorded the results about an hour ago when it was at 5,100 responses.
The question was: Do you think the likelihood of peace or a ceasefire in Ukraine has increased, decreased, or remained the same after Trump’s conversation with Putin? Here are the results displayed on your screens:
- 6% of respondents believe the likelihood of peace has increased.
- 21% think the likelihood of peace has decreased.
- 69% believe the situation has remained the same.
- 4% found it difficult to answer.
So, there are more skeptics than optimists, but the majority—almost two-thirds—believe that all these discussions have changed nothing.
I think it’s possible to agree both with the skeptics and with those who see no impact at all. This is the prevailing opinion. Of course, it’s important to remember that these results reflect the views of our audience and are not representative of a broader population beyond our channel.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before I move on to answering your questions, I want to say that we have a very interesting guest today at 21:00—Stanislav Kucher. I think it will be an engaging conversation. He always has his own unique opinion, as they say on Echo of Moscow. 21:00, Stanislav Kucher. Now, moving on to your questions.
Why Harris Is Not the Leader of the Democrats Link to heading
A question from Irina in the morning stream.
“When answering the question, you said that the Democrats have no leader. But what about Kamala Harris? Why is she neither seen nor heard right now? After all, she seemed so promising, and it seemed that even though she didn’t win, she would be a worthy opponent to Trump.”
You know, well, of course, it’s difficult for me to speak on behalf of Kamala Harris. In general, let’s just say—I’m not her. Right. But beyond that, I’m still not an Americanist, so I don’t feel very confident commenting on the actions of American politicians, except, well, for Trump, who is no longer quite an American politician. Right. But in any case, this is a different situation. Kamala Harris is, after all, a purely internal American phenomenon. She didn’t manage to become the kind of leader who extends beyond the United States. Right.
But overall, I think that, well, yes, she is very institutional. That’s what I’ve noticed—she is very institutional. She exists within the Republican Party—well, relatively successfully—but when she stepped beyond the Republican—oh, I misspoke, I meant the Democratic Party, of course. When she stepped beyond the Democratic Party, she seemed to lose confidence. She ran a decent campaign, but she wasn’t able to present a clear vision. She criticized Trump, and did so quite effectively, but she failed to offer an alternative plan for the development of the United States and its actions on the global stage.
And in this case, it’s necessary not just to criticize, but to present an alternative vision, so to speak. Trump says, “Make America Great Again,” but the alternative shouldn’t be something like “Make America Worthless Again”—it should be a concrete, alternative vision for America’s future. And apparently, Kamala Harris lacks that. At least, we didn’t see it during the campaign. Right?
Assessment of Negotiations in Saudi Arabia Link to heading
User Alexander
today, I was surprised to hear that you apparently do not support the proposal for a 30-day ceasefire. But in previous programs, you said that this was a good thing because it would prevent people from dying. And that it was the best possible outcome of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia. Please clarify your position.
Dear user, I. First of all. I truly believe that what the Ukrainian delegation achieved in Saudi Arabia is the best possible outcome, perhaps even exceeding expectations, above all else. And at that time, I also said what I considered the best outcome. The best outcome, in my opinion, is the cancellation of the halt in arms supplies and the continued provision of intelligence to Ukraine. That is the best outcome. The fact that this page, so to speak, of the Oval Office scandal has been turned—at least externally, it has been turned. I don’t know, perhaps deep down, Trump has retained something. But against Zelensky personally. But this page was publicly turned, and I consider that the best result.
As for the ceasefire and the entire initiative, well, in a manner of speaking, some might argue—I’ve already been challenged on this—that this is a Yavlinsky-Trump initiative. Well, I have a negative attitude toward it. Not because I don’t want peace in the skies over Ukraine and on Ukrainian soil. No, I very much do. I just believe that this goal is unachievable for the reasons I have just outlined and have previously explained. Moreover, it hinders the consolidation of the Western world around Ukraine in providing military assistance. I believe that the fate of this war will be decided on the battlefield. Therefore, I think Ukraine should be supported as much as possible with money and weapons. That is the key. That is the path to ending the war.
