Trump and Musk had a major falling out, and as a result, both became poorer. Trump decided to let Russia and Ukraine “fight a little more” and then punish them both severely.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 6th. In Kyiv and Moscow, it is currently 07:40, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Historical Rhymes Link to heading
Two historical rhymes. On June 6, 1922, a decree of the Council of People’s Commissars established the Main Directorate for Literature and Publishing Affairs. Widely known as Glavlit. It was a unique organization, the most secretive one. Everyone, absolutely everyone, practically knew where the main office of the KGB was on Lubyanka, everyone knew where the offices of the State Security Committee were, and earlier the NKVD, the Cheka, so to speak, in cities, in regional centers, in local towns, and so on. But no one knew where the main office of Glavlit was. Everyone knew the name of the head of the committee, the head of the State Security Committee, but no one knew the name of the head of Glavlit. It was the most secretive organization for a very simple reason — because there was no censorship in the Soviet Union, as everyone knows. That is, even in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, there was an article about Bourgeois Censorship because censorship could not exist in the Soviet Union. Well, as they say in such cases, you can’t see the gopher, but it’s there. So. And it was indeed a unique organization, incredibly well-preserved. But it existed, and it was there. Basically, there were censors in every building, in every settlement, in every city. In general, I want to say this in detail once again because today, when many people feel nostalgic for the Soviet Union and say, even among our audience there are people who say how much we lost. I’m not even talking about the ice cream for 0.20₽. But in general about the atmosphere. It’s useful to remember that preliminary censorship was carried out in three stages, at the manuscript stage, at the proof stage, and the signal copy stage of any publication, any newspaper. Every author — and I spent most of my life in the Soviet Union and worked in Soviet publications, so I constantly encountered this. The only place where there was no censorship, except for military censorship, was when I worked at the CPSU Central Committee magazine Dialogue — there was no censorship of that kind there. Well, actually, there was such editorial censorship that it was no joke. Well, that was the only publication where I didn’t encounter this kind of censorship. What’s more, after that, it’s also characteristic that the author could not see the censor’s assessment because everything was closed off by the editor-in-chief. The editor-in-chief had to take into account the censor’s opinion, either remove the article from publication or allow it to be published with the appropriate amendments. Those were the editor-in-chief’s amendments. No journalist could know what the censor thought about it. And then there were these famous stamps. First, on the manuscript, there was a stamp saying disclosure of military or state secrets: no. Then, at the proof stage, a stamp saying permission to print. And on the signal copy, permission to publish. I’m explaining this in such detail for the nostalgic ones, to help restore in memory those practices of what was and what has become. And the second historical rhyme is a historical note. It’s that on June 6, 1944, the Normandy landings took place, or what was called Operation Neptune. Essentially, it was the largest, the most massive, and fantastically complex and successful amphibious operation in world history. Well, here I know that history enthusiasts will immediately correct me and say that it wasn’t the opening of the second front because there were already operations in Italy before that. But nevertheless, if we speak broadly, it is generally considered that this was indeed the opening of the second front because from that moment on, the offensive against the Third Reich began from two sides. A real, serious one. So the significance of this event cannot be overstated.
Strikes on Engels Link to heading
For today. A continuation. In continuation of the successes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the special operation, there were strikes on Engels and what happened there. But why is Engels famous? It’s the famous airfield of heavy bombers, the same nuclear triad, from which strikes are carried out on Ukrainian cities. And as a result of the Ukrainian drone attack, there was a large fire at the oil depot. This oil depot was precisely the one that stored fuel for the base of strategic bombers located at that very airfield. So, this is another success for the Armed Forces of Ukraine. And the Ukrainian army also launched a missile strike on the Bryansk region, where the 26th Missile Brigade of the Russian missile forces was concentrated. The Iskander launchers were destroyed. Congratulations are in order.
The Strikes on Ukraine’s Civilian Population Continue Link to heading
As for the Russian strikes, they were exclusively against civilians, against civilian targets, against residential areas. In Kyiv, four civilians were killed as a result of the night attack. Metro communication lines at several stations were also destroyed, which is significant. The thing is, as far as I understand, for the first time in many months, Russian Black Sea Fleet ships left their shelters and launched Kalibr cruise missiles. Apparently, they missed the sea drones. There was also serious destruction in Kherson. Yesterday morning, cruise air bombs were dropped there. As a result, the regional administration building was severely damaged, even though it was completely empty. What’s the point of destroying an empty building? That’s a big question. Apparently, our Russian intelligence is so incompetent that they simply didn’t know that no one had lived in that building for a long time, but they did it anyway. So that’s the kind of exchange of strikes going on: Ukraine is striking military targets, and Russia is striking residential areas. That’s the nature of this asymmetrical war.
The Quarrel Between Musk and Trump Link to heading
Now I’m moving on to the main topic of our conversation today. What’s called how Elon Errolovich and Donald Fredovich had a falling out. Yesterday we could mark the end of the tandem that came to power in the United States of America in November of last year. That is, it was perceived as a tandem. I’m not claiming this was the result of any serious analysis, but that’s how it was perceived, how it was presented in the press, and how it was written in journalistic articles. And, in fact, indeed, over the last couple of months, this perception of power in the United States as a kind of duumvirate has weakened. It’s become more or less clear who’s who. But at first, it was exactly perceived that way. So the tandem duumvirate of Musk and Trump came to power. Well, that’s over. They quarreled, exchanged barbs, and after that, it’s unlikely they’ll reconcile. Although who knows — both of them are quite cynical. So it’s possible the tandem could be restored, but it’s unlikely. Too many words have been said, too many actions taken. Specifically, Musk. The formal side of the issue is clear and well-known. It’s the budget bill that Trump called a great and wonderful piece of legislation. Musk said it was a disgusting abomination. Actually, the reason is quite simple. I’ll get to that in a moment, but then it turned personal. Trump declared that— Yes, first Musk’s quote: “I’m sorry, I can’t take this anymore.” He accused Congress of bankrupting the country. So, in short, it was a stinging criticism. In fact, Musk’s main complaint was that this budget bill leads to an increase in the national debt. In other words, Musk took the side of the budget hawks. Actually, this whole story is a lot like how we tried to add some political flair to the conflict between Putin and Prigozhin, even though it all boiled down to something very simple: just money, as they say. No politics, nothing personal, just money. Putin cut off Prigozhin’s budget funding. Prigozhin got offended, started swearing at Putin, and eventually sent Utkin to “ask for the money” from Putin. Well, I wouldn’t say that it’s quite the same exotic situation with Musk and Trump. But in principle, the issue is just money. The fact is that this law removed government subsidies for electric vehicles, including Tesla. And that, basically, is the main reason for Musk’s outrage. The accusations were quite specific. Trump said Musk had lost his mind. Musk said that without him, Trump would have lost the election. That’s ingratitude. And then he posted dirt on social media about how Trump attended one of the parties of financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was convicted of sex trafficking minors. Then Musk supported the idea of Trump’s impeachment and threatened to halt the rocket launches used by NASA. In short, things really went off the rails. As a result, the first outcome is that both Trump and Musk became poorer, because Musk’s stock lost 15% in just a few hours, and the stock of Trump’s media company lost about 11%. These were significant losses. As a result, Musk announced that he was creating a party—well, not exactly announced, but he ran a poll on his social network X, and more than 80% of the more than 2.5 million respondents agreed that Musk should create his own political party. And, among other things, Musk stated that Trump should be removed from office and replaced by JD Vance. So that’s the story, almost like a Gogol tale. How two respectable gentlemen had a falling out. It’s the end of the tandem, the duumvirate, for sure. And undoubtedly, the result wasn’t just financial losses — I haven’t seen the latest polls, but I think if their financial losses were 15% and 11%, respectively, then their political capital probably decreased by at least the same amount. We’ll see. By the way, interestingly, in general, I consider this to be good news, because Trump’s leadership is a big problem. And if that leadership is shortened as a result of this Musk-Trump scandal, I think that’s a good thing. Although, of course, Vance — well, that’s another question. That’s a matter for debate: is it better to have an outright fascist like Vance or a chaos-maker like Trump? Which is better or worse is another question. But nevertheless, any weakening of Trump, I think, is ultimately a blessing.
