Patrushev separated Odesa from Ukraine, Medvedev called for the denazification of Europe, Putin named the Volgograd airport “Stalingrad,” and Trump saw in Putin’s eyes a desire for peace.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 30, and I’m in Kyiv. It’s now 07:41, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Who Sees What in Putin’s Eyes Link to heading
Now, about souls—back in June 2001, the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, looked into Putin’s eyes in Ljubljana and claimed he had sensed his soul. He saw Putin’s eyes and saw a soul. And besides that, he saw in him a straightforward and trustworthy person. Today, more than two decades later, Trump somehow manages to see in Putin’s actions and eyes a desire for peace. Let’s try, right now, to follow Putin’s words and actions and those of his entourage. And let’s try to piece together the word “peace” from these words and actions. Who knows, maybe we’ll manage.
So, last night’s action from Putin: the Russian army attacked Ukraine, specifically Dnipro, using Shahed drones. One person was killed, others injured, and there was significant damage to private homes. No military personnel were harmed. The person killed was a civilian.
In Kharkiv, the number of people injured in the strikes rose to 45, including a 5-year-old girl and a 24-year-old pregnant woman. Multi-story private houses and medical facilities were damaged, and civilian infrastructure was destroyed.
In Zaporizhzhia, a 68-year-old woman was wounded as a result of strikes in the Zaporizhzhia district. In total, the occupiers launched 616 strikes on 15 settlements in the Zaporizhzhia region over the past day. Now, looking at all these actions and words, let’s try to read between the lines.
Also, Putin signed a decree renaming Volgograd airport with the historical name “Stalingrad,” explaining that this was done at the request of veterans’ groups and other participants. Does the word “peace” shine through all this? A victory with an obvious nostalgic flavor. Maybe.
Now, let’s talk about words—just over the past few days. Several of Putin’s adepts stood out, starting with Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev. He’s now a sailor—the head of the Maritime Board—and as a sailor, he takes a special interest in Odesa. He’s convinced, as a sailor and as head of the Maritime Board, that Odesa’s future is not tied to Kyiv. He claims that most residents of Odesa have nothing in common with the Kyiv regime. He said this in an interview with TASS.
He stated that residents of Ukraine’s regions, including those near the Black Sea, should determine their own future. I wonder how he would react if someone abroad said that residents of Russian regions should determine their own future? He also confidently stated that it’s unlikely they see their future tied to neo-Nazism. On that point, he’s probably right, except he’s describing the attempt to seize Ukrainian regions under the Nazi Putin regime. He concluded that Odesa and the vast majority of its residents have nothing in common with the Kyiv regime. End quote. Well, peace-loving rhetoric, as always, shines through the words of Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev.
Even more peace-loving was the tone of Russia’s Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev. I mention his position because when you just read his words, it’s easy to think he’s some rogue, but in fact, according to the political hierarchy, he’s second only to Putin. He gave a lecture to schoolchildren as part of an educational marathon titled “Knowledge. The First Ones.” His talk was called “Our Dangerous World: Who is to Blame and What to Do?”
The main point he made: he called for massive denazification across all of Europe. Nazism, Medvedev said, must be eradicated across the continent. True denazification is needed, and this work must be done decisively, through joint efforts of different countries. Which countries? He didn’t say. But presumably North Korea, Iran, maybe Hamas, maybe Hezbollah, maybe Yemen’s Houthis should be invited to eradicate Nazism in Europe. Apparently. The operation, presumably, will focus on the Alternative for Germany party, as the primary target for denazification. That seems to be the idea.
And the leaders of countries unwilling to participate in this denazification effort? Medvedev believes they should be labeled as Nazi collaborators. The desire for peace is clearly felt in these statements. Just a bit more. The vocabulary Medvedev used is really something. He tried to teach the schoolchildren the terms they should use.
He called Poles, residents of the Baltic states, and Bulgarians “rabble.” Speaking about Europe, he referred to it as “a large pack of warring dogs,” “Western guys,” “a bunch of crazy Nazis and junkies,” “a pack of beggars under the sphinxes.” And more: “raped masters of the media,” “lords of darkness.” One of my favorites: a zoological insight—he used the word “freaks.” Also: “cockroaches breeding in the VIP sector,” “tame insects”—naturally referring to Ukraine. And so on.