You see, Putin has already demonstrated the value of all these efforts—he immediately continued bombing Ukraine, lying as usual, and insisting that military aid must be stopped. In other words, he is essentially demanding Ukraine’s disarmament. So? What is there to discuss? At the same time, Trump announces an economic cooperation program with Putin’s fascist Reich. He will continue to pump money into this aggressor country. What kind of positive attitude can there be here?
The only positive aspect is that Ukraine has managed to turn the page on its strained relationship with the United States by fully agreeing to all American conditions. I believe that was a good decision.
About Alexander Skobov Link to heading
Question from Svetlana.
The Prosecutor’s Office has requested 18 years of strict regime for Alexander Skobov.
I agree that this is an extremely important event. I have a clear understanding of who Skobov is and what it means for him to have the ability to share his thoughts. I will do everything I can to ensure that this opportunity remains—this is the only thing I can do. I cannot assemble some kind of special forces unit and head to Syktyvkar to free Skobov. That doesn’t matter. Besides, he doesn’t even want that. If someone were to try to free him, he would resist because, in prison, his voice resonates even louder. That is his stance.
But we—you and I—can make his voice even louder. I will try. Skobov’s wife is arriving soon, and we will work to continue publishing Prison Notebooks. That is something we can do—mention Alexander Valeryevich regularly, cover his struggle in detail, and act as an amplifier for his voice. That is what we can do.
Why Ukraine Doesn’t Sue the U.S. Link to heading
Igor FSB
Maybe it’s finally time for Ukraine not only to appeal to an international court but also to declare the U.S. and Russia untrustworthy—meaning they violate the agreements they have signed and completely disregard international law. After all, they only follow the law of the jungle, the rule of force. And naturally, the merciful and responsible ones blame Zaluzhny, while those truly responsible for disarming Ukraine and violating the Budapest Memorandum go unpunished.
Dear namesake, you know, you’re suggesting that Ukraine file a complaint against the United States in an international court. Let’s conduct a thought experiment—I think we can manage that. What do you think would be the first consequence of such a step? In other words, if Ukraine were to file a complaint against the United States in an international court?
Here’s a little hint from the audience—do you think American arms supplies would continue after that? And the next question—would U.S. intelligence agencies still provide intelligence to Ukraine after it takes the U.S. to an international court? I think the answer is obvious.
You understand perfectly well that all these international courts are like a peashooter against an elephant for Trump—he doesn’t care about them, and they won’t have any impact on him. But if Ukraine follows your advice and files a complaint in an international court, Trump will simply say, “Well, since you’re complaining about us, keep complaining—we won’t be sending any more aid to Ukraine.” That would be the outcome.
So I think it’s absolutely right that no one is even considering this option.
How to Distinguish Fake News from the Truth Link to heading
Elena,
When you decide whether something is fake or not, do you automatically assume that if it’s Russian, it’s fake, and if it’s Ukrainian, it’s true? This is an honest question—I’m genuinely curious. Or does this not matter in the fight for a just cause?
Dear Elena! The ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood is of immense importance—it is the foundation of trust. How could it be otherwise? Of course, the claim that everything Russian is fake and everything Ukrainian is true does not stand up to any scrutiny. That is obvious. However, another important factor comes into play—the scale of misinformation.
Even some of my Ukrainian colleagues acknowledge that misinformation exists in Ukraine as well. They say, “We have our own Solovyovs and Kiselevs too, so what’s the difference?” Yes, of course, misinformation exists on both sides. However, the volume and quality of misinformation are different. In terms of sheer quantity, Russia surpasses everyone, including Ukraine.
So, how do you distinguish a fake from the truth? There are two key steps. First, look at the source. If I see that the information comes from Panorama (a satirical publication), I immediately understand that it is a joke. It is crucial to know the reputation of the source. Some sources have a track record of being reliable, while others are known for fabrications. This does not mean that everything from a reputable source should be taken as absolute truth, but it does provide a starting point. If I see information coming from notorious liars—figures we frequently discuss in our programs Media Phrenia and Trump Phrenia—I know that it’s best to ignore it. A more reliable source should confirm the same information before it can be considered trustworthy.