Trump’s Alternately Reasonable Statement Link to heading
And to conclude the first part of our conversation, let’s look at Trump’s stunningly, well, let’s say, alternately rational statement about Russia’s war against Ukraine. He declared that since peace talks have clearly stalled, it’s better to let Ukraine and Russia fight it out a bit before intervening. So he compared this war to a fight between children in a park, saying that—well, here’s what he said, roughly: “Two little kids sometimes fight like crazy. They hate each other and fight, and you try to separate them. They don’t want to be separated. Sometimes it’s better to let them fight for a while.” Well, the level of absurdity in this statement, I think, each of you, dear friends, can judge for yourself. And yes, he concluded this rant—this all happened during a meeting Trump had in the Oval Office with Friedrich the German. Actually, by the way, this meeting really deserves its own conversation because, I think, Friedrich behaved very wisely with Trump. He, so to speak, played on his nostalgic feelings, reminded him of his German heritage. So Metz did well, what can I say? But Trump, at the end of these reflections, stated that if they don’t make peace, he will punish both very severely. When asked when, he replied that the deadline was in his head. And no outsiders were allowed in there. Well, that’s my speculation, but the point is exactly that: the deadline really is flexible, and it’s in his head. What’s going on in that head? Outsiders are not allowed. That’s the truth. So, basically, these are the latest and, as I see it, the most important news. And the rest will definitely be covered in answers to your questions.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
But before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that today is Friday, which means at 19:00 we have our debriefing and time-check with Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky. Don’t miss it at 19:00. Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky. Now, I’m moving on to answering your questions.
Could the Bridge Demolition Be an FSB Provocation? Link to heading
So, Alexander Boykov Don’t you think that the destruction of the bridges on June 1 is just another Ryazan sugar incident? At least Putin immediately blamed Ukraine that same day, without saying a word about who was really responsible. Moreover, one of the bridges was actually officially finished off by the Russians themselves.
I can’t rule out this version entirely. Again, I haven’t done any special research; I’ve read quite a bit about this event. But I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that it was Ryazan sugar. Still, this version can’t be completely dismissed.
Will the Pautin Operation Reduce Shelling in Ukraine? Link to heading
A question from Alex Dan: Igor, I was a bit surprised by your last conversation with Grabski about the Pautin operation, in which he claims that these aircraft are not used to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine and that the destruction of some of these planes will not affect missile attacks on Ukraine. You had said the opposite just the day before. So, is one of you mistaken? In fact, some speakers share your perspective, but there are also supporters of Grabski’s view. I’d like to get some clarity.
Well, frankly, I didn’t hear Sergey USA say so categorically that these planes weren’t involved in the raids — bombers were involved. Just last night, bombers flew in, launching cruise missiles. So I don’t really understand. Actually, it’s pretty hard to deny. I think Sergey Maratovich had the position that since not all the planes were destroyed, there are still enough left to carry out these strikes. That was his position. The next day, we spoke with S. Fedorov, and there the position was a little different. He said that since there are fewer planes left, wear and tear is increasing, and so on. So, in reality, there are nuances, nuances. But the fact that these bombers fly and launch strikes seems to be generally accepted.
Is Liberalism Weak? Link to heading
Next, a question from Ilya: A question about the weakness of liberalism. Some years before the war, I read a column by Abbas Gallyamov in which he argued about the unpopularity of the liberal idea. As I recall, he saw one of the reasons for the weakness of liberalism as the absence of “fists,” so to speak. This is, in part, the old familiar idea that good should come with fists, or that kind words backed by a Colt carry much more weight. In his view, liberalism isn’t just too humane to its opponents but also too lenient with them, underestimating them both physically and intellectually. Simplifying: we liberals are so enlightened, we know what to do, and you, dear citizens, won’t mind, right? Because it’s complicated—just listen to us and happiness will come. Meanwhile, the prophets appeal to the idea that everything is actually simple and can be solved with a couple of radical decrees. I’m also reminded of Navalny’s answer when Yashin asked him why he went to the Russian marches, and he replied that you have to talk to them and bring them to your side. What do you think about this?
Dear Ilya NATO, That’s a pretty standard argument. This also applies to the intelligentsia, the “intelligentsia’s whimpering,” so to speak. As for this idea about liberals, that liberalism is weak—this is actually total nonsense. Let’s be specific: the order to kill Osama bin Laden was given by the liberal Obama. And the super-right Trump, at the moment, excuse my language, is dithering about both Iran and Putin. And another liberal—Franklin Roosevelt, a super-liberal, a man who was the father of some of the most liberal policies in American history, played a crucial, if not decisive, role in destroying the Third Reich. An absolute left-liberal, Willy Brandt, a social democrat, one of the most liberal figures possible, organized an anti-fascist underground and participated in the destruction of the Third Reich. There are plenty of examples of liberals with “fists.” You know, it’s a classic attempt to justify one’s own style by saying: “You love this intellectual stuff, but we’re tough guys with fists.” In reality, I’ve often seen these so-called “intelligentsia whiners” stand up to the thugs with fists quite capably. So I don’t share what Abbas Gallyamov wrote at all.
Now, about Navalny—it’s a separate story. You know, Navalny’s political views, at least publicly declared ones, have undergone a very significant evolution. His going to the Russian marches wasn’t about re-educating them; at that time, he was very much part of them. It was that period when he called Georgians “rodents,” when he made the gesture “from the heart to the sun” and shouted “Glory to Russia!” That was all real. That was the same Navalny, but over time he changed significantly. So I think there’s a bit of misrepresentation here. I don’t know about the dialogue you mentioned with Yashin—I haven’t heard about that. But at that time, Navalny was very much in tune with the nationalists; I remember that well. Let’s say it was a bit later that I got to know him fairly well—never worked with him, but starting in 2011, we had pretty close conversations. And I can say with certainty that those nationalists were closer to him back then—he invited them, he pushed them onto the stage. That was the environment. Although, to be fair, by then his evolution toward the liberal side had already started.
I didn’t know him during the height of the Russian marches. But the evolution was real, and it was serious. We could see it in his speeches, in his work, and in what he said.
On the Author’s Philosophical Work Link to heading
So, a question from Lemeshev: Was there ever a time when you wanted to express yourself specifically as a philosopher, a thinker, by creating a certain work? What was the topic? At what point did you realize, no, it wouldn’t work out? Do you regret not trying harder to become a philosopher in your sense of the word, rather than a scholar of philosophy?
Yes, there were always such moments. There were many of them — I can’t even list them all. I had a period when I was very interested in the nature of causality. I wrote about that topic, and later — jumping ahead quite a bit — there was a book and a large study, a massive study about the internal structure of the Jewish people. That was one. Then there was an ambitious project, a huge research effort dedicated to understanding the Jewish people as a whole — not only in the diaspora, but also in Israel. It was, in general, a pretty interesting, philosophical topic, with a historical slant, I would say.
Then there were attempts to explore the internal structure — the architecture, so to speak — of the Muslim ummah. But I didn’t get very far with that. There was also a separate study of media and journalism as a specific form of social consciousness. So, well, I could list these attempts for a long time. Some of it I wrote down, some of it stayed in what I’d call an internal laboratory. But there were a lot of these attempts.
The problem was that each time there were temptations that got in the way. Either politics — political activity, which I now believe was a mistake for me personally, because maybe something would have come out of it specifically as a researcher. Or the Russian Union of Journalists — another temptation, because it was, well, you see, it’s impossible. It’s impossible to do serious research work and, say, try to do something in the State Duma at the same time, just like now. It’s impossible to write something serious and work in the mode I’m working in now. So each time these temptations of concrete activity outweighed the others.
It might have been a mistake. Maybe I should have said to hell with it all and focused on research.
A Supernatural Event in the Author’s Life Link to heading
Next, another question from Lemeshev: Was there ever any supernatural event in your life that you still can’t explain to yourself? Ideally, it should be something that didn’t just happen to you personally, but had at least one other witness. Something that makes the blood run cold.
No, dear colleague, nothing like that has ever happened to me. Moreover, I’ve heard many descriptions of such events from other people, but on closer examination it always turned out that it was either made up or had some simple explanations.
Pan Kulpa’s View of Bandera Link to heading
So, another question from Galina: Will you invite Pan Kulpa again? His speech on the recent stream was, to put it mildly, strange. Thank you very much for delicately stopping the flow of criticism about our history with Bandera and Shukhevych.
Yes, I did have to argue a bit with Piotr, with his approach. He’s a very well-known Polish politician, a statesman, a former minister in the Polish government. I invited him to analyze the recent election results in Poland this past Sunday. And during our conversation, he spoke quite critically about Bandera. Well, he’s not the only one — it’s not a unique position. So, yes, we had a bit of a debate. You know, I don’t think it’s something terrible. That’s the Polish perspective on things, you see? It’s the Polish view of history. And I think it’s important to know that — otherwise, if you’re only within the Ukrainian view of history, that can be dangerous. You won’t understand why the Poles, for example — though not all of them — don’t have such an enthusiastic view of Ukraine. You need to know the Polish view of history.
I had actually suggested to Mr. Kulpa that he have a discussion with some Ukrainian historians. He very politely declined, saying that history is the business of historians. But in general, I believe the Polish view of history needs to be known, and that was the Polish view. I don’t think it’s the only possible Polish view, but it was a very frank, clearly articulated, and widely shared Polish view of history. I think it’s helpful to hear it. Yes. But I did say publicly during our conversation that many citizens of Ukraine would strongly reject his position. And he said yes, he understands. Then we talked a bit more about that. I tried to explain that I don’t know of any national liberation movement that didn’t have nationalists, and so Bandera is no exception. After that, we had a micro-discussion of sorts. But I think it was useful.
Are There Any Disagreements in Trump’s Team? Link to heading
So what’s the story with the archive? There was information that Trump’s post on his social media about talking to Putin was deleted two hours later. Then, a channel posted a link to a recent publication that said Trump was supposedly not against sanctions. Is this considered a sign of disagreements in Trump’s team?
I don’t think so. Well, first of all, to be fair, I want to say that later Trump did indeed delete that post, but shortly afterward, he re-posted the statement about the conversation with Putin without changing the text. So what was it? I don’t think it’s a sign of disagreement in Trump’s team, especially because the current regime of the 47th president of the United States is a regime of one man. I don’t think there could be any significant disagreements — whatever Trump says, that’s how it’s going to be. And if there is any disagreement, it’s already outside the team. For example, when Musk started to have some disagreements, he was immediately kicked out of the team. So I don’t think there are any real disagreements.
On the Reasons for Trump’s Deference to Putin Link to heading
Alex Ivanov: A question through the lens of Occam’s razor — don’t you think Trump humiliates himself so much before Putin only because Putin promises this degenerate some kind of business for “conditional Ivanka”? This greedy idiot stupidly believes and dreams of theft. At 78, he’s weaving and dodging, only dreaming of some great commercial venture in Russia. To humiliate himself like that, to call like a spurned ex, pestering. And to what extent can the authority of the United States fall in four years?
Dear colleague, I think that Trump — well, first of all, I don’t think Trump sees himself as lowering himself. Trump is three things: money — he’s all about money; his ego — he’s a narcissist; and his sympathy — his weakness for strongmen. And Putin skillfully plays on all of this. He promises money, lots of money, he constantly flatters Trump’s ego, and he projects his macho image. That’s all there is to it. So I think it’s actually pretty straightforward.
Why Doesn’t Trump See Who’s Sabotaging the Negotiations? Link to heading
Igor Gladkiy: A question from a namesake: Igor Alexandrovich, why don’t the Russians want an open format for negotiations, while at the same time accusing Ukraine of insults and sabotage? It’s all so simple: whoever refuses openness has something to hide. Why don’t the US and specifically Trump see this?
Dear namesake! Well, it seems obvious to me: in an open conversation, they’d lose, and they definitely understand that. That’s why the conversation will only be behind closed doors. As for Trump — I tried to explain this: Trump’s sympathies lie with Putin, his sympathies lie with Russia simply because, although Trump is the head of a democratic country and can’t openly side with Russia or throw the full power of the United States behind it, his sympathies, of course, lie with Russia, with Putin, without a doubt. How to talk to Trumpists?
Is It Possible to Explain Anything to a Trumpist? Link to heading
So, Tamara Moshkovich asks: How do you talk to Trumpists? Especially those who live in Russia and oppose Putin, but whose arguments are delusional and contradict the facts, just like Putin’s supporters.
Dear Tamara! Well, yes, the Trumpists… You see, once again, not everyone who voted for Trump — among those 77 million Americans who voted for him — not all of them are Trumpists. Some of them were just protest voters against Biden, against Kamala Harris, against the Democratic Party’s policies. But the Trumpists — the core of them — I’ve heard some experts say that they’re about half that size, the real core Trumpists who would follow Trump anywhere. It’s a sect — a pure sect, with people genuinely believing in the second coming of Trump as salvation from all misfortunes. So, actually, it’s very characteristic of the totalitarian sect mentality.