Second, compare the information with reality as you know it. We weren’t born yesterday; we all have life experience and an understanding of how the world works. For example, there is a common claim that Putin we see today is just a body double. I compare this claim with my understanding of government structures and how the Kremlin operates, and I find it impossible for a thousand reasons.
If someone told me that a person turned into a bird, flew to the Moon, took a sample of lunar soil, and returned—I wouldn’t believe it, because I have a basic understanding of physics and biology. Similarly, when I hear reports that Ukrainian forces are primarily composed of Polish mercenaries who raped a 73-year-old grandmother, I am deeply skeptical—especially when the source is RIA Novosti, which has been caught spreading lies multiple times.
So, the two main tests are:
- The reputation of the source—Is it known for reliability or deception?
- Consistency with reality—Does the claim align with our knowledge of how the world works?
In 1775, the Paris Academy of Sciences stopped accepting proposals for perpetual motion machines because they contradicted known physical laws. Similarly, many historical narratives are built on vast amounts of verified evidence. If someone comes along and claims that all of established history is wrong, the first step is to examine the credibility of the person making the claim. More often than not, such figures turn out to be either liars or modern-day Münchhausens.
Does Putin Maneuver Between the Oligarchs? Link to heading
Here’s a question from Ivan Vasilievich:
“I often hear from you that Putin is the main evil and that his physical elimination would solve the problem. There are many opinions on how the Kremlin’s political kitchen has been structured over the past three years. I tend to believe that it is not homogeneous. There is a group of doves—representatives of the oligarchy—who want to roll everything back, lift sanctions, resume free trade, and so on. The second group consists of hawks—security forces, the military, turbo-patriots—who support advancing to the Polish border and holding a Victory Parade in Kyiv. And Putin plays the role of an arbiter, maintaining balance between them. It seems to me that if he were to suddenly leave this world, the second group would have a much better chance of seizing power. Prigozhin’s mutiny is a striking confirmation of this. How do you see the situation?”
You know, I see it completely differently. And I have a whole set of observations, evidence, and facts that indicate that while Putin does, without a doubt, act as an arbiter, the overall structure looks different. Putin is not in between the different clans—he is above them. And he is certainly, beyond any doubt, not an arbiter between the so-called party of peace and the party of war. He leads the party of war, you see? He is at its helm.
At the same time, the party of peace, so to speak, has recently surfaced because it seems like there’s a chance for something, but in general, it remains subordinate. You mentioned the oligarchs. Well, there are no oligarchs in Russia. People still use this term out of habit when referring to those on the Forbes list. But in reality, they stopped being oligarchs long ago; they no longer have any influence over Putin. They have become mere wallets.
In the 1990s, there were oligarchs—although their influence was greatly exaggerated—but they did exist and had some sway. Under Putin, however, they quickly transformed. The crackdown on Yukos and Khodorkovsky at the very beginning of Putin’s rule made that clear to everyone. I won’t even comment on it now because it’s of little significance.
By the way, just recently, the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs held another congress, which featured many amusing moments. But since the war is the main issue now, let’s recall a past congress of industrialists and entrepreneurs—the one where they gave Putin a standing ovation right after he arrested Khodorkovsky. They all immediately fell in line; there was no protest whatsoever. What oligarchs? They are just wallets—wallets that eagerly open up the moment Putin merely glances in their direction.
Remember that famous moment when Putin told Deripaska, “Return the pen”? And Deripaska, practically bent over, ran to return it, declaring that not only would he return the pen but that he was ready to give up his entire fortune. “Just tell me, Vladimir Vladimirovich, who should I give it to? To you? Just say the word. To someone else? I’ll give it to them.” These are wallets that willingly open up under Putin’s gaze, as if hypnotized. What oligarchs?
So the structure is completely different. It is a personal dictatorship. That’s all.
Should Ukraine Ask China for Help? Link to heading
So, Alexander Kononenko asks:
“Do you think it would make sense, if Trump’s peace efforts reach a deadlock, for the Ukrainian leadership to turn to China with a proposal for mediation in establishing peace? China has more leverage over Russia, and Xi might gladly take on the role of a peacemaker.”