About Sakharov and Florensky Link to heading
Eduard. Very strange. Well, I’ll read it. So, a question from Eduard: Yesterday, you spoke quite negatively about Pavel Florensky, but for some reason you didn’t mention his contributions to science and many other positive things. Sakharov, Eduard writes, was also an antisemite, but that doesn’t detract from his merits. Please comment. Respectfully, Eduard.
Dear Eduard, I’m at a loss. Well, first of all, about Sakharov. You claim that Sakharov was an antisemite. I’m trying—I’m reading your question in my head right now, and I’m trying to figure out where you got that from. The only guess I have is that Sakharov was, in fact, a semite—a person who absolutely couldn’t be suspected of any antisemitism or any xenophobia. Moreover, he was accused of being a Jewish agent, so to speak, of the Jewish mafia—his wife Yelena Bonner, and all that. So to accuse Sakharov of antisemitism is about the same as accusing Golda Meir of antisemitism, or Natan Sharansky. Or— or Jabotinsky, yes, one of the founders of Zionism. Well… I have a suspicion, dear Eduard. Perhaps, perhaps your odd statement was because you confused Sakharov with Solzhenitsyn. Now, Solzhenitsyn was an antisemite. But Sakharov, no—it’s a very odd claim.
As for Florensky’s contribution to science, there was never any contribution. If you mean his work called Imaginary in Geometry—that’s complete pseudoscience. A new book in which he tried to confirm his personal worldview, to refute the heliocentric view of Copernicus. That’s nonsense, that’s complete pseudoscience. In this book, he tried to prove the boundaries between Earth and sky that he said lay between the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. It’s absolute pseudoscience. What contribution to science is that? So here, this is clearly a misunderstanding.
About the Term “Rossiyane” Link to heading
Filin: In your opinion, are there citizens of Russia but no civil nation of Russia? Tell me, are there civil nations like the civil nation of Canada—Canadians, Australians, Americans, Swiss, and others—Belgians, Saudis, and so on? Isn’t it time to stop confusing everyone with the official phrasing “citizens of the Russian Federation” and the territorial-national adjective “Russians”? After all, there’s long been the word “Rossiyane.”
Dear colleague, do you even feel the Russian language? You surely understand that the word “Rossiyane,” which Boris Nikolayevich actively used when he said it—always with his own intonation: “Rossiyane”—hasn’t really caught on. That word has a pretty formal, bureaucratic ring to it. Russians, when asked “Who are you?”—and in current propaganda and everything else—the word “Russky” (Russian) is organic.
The word “Rossiyanin”… when someone asks you “Who are you?”—I’m absolutely sure that a person’s identity, by which I mean their self-understanding, has both a civic side (citizenship, relationship to the state) and an ethnic side. Russians, of course, will answer “Russky” (Russian). Very few people, when asked “Who are you?” would answer “I’m a Rossiyanin.” That doesn’t happen—it hasn’t caught on, this identity.
And why? Well, American has caught on, French has caught on, Australian has caught on. That’s because a civic nation is a political identity that arises from political institutions like elections, first and foremost. And a person feels their civic belonging to this civic nation, which has institutions, socialization through elections, primarily.
In Russia, there have never been real elections, so the feeling of belonging to the country is missing. There’s a feeling of belonging to a people. And that people might be Russian, or Tatar, or Jewish, or Lezgian. But never Rossiyane. A civic nation hasn’t formed in Russia.
On the Russification of Peoples Link to heading
Big Apple: Why such a categorical answer to Yuri’s question? Russification of the listed Finno-Ugric peoples is still going on. Young people consider themselves Russian, Slavs; their language and culture are disappearing, and they’re physically able to “pass” as Russians with hair and eye color. In some regions — like Leningrad Oblast, Perm Krai, the Urals, and so on — Finno-Ugric genes are already part of the Russian people. No wonder Putin himself looks like a Swede in old photos.
Well, you know, if you inject Botox into any of us, we could end up looking Chinese. If you fill the whole face with Botox, you won’t even see the face anymore — it’ll be just one big rear end, like with Putin. So I’d leave the Putin argument aside. But if you look at a young Putin, what Swede is he, really?
Anyway, let’s break this down point by point. Once again, I don’t want to keep going in circles, but when you talk about “Russification,” what does that mean? It means integration into the core imperial ethnic group. The core imperial ethnic group is the Russians — so “Russification” confirms that we’re talking about the core imperial Russian group that other ethnic groups join. Yes, there is such a process.
I want to reiterate that Russians are one of the branches of the Eastern Slavs, which is obvious for several reasons. And it’s a bit awkward to keep re-proving that a certain ethnic group belongs to a particular ethno-linguistic group. Why not Germans, why not Indians or someone else? Because first: language. Russian is an Eastern Slavic language, closely related to Ukrainian, close to Belarusian, less so to Bulgarian (though Bulgarian isn’t quite Eastern Slavic). It has no relation to Finno-Ugric languages — take Finnish or Hungarian, and you’ll see the huge difference in grammar, vocabulary, everything.
Second: genetics. Genetically, almost all Eastern Slavs are virtually indistinguishable. A wealth of genetic marker research shows that Russians are similar to other Central and Eastern European populations and only slightly different from neighboring Finno-Ugric, Turkic, and North Caucasian groups. So language and genetics are bulletproof arguments.
I understand Ukrainians who feel disgusted by what’s happening right now — disgust at being next to Russians. So they’d like, I don’t know, to use a chainsaw to cut Ukraine off from Russia, or to make Russia just fly away somewhere. But that’s not how the globe works. You can’t fly away, and it’s just as impossible to change your language or genetics overnight.
But from this, you absolutely cannot draw political conclusions — that’s nonsense. You can’t say that these are “brotherly peoples” or make some political statement about that. That’s absurd and wrong.
So, yes, there’s historical intermixing, and, for example, North American Indians are known to be descended from the same peoples who once lived in North Eurasia. But no normal person would conclude from that that Russia has any claim to North America. Of course not.
So no political conclusions should be drawn from the fact that Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians are Eastern Slavs — they’re different peoples of one broad group. But it’s equally absurd to twist reality to pretend there’s no shared linguistic or genetic closeness.
About the Article “Snow is Falling” Link to heading
So, Serafim Lozhkin: Do you remember the article “Snow is Falling” in Rossiyskaya Gazeta? Was that an attack on Luzhkov, Yeltsin?
Yes, that was a widely talked-about article in 1994. I remember it very well — especially because, as it was said, one of the authors or at least one of the people who ordered the piece was Mikhail Nikiforovich Poltoranin. Most likely. I’m not sure, but that was the opinion at the time. There were hints that his hand was visible in it.
What was the article about? Of course I remember. It said that the MOST Group and its general director Gusinsky — as well as Minkin and Evgeny Kiselyov — were all striving to make Luzhkov president. There was a trial afterward — I don’t remember the figures, but some money was paid to the plaintiffs. If I’m not mistaken, Gusinsky and Minfin won the court case, which established that it was slander.
As for who was behind it — most observers believed it was Poltoranin. I also tend to think so, to be honest. At that time, I worked with Mikhail Nikiforovich in the same Duma committee. I don’t remember all the details now, but I think there were even confirmations that he was behind that article.
About the Raids on a Pro-Government Publication Link to heading
Billing asks: What do you think about the raids at UrGEU?
Well, let me start by saying that there’s no political context there. Because UrGEU is an entirely pro-government institution — a pro-government publication, absolutely anti-Ukrainian, supporting the war. So there’s no hint of politics here.
The reason is very simple. The editor of that publication, Denis Sharov, was detained on suspicion of — or maybe as a suspect, I don’t remember the exact status — in a criminal case about bribery. That’s absolute nonsense, because the whole story was that they were conducting investigations, basically a crime beat. And they had a source in the law enforcement agencies. Everyone does this. There isn’t a single publication that covers criminal investigations that doesn’t have its own sources in law enforcement. It’s possible he gave some money to this officer, but you see, again, we’re in a gray zone here. I don’t consider getting information in this way to be illegal or in conflict with journalistic ethics. You can’t conduct any criminal investigation if you don’t have sources in the criminal world and sources in the police world.
So the whole thing, as far as I understand, was sparked by some photos of the governor — or maybe the mayor, something like that. In reality, their investigations touched the bosses. So this shows that political loyalty doesn’t protect you from persecution. From a journalistic standpoint, UrGEU was absolutely right, and this is just another case of police lawlessness. But there’s no political element here, because it’s an absolutely pro-government publication.
Where’s the Line Between War and Terrorism? Link to heading
A question from a mushroom forager: In one of your streams, when discussing an argument with Viktor Shenderovich about a train accident, you spoke about the inevitability of civilian casualties in attempts to stop a war. The question arises: if in the biblical story God used the harsh method of striking down the Egyptian firstborn to free the Jews, can similar logic be seen as forcing peace through intimidation? Where’s the line between a moral choice in war and what’s already terrorism?
Dear colleague! The whole question comes down to what the goal was. If it was the deliberate destruction of a civilian passenger train, then of course it’s terrorism. But I have very strong doubts that this was the case. Almost certainly it wasn’t deliberate destruction. That is, the passenger train wasn’t the target — at least based on what I know.
Who Brought Putin to Power? Link to heading
Sokol Pushkin: I watched an interview where it was said that Putin once approached Starovoitova and told her he liked everything she was saying and doing, and offered to drive her around for free. She apparently, as a smart woman, refused. Then he made the same offer to Sobchak. It’s all in the public domain, I’m not making this up. Sobchak also refused. And according to Poltoranin, Putin was told that these were prominent people — they needed to know what they were saying and thinking. That didn’t work out, so they stuck him with the “director of international affairs.” I don’t know what that position was — probably a vice-rector. From there, they stuck him with Sobchak as first deputy. This is all from an interview. My question is: if we trust this information, who were these people, and do we know their names? It’s hard to imagine this pale moth running serious crime in St. Petersburg on that level, then getting promoted after Sobchak’s failed mayoral campaign. Do you have any thoughts about this? After all, everyone we know today, Putin brought to Moscow, not the other way around.
I’ll start at the end. Actually, we know perfectly well who brought Putin to Moscow. It was, first and foremost, Kudrin. That’s very well documented. Kudrin physically moved Putin to Moscow, with help from Chubais, but primarily, of course, it was Kudrin. So there’s no mystery there.
As for these supposed “revelations” from Mikhail Nikiforovich — well, since I worked in the same committee in the State Duma with him and knew him quite well, I can say that Mikhail Nikiforovich is a big storyteller. He’s quite capable of embellishing or making things up. So I wouldn’t trust him as a source. He’s an interesting and unusual person, but, you know… In short, my close interaction with Mikhail Nikiforovich was one of the many things that finally convinced me to step away from politics altogether.
Where’s the Cash Register Where the Author Gets Paid? Link to heading
The questioner calls himself so, well, like that, and asks: Do you really believe in the collapse of Russia or are you just handing out a pill of hope? If it’s the first, then you’re quite a fool. If it’s the second, then I get it, you’re on someone’s payroll.
What always amuses me, dear colleague, is when people say I’m on someone’s payroll. I’d very much like to know where exactly this is — where the hell is the cash register? Why don’t you tell me where the cash register is? Where can I go to get this paycheck? People keep telling me — Shvets says I’m getting paid by Yermak. I just don’t know. In the end, where does the money go? Someone says I get money from Putin or from the Nicaraguan intelligence service or whoever else. But where’s the money? Why does it never show up? Where’s this paycheck? So as for the rest, I’d rather not even comment on it.
Comments about the bridge and the passenger train Link to heading
Moving on. There are a lot of comments, I’ll read them out. I won’t comment on all of them. I won’t respond to all of them, I’ll just highlight some that I consider important. Regarding the explosions of bridges, here’s a comment from XD. The situation with the bridges still smells of Ryazan sugar. In Iran, they said it’s unclear why Putin needs this. So what? Has he often surprised you with logic? Especially when it comes to provocations? And so on. So? Why would Ukraine destroy a passenger train in front of the whole world?
Again, I did not claim that Ukraine deliberately destroyed a passenger train in front of the whole world. I exclude that version. I don’t rule out that this could have been an unintended consequence of destroying the bridge. The bridge is, of course, a legitimate target. The passenger train is not. That could have been an accident. I also can’t completely rule out the Ryazan sugar version.
Next. Galina Antonovich, the bridge had been declared unsafe long before the disaster; its collapse was not considered a terrorist attack. Moreover, the bridge didn’t fall on the train; the train, unable to stop, crashed into the fallen bridge. Well, that’s one version.
Igor Stanislavovich, about the bridge explosion, I think everyone is mistaken here. In the sense that there was no explosion. The bridge was in disrepair and simply gave out. That’s it. So, literally yesterday, explosions were heard in that area. That is, for the imitation of a terrorist attack, the Russian special services have always had plenty of methods. I wouldn’t be surprised if Yaros’ business cards in quotes are found at the crime scene.
So that’s what, then, Natalia Zhernova, If you blow up a railway bridge, the victims will very likely be the passengers of a train. Shenderovich is right. This is also a crime, unjustified by anything. These are not military targets, not a coincidence.
In this case, I’m not going to argue. I just want to say that military equipment and ammunition for the occupation army were being transported across that bridge to the front lines. So it is, of course, a legitimate military target for the train. I’m sure the passenger train was not the target.
Krikunov, Passenger trains run on a schedule, so I think the coincidence is very unlikely.
That’s true. But I’m not 100% sure that in this case, it wasn’t a coincidence.
Next. Diana Chudakova, Igor, one might think that Shenderovich was mistaken. But on the same Khodorkovsky channel, Dmitry Bykov accused Ukraine of deliberately provoking Russia to launch a nuclear strike. And he repeated this many times. It’s all much simpler. After Putin’s successful operation, some good Russians showed their true face.
Dear Diana, I just want to tell you, I don’t know, maybe you’re not aware, but Viktor Shenderovich and Dmitry Bykov are not the same person, they are two different people. So whatever Dmitry Bykov said, he is fully responsible for his own words. Shenderovich has nothing to do with it. I’m not acting as Shenderovich’s lawyer, I’m just stating the facts. Somehow you lumped them together. They’re different people. Shenderovich usually speaks much more accurately and generally doesn’t talk nonsense. But Bykov does talk nonsense. Well, every other phrase. Every other phrase of his is nonsense. I’ve noted this many times. For which reason? For some reason, he gets very offended at me.