I’m not sure. You see, Ukraine is, after all, a European country. I understand that maintaining relations with China is important, but as a UN peacemaker, China would still take Putin’s side. You have to understand—what does Ukraine mean to Xi Jinping? It means nothing to him. He will side with Putin.
Europe, and only Europe, is Ukraine’s main ally. Moreover, I listened carefully to Scholz’s speech, because he is, apparently, the new de facto leader of Europe—the Chancellor of Germany. And he spoke directly about the threat of an attack, about the fact that Putin’s regime is a threat to Europe.
Putin’s regime is not a threat to China, so the well-fed cannot understand the hungry. I don’t think China can be the kind of arbiter or protector of Ukraine that you’re suggesting. And it certainly won’t pressure Russia to make Putin stop the war on terms acceptable to Ukraine.
Will a Confederate System Save America? Link to heading
Viktor Alexandrovich asks:
“In your streams, you express firm confidence that democracy in the U.S. will endure largely due to the federal structure of the states—perhaps you mean a federal-confederate system. You argue that the states make their own decisions independently of the central government. But I believe this is one of the baseless illusions,” writes Viktor. “As we can see, Trump is following Putin’s playbook in a more condensed and intense manner—attacking opposition media, influencing the courts, and so on.
Projecting Putin’s actions onto Trump’s, we can predict the following:
1. Subjugation of Congress to the president. This has already de facto happened in the U.S. Both chambers of Congress pass Trump’s bills without major obstacles. While Trump cannot yet push through legislation requiring a supermajority, he is undoubtedly working on it, trying to sway Democratic congressmen. In the recent budget vote, ten Democrats already sided with Republicans.
2. Once Trump secures a two-thirds majority in Congress, what would stop him from amending the Constitution? He could change presidential term limits, restructure the electoral system to make it dependent on the president—just like in Russia—and monopolize executive power.
3. Constitutional amendments could eliminate gubernatorial elections in the U.S., allowing the president to appoint state representatives instead—again, just like in Russia.
Please refute these pessimistic predictions with solid arguments.”
I hear the voices of people in our audience who live in the United States, and they say: “You know, Russia and the U.S. are different.” And I agree. There are several very serious factors that, in my opinion, make the scenario you describe practically impossible.
First, Trump does not have absolute majority support. Yes, 77 million people voted for him out of 340 million Americans. That’s a significant portion of those who voted, but it’s still far from 55%, let alone 60% or more. And now, according to the latest polls, his support stands at around 40%—44%, if I’m not mistaken. That’s not a majority.
Second, what you’re describing is not about foreign policy—Ukraine, Syria, or anything else far beyond U.S. borders, which many Americans couldn’t care less about. You’re talking about direct interference in the affairs of the states, about the president canceling gubernatorial elections. But there’s a crucial barrier Trump would never be able to overcome—the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The American people are an armed people.
When I talk about the difficulty of converting social discontent into protest, I often refer to Russia, where people may struggle, where life can become unbearable, but large-scale protests are unlikely. Why? Because Russians, by and large, are unarmed. An unarmed population, even if deeply dissatisfied, cannot effectively oppose even just the National Guard—let alone the broader security forces. That’s why protests can be crushed in Russia.
But Americans are armed. And that’s why I believe there would be a massive backlash if someone openly violated the very core of American democracy. If Trump tried this and his team didn’t stop him, I think it would lead to civil war.
We recently discussed why Kamala Harris isn’t a strong leader of the opposition. But if the scenario you describe—however fantastical—were to unfold, I believe every governor would rise in resistance, including those from Republican states. I don’t think a single one would support such a move.
And even if Trump were to entertain such an idea—which is highly unlikely—his own colleagues would stop him. For Trump, this would be political suicide. Once again: the Second Amendment and the interests of state governors are insurmountable obstacles.
So, the scenario you describe strikes me as science fiction. However, time will tell. This is one of those cases where we’ll see who was right.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, dear friends, we are wrapping up our morning stream. Once again, I remind you that at 21:00 Kyiv time—specifically Kyiv time—we will have Stanislav Kucher. I think it will be interesting.
Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Alexander Skobov—today, this demand is especially relevant. Freedom for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives!
Take care of yourselves. See you at 20:00. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/wX0zUEQnSXM