Does the “Pautina” operation increase escalation? Link to heading
Max. I checked out the statement about the “Pautina” operation. I watched the interview. I didn’t hear anything idiotic in the statement. He said there’s a distinction between attacks on military targets separately and on the notorious triad separately. For us civilians, what’s the difference? For the military, there is a difference. He didn’t say that Ukraine shouldn’t shoot down missiles. He said that if you attack detachments, you don’t know how the opponent will respond. This uncertainty increases the risk. Why? Because the response won’t be within the usual actions. Russia’s response, which is known, will be unconventional. This unconventionality increases the risk. It’s not an idiotic statement, it’s a statement of fact.
And so on. So, in the end, I’m not disputing your approach, dear Max, but still the statement that escalation is the main takeaway from this statement, that the Pautina operation is an escalation of the conflict, I still believe, I still believe that the main content of that statement is, in this case, strange. Because to declare that the Pautina operation is an escalation of the conflict means—it’s still a condemnation. And I said, listen, let’s preserve some meaning of words. In all our arguments, in all our discussions, is escalation of conflict good or bad? It sounds bad, it sounds condemning. Don’t escalate the conflict. And to avoid escalation of the conflict, you’d have to not respond to the attacks at all, you’d have to just surrender. So it seems you didn’t hear anything, no condemnation. I heard it, and I have evidence. Declaring that the Pautina operation is an escalation of the conflict—I think that’s idiocy. I still think so, despite your rather detailed discussion of this statement. I still stick to my opinion, with all due respect to you, Max.
Religious topics Link to heading
So, there’s a lot, a lot about discussions and surveys about faith, a la Mark. I never felt the desire to launch into religious discussions on your channel. It seemed inappropriate. But when the survey was posted, I realized I didn’t fit into any of the three groups. At one time, Carl Gustav Jung was asked, “Do you believe?” He answered, “I don’t believe, I know.” I’m not comparing myself to Jung, but it happens. Olga Vilkova: In my opinion, in the survey, you should have separated belief in God from belief in a cosmic intelligence. Belief in God implies religiosity. But religion is a philosophical movement based on faith in God. But that’s not entirely true, of course. Oh well. So the existence of a cosmic intelligence has no direct relation to religion. For example, I don’t believe in God. My attitude toward religion is about the same as that of an atheist, but I don’t just believe in a cosmic intelligence, I’m absolutely sure it exists.
I understand. I had thought about actually separating these, but then you’d have to be very granular, you know, into which kind of god you believe, amorphous, and so on. So it would really branch out, and the scale would end up being pretty long. But the question, maybe—yes, I’d probably even agree with you that it probably should have been separated.
Zhenya Matuzov I couldn’t participate in the survey about religion, because I don’t belong to any of the proposed categories. I’m religiously indifferent. I’m not an atheist, not an agnostic, I’m indifferent. Let me explain. In the Middle Ages there was a religious debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You could run a survey with those kinds of categories: infinite number of angels, finite number of angels, a few, agnostic, I don’t know. I think most people today would struggle to choose a category in that survey simply because they are completely indifferent to the issue. Well, yeah, maybe. But after yesterday’s vote on belief in God, I’m in a terrible state. Can you ask those 46 subscribers why the Merciful and Almighty, as He’s called in prayers, let my grandmother allow, for example, the murder of a little girl who lived only five months and died from a missile or drone? What did she do to deserve that? God, and why does He seem to like protecting that paranoid man standing alone with a candle in a church, the one who created this hell for peaceful people? Let those 46% answer that simple question.
Well, that’s a pretty typical question, but usually believers will say that God sends trials, and the Lord’s ways are inscrutable, right? I still think, dear friends, that I’ll at least temporarily suspend religious theological debates on our channel. Because, you know, it’s like one word leads to another, and then it just ends up going in circles, in my opinion.
Security of Israel Link to heading
Okay. Vera asks: I understand your position. In general, I agree with the criticism of my position. But since you were asking, asking for an alternative, I’ll say that the option proposed by Yitzhak Rabin was indeed an attempt to find a real path to peace through dialogue, mutual recognition, and the phased resolution of complex issues. It was a step toward mutual understanding, though not an easy one. In contrast, the current course of the right-wing government led by Netanyahu and earlier by Likud, one of the culprits for the breakdown of this process, seems to move away from peace. It increases tension and freezes opportunities for a long-term solution. It seems that instead of moving forward, we are more and more stuck in the conflict. And therefore, for me, this conflict is still not as stark as Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Here there is a long history of violence responding to violence. And the fact that this conflict has lasted so long, and there are still no prospects for its resolution, is one of the arguments for defining a different nature of the conflict and the degree of responsibility of the conflicting parties.
Well, you know. Well, I don’t know, I personally don’t see any real difference here, because from the very first seconds of the existence of the State of Israel, by decision of the United Nations, there were two positions. There was the position of Israel, the Jews, who believed, let’s make an agreement: here’s the Jewish state, here’s the Arab state, let’s live separately. Then there was the position of the Arab countries, not just those living in Palestine, but the entire Arab world, which declared, no, there will be no Jews in the Middle East. And a war began. And that war was not started by the Jews. That war was not started by the Israelis. That war was started by the Arabs. That is, the Arab League of Arab States began the war to destroy Israel. Period. I don’t see any difference between, so to speak, what’s happening between Russia, which attacked Ukraine, and the Arab League, which attacked Israel—what’s that? This conflict has lasted 70 years. And the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine has lasted 11 years, since 2014. The only difference is in duration. The history of the issue is much more complicated because it’s been going on longer. But the nature of the conflict—this exact geometry of the conflict—seems clear to me. Terror attacks are committed, first and foremost, today—it’s people from Gaza who went out to kill Jews, while Jews from Gaza don’t go out to kill residents of Gaza. That’s the difference, you see? That’s the fundamental difference. And so yes, this. You know, of course I really hope—I’m almost sure that this war won’t last 70 years. But if you imagine that it did, there would also be all sorts of nuances. So once again, the nature of the conflict—I think yes, of course, there are nuances, there are differences. There’s religious hatred and so on. But the basic structure of the conflict—that there is an aggressor and there is a victim of aggression—seems obvious.
Should we respond to armchair analysts? Link to heading
So, a few words. Amura and subscribers with the nickname Sad Donkey, Vera. A comment for Sad Donkey. I’d like to call him a little donkey affectionately, but in a grown-up way, he’s just a donkey. But the very question already points to the cynicism of an armchair critic who thinks everyone owes him something. How can you even ask why he hasn’t been killed yet? The question itself already carries a wish for someone’s death. Muratov is a good journalist, a human rights defender, doing a lot in the fight against the regime. And certainly much more than this Sad Donkey who’s asking nasty questions. It’s shameful that we have such listeners on our channel, and I think there’s no point in answering them at all.
I don’t think so. I think it’s necessary to answer. The person has a question. I think it’s worth responding.
Answers to philosophical questions Link to heading
Galina Viktorovna. A wish: It’s clear that you’re not yet in a position to conduct teaching activities on the channel. It would be great if you could highlight certain issues with commentary. From the perspective of philosophy and sociology, you certainly do this from time to time. For that, thank you.
Well, you understand. Of course, of course, it needs to be done. I’ll try.
Responsibility and guilt Link to heading
Star Star, once again, dear friends, subscribe. Your questions. I won’t mangle the language trying to reproduce how YouTube names you. Sometimes that happens, as far as I know, even without your will. So, the question: I’m not asking you to look me in the eye, but I asked if there can be collective responsibility without individual responsibility. Yes, you didn’t say it directly, but that’s exactly how I understood you. So, and then you said that all of Russia is very long. A long lead-up to the question. But the point is, what does it mean? The point is that collective responsibility exists, but collective responsibility without individual responsibility is collective guilt.
Dear colleagues, there is no such thing as collective guilt. Guilt is always individual. And guilt involves a completely different level of responsibility. It involves punishment. That’s not responsibility, it’s punishment. But collective responsibility does exist. I’ve already given plenty of examples. First of all, when I, for example, feel collective responsibility because, as a citizen of Russia, I obviously have much more complicated relations with European states than, for example, a citizen of Ukraine. Well, that’s absolutely obvious. That’s collective responsibility. And any citizen of Russia bears that collective responsibility, even though there seems to be no particular guilt. So there was collective responsibility among the citizens of the Third Reich, even if they were anti-fascists, because bombs were falling on their heads not because they all had to pay reparations. That is collective responsibility. And beyond that, well, it’s already a matter of conscience, a matter of shame. If you still feel it, even though you’re not participating in the war, you’re not supporting it, you tried to stop it but couldn’t. But there’s still that sense of unease, that feeling. And for me, it shows up in the fact that I try not to criticize Ukraine, even though of course there’s plenty to criticize. But that’s, again, a sense of collective responsibility. There are people who don’t feel it. Well, good for them.
Muratov and Novaya Gazeta Link to heading
So here’s a response from Sad Donkey. It’s long, but I’ll read it in full. Dozens of Muratov’s like-minded colleagues and friends were killed by Putin. I didn’t know the exact number; I remembered it was up to 15 people, so I wrote dozens. And you corrected me, naming the exact number as eight. Where did you see mockery in that? Well, the tone itself, in my view. But fine, that’s a trifle. As far as I know, most of the murdered journalists were killed for investigations not related to Putin at all. So you’re accusing me of supposedly writing that all of them were not killed for direct investigations of Putin, citing Shchekochikhin and Politkovskaya as examples. Although I wrote “most” and “not related to Putin.” And as for the rest of the text, yes, I have, I think, quite legitimate questions about Muratov’s case. Again, why are ordinary people from distant nowhere towns imprisoned for five years for reposts, while a seasoned opposition figure with regime-exposing investigations is not touched at all? There’s also the question of how he had no one else to team up with except an FSB officer. I didn’t know about the 14% of his shares. And yes, his close friendship with the same Minin and Venediktov also raises questions. I consider the insults directed at me to be undeserved. I don’t see where, as you said, my mockery, filth, and vileness are. By the way, unlike you, I didn’t tell Muratov to get lost. As you said on air? Next, Sad Donkey’s second text. A question. Let’s close the topic with Muratov if you don’t mind. Have you heard of a figure named Kodanev, a man of Chemezov’s, who is on the Magnitsky list and therefore under the strictest US sanctions, along with his entire family? Do you know if there’s any connection between Kodanev and Muratov? I forgot to ask this most important question in connection with Muratov’s activities. You apparently forgot to mention this most important chapter in the editor-in-chief’s biography.
I think Muratov and Antonov would be very surprised that this is considered the most important chapter in their biography. I’ll explain now. The second question. You told an extremely entertaining story about how Novaya published defamatory materials about you. I have no doubt that this happened. Here’s the question. Muratov read the material, realized the article was false, but still approved its publication. So he’s an ordinary scumbag. Or Muratov, after reading the article, was so outraged by its lies that he flew into a rage and tried to reject it but couldn’t because there was someone higher up whose word prevailed. And that someone is not Muratov. Is that your version? Which version?
Let’s clarify. Well, let’s start with the trivia. Sergei Dunaev has been donating to Novaya Gazeta since 2014. Now he no longer does it because Novaya Gazeta simply doesn’t exist anymore. Antonov is not a shareholder of Novaya Gazeta; he makes donations. Who’s donating what, you know… people send me donations too, and I don’t know who sends them. Yes, of course. Muratov knows who Antonov is. Where did you get the idea of Muratov’s close friendship with Akunin, I don’t know. But what is Muratov supposed to do when Antonov sends money? You see, the fundamental difference between you, Sad Donkey, and Muratov is that Muratov spent many years building an independent, dependent newspaper in Russia from scratch. I remember very well, I think it was at the very beginning of 1994. Muratov came to my office in the Duma and told me that he and a group of journalists were leaving Komsomolskaya Pravda because at that time Volodya Sungorkin had come in and turned it into an absolutely vile, yellow Kaluga rag, where the main event was boobs on the front and back pages and prostitution ads. So Muratov and his group of journalists left and decided to create a different paper, an independent newspaper with investigative journalism and information, and so on. I was basically there for the birth of that paper, if not directly at its birth, at least as a witness. And so the claim that this was an FSB project is an absolute lie. An absolute lie, you understand? Besides, you—I don’t know, dear Sad Donkey—have you ever in your life created any serious project that was based on confronting the authorities? Not just writing and making statements, but building some serious oppositional structure? Created an opposition party or an oppositional publication? A serious one, yes. One that requires serious money. Even I have a very small project now, you see, a small one. It doesn’t really require big money. But even I feel a severe lack of funds. And keeping it going? In my time I also created a publication, a TV channel—100 TV. And there was a constant problem with money, because you need to keep a staff of journalists, you need to pay rent, you need equipment, and so on. And that was a constant, monstrous lack of funds. I can imagine… Novaya Gazeta was a much bigger project than 100 TV. So I can say right away that I understand what it was like when Muratov basically had no legal way to get funding to keep Novaya going, because everything was cut off for him. Because every businessman, every entrepreneur knew for sure that advertising in Novaya Gazeta, even though it was a good ad vehicle with a big circulation and a quality audience, was a no-go. No one wanted to advertise there. And as you claim, if this were an FSB project, if it had been from the start, as you lie… Understand, I’m telling you openly again: you’re lying if you say that Muratov is some FSB or Putin project. That’s a lie. If that were true, no one would have blocked Novaya’s funding. I know very well, I was, as they say, always nearby. As the General Secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, I saw what was happening with Novaya Gazeta. I saw how its journalists were killed for doing their jobs. I saw how the paper’s oxygen was cut off, how it was bombed, how there were arson attacks, how they cut off distribution, how kiosks refused to sell Novaya, how subscription sales were blocked. I saw all of this with my own eyes. And after all that, you have the nerve to lie that it was a Kremlin project? I know exactly what Kremlin projects look like. Like Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak. That’s a Kremlin project. And we see what’s happening there. And we see how that project is supported. I saw what Echo of Moscow was, which was indeed supported, yes? One hand, Putin was cutting it down, and the other hand was propping it up. There’s a massive difference between Novaya Gazeta and Ksenia Sobchak, with her political ambitions and commercial projects. Understand? So I repeat again, you’re lying, Sad Donkey. And as for the fact that Muratov tried to find money, yes, he tried to find money. But the choice was either to become Sad Donkey, sitting on the couch and criticizing everything in sight—sure, that’s a great position, very easy. Very easy, very simple. Or to try to build a structure that provides information and gives hope, and gives a million people a chance to think together. And that’s what Muratov did. I have huge complaints about Muratov, many of them. And when we were discussing Politkovskaya’s murder, when we were creating Obshchaya Gazeta, there was a moment when Muratov demanded—or rather, asked me to remove an article I had signed. There was that episode too. But those were our disagreements. There were a lot of them over the years. As for this episode, when he published that slanderous article by Kutepov in Novaya Gazeta, I know exactly what it was. Muratov, since he was on good terms with Gutyontov, thought that Gutyontov wrote it, so Gutyontov has the right to write it. And he called me. At that time I was in Turkey. He called me and said, “Igor, I published this article by Gutyontov. Don’t you want to respond?” But I found it insulting, because the article was slanderous. And I found it outrageous that Muratov could even for a second think that what Gutyontov wrote was true. But he really thought it was. He told me, “Refute it.” I said, “I won’t, because I find it offensive when filth like that is pinned on me.” But again, that doesn’t give you any grounds to call Muratov what you call him. So I stand by the epithets I’ve already addressed to you.
Rising wages in Russia. Are believers foolish? Link to heading
So, a question from Viktor Shipulin: Can you ask one of the economists? The question is how they explain the steady increase in wages in Russia while, according to them, the Russian economy is in decline. And the second question is not about religion itself, which has flooded your broadcast, but a bit about something else. You’ve repeatedly raised the issue of the link between religiosity and intelligence level. There is research on this topic that you’re probably familiar with. It shows that there is some connection, and not in favor of the religious. This is because on your channel it was stated that there is no such connection. So? Is it actually so?
Well, regarding the economic questions, I’ll indeed address those to the economists. As for the connection between religiosity and intelligence level, well, I do indeed know about such research. But again, since we’ve just established that there are different types and levels of religiosity, here you need a much more nuanced approach. And you know, I’d still rather hold back from pushing this topic too hard because there’s a serious problem here, as I see it. I know foolish atheists and intelligent believers. And so, pushing this connection between religiosity and intelligence level too hard—I wouldn’t do it. Because, once again, as a person who is not a believer, not religious, of course it would boost my ego to say that believers are dumber. But I think that’s wrong. I emphasize again because I know enough intelligent believers and foolish atheists. So I don’t want to expand on this particular topic in that way.
Every country has its own heroes Link to heading
So here’s from Leonid, Do foreign states have the right to dictate who can be considered a hero and who can’t? The Poles tell Ukraine who can’t be considered a hero and that this is divisive. Ukraine’s position clearly aligns with the Kremlin.
You know, every country has the right to decide for itself who its heroes are. But I’m absolutely convinced that other countries also have the right to criticize that choice. Let’s put the dots over the “i.” Russia calls its own people heroes, like, I don’t know, Suvorov. Do other countries have the right to call him a murderer and a bloody executioner, which he really was? They do. Why should we—let’s be fair—if we complain to Russia that it upholds such heroes, why do we deny the Poles the right to criticize Ukraine’s choice of heroes? Why? You see, that’s freedom, that’s a right. And Ukrainians have the right to ignore that criticism or reject it—that’s also freedom, you see? There’s no other way around it. And to be outraged, “How dare you? These are our heroes—don’t you dare!”—that’s unnecessary. The fact is that who gets statues, who doesn’t, who tears them down—that’s an internal affair of each country. But the right of another country—or rather, of people—to criticize it, that’s also valid. It’s another thing entirely when, based on the fact that some country tears down certain monuments, another country believes it has the right to commit aggression. That’s where the crime begins. But to criticize? Any person can criticize another person. And government policies can be criticized. Why not?
About the conversation with Piotr Kulp Link to heading
Question about Dugin. Why didn’t you remind the respected Piotr about the Home Army of Tadeusz Komorowski? Or does he think that’s something different? You were absolutely right, of course, that his mention of Hitler was completely out of place. But Stalin should have been mentioned too.
Yes, I was just arguing with the respected Piotr Kulp that Hitler, he shouldn’t have mentioned him. It doesn’t really fit with a national liberation hero. Let’s just say, a leader of a national liberation movement. It doesn’t fit. So it seemed to me like it was a stretch.
Why did they let Hard to Be a God through? Link to heading
So. Don Vito Corleone Listening to the Strugatskys. Hard to Be a God. A book I recommend everyone read or listen to again—it astonishingly overlaps with our reality. So the question: isn’t that foresight? Or would you say it’s just a flight of fancy? And the second question—why was it allowed through in the USSR?
It was allowed through, though obviously with difficulty. With difficulty, yes, they let it through. But at one time, listen—One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich got through. I was just mentioning as a historical echo that in 1922 Glavlit was created. But yes, they let a lot of things through. Master and Margarita got through at some point. So the degree of censorship varied.
About jingoistic patriotism Link to heading
Poncho. There’s a favorite propaganda quote from Bodrov about not speaking badly of your country during wartime, even if it’s wrong. Was this phrase taken out of context, or is it meant to make people think and analyze, but not speak out? There’s also a famous statement by Pushkin to the effect that he found it disgusting when a foreigner spoke ill of his country.
Well, it’s roughly in that same vein, yes, exactly so. I think that’s a sort of jingoistic patriotic slogan that, for me, is absolutely alien.
Did Shenderovich justify the death of Ukrainian children? Link to heading
From Galina. Shenderovich called the death of a little child, who had nothing to do with Putin’s crimes, a tragedy. At the moment he said this, he believed it was done by Ukraine. And the death of 630 and injuries to more than 1,960 Ukrainian children, also having nothing to do with Putin. That’s how it happens in war. Civilians often die.
Well, listen, dear Galina, you seem to have some sort of fixation on Shenderovich. You understand, it doesn’t at all follow from Shenderovich condemning the death of a little child on the train, as I understand it, on the Russian train. It doesn’t follow at all that he’s justifying the death of Ukrainian children. Let’s not exaggerate. Some sort of fixation on Shenderovich is completely unnecessary. It’s wrong. Shenderovich has enough of his own sins and mistakes without you attributing this kind of nonsense to him.
Concluding remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this brings us to the end of our morning stream today. I still hope that we’ll gradually make them not quite so long. Well, I don’t know—you have questions, and I try to answer them all. This concludes our morning conversation for today. I remind you that at 7:00 PM we’ll have a talk with Andrey Andreevich Piontkovsky. There’s a lot to discuss, clocks to synchronize, and a lot to think about. With that, we say goodbye. Glory to Ukraine, please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for Russian political prisoners, and for Ukrainian prisoners of war! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/O8xtQZ-lfeo