This Medvedevian language is certainly rich. I think Medvedev should be asked to write the next “Total Dictation” text. Using these expressions would make for a very entertaining exercise.
Lavrov made an amazing statement yesterday. He said that Putin’s proposal for a truce on Victory Day is itself the beginning of direct negotiations with Kyiv without preconditions. I used to read Twitter and think for a long time afterward. Same here. I pondered Lavrov’s words. I tried to imagine: so Putin unilaterally announces this victorious truce, without consulting anyone. A monologue, just a statement—“this is what I want, so this is what I’m doing.” And this, Lavrov says, is the beginning of direct talks with Kyiv. A monologue is a negotiation. This is astonishing.
To sum up: let’s try to see the word “peace” in all this. Trump managed. He gave a big interview to Piers Morgan on ABC News, marking 100 days of his campaign. He spent a long time praising himself and his 100 days. He claimed they were the most successful 100 days of any administration in U.S. history. We discussed that a bit yesterday—what those 100 days really looked like. But Trump insists they were the best.
He said Ukraine would soon be defeated. Quote: “I think I’m saving this nation. I think that nation will be crushed very soon. It’s a big military machine. Let’s face it.” But before Trump entered the White House, Ukraine had been resisting for three years, successfully fending off attacks. In those three years, Putin didn’t capture a single regional center. There were no signs of Ukraine’s defeat.
But now Trump comes and says Ukraine will be crushed very soon. So, yes. Here’s the key phrase—at least for us. When asked whether he believes Putin wants peace, Trump replied: “I think he does.”
So above I tried to describe the actions and words of Putin and his allies. And from all that, Trump assembled the word “peace.” It reminds me of the fairy tale “The Snow Queen,” where Kai tries to form the word “eternity.” I think Trump would have managed. He could probably take the three letters A. S. S. and turn them into the word “happiness.”
He also said that the people involved now are the ones who really influence world events. In that same interview, Trump stated: “If it weren’t for me,” he said, “I think Putin would have wanted to take the whole country.”
So: Putin wanted to conquer all of Ukraine, then Trump showed up, and now Putin doesn’t want to anymore. And then Trump added: “Thanks to me, I believe he is ready to stop the fighting.”
What we just saw—these strikes on Ukrainian cities, these statements—all of that, according to Trump, proves that Putin is ready to end the war.
And there’s one more gem from that rather long and fascinating interview—about eggs. Yes, eggs. I quote: “Eggs, eggs, eggs—like it was my fault. I said, ‘I didn’t create this problem. Biden did.’ They doubled it. But since I stepped in, eggs are down 87%.”
I first listened to this in the original and thought I didn’t understand something. Then I read the transcript, and still couldn’t make sense of it. I thought maybe it’s just because English isn’t my native language. I tried to translate. Here’s what I got: Biden has 87% more eggs than Trump. I tried to picture that in physical terms, but it didn’t work.
In short, when Trump speaks, it feels like he’s raving.
He also said that because he provided Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank systems during his first term, if not for that, Russian troops would have taken Kyiv in early 2022. The war would have ended in one day. One day. He gave that aid several years before the war began, but apparently, that’s what would have ended the war in a day.
When I heard that, I immediately remembered the old Soviet song by Mark Bernes: “And without me, even the sun wouldn’t rise in the morning.” That’s the gist.
So there you have it—the global squeeze. On one side, the fascist maniac Putin. On the other, the fascist narcissist Trump. The planet is trapped between these two poles. And the situation is such that they’re helping each other tremendously. And peace, through this fascist mire, is completely invisible.
Of course, we should still hope for peace. But not too much. Because illusions are a dangerous thing.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before I move on to answering your questions, I want to say that today we have two very interesting and remarkable guests. First, at 5:00 PM, Alexander Morozov—a publicist, philosopher, and someone with whom it’s always fascinating to compare notes. And then at 8:00 PM, Ukrainian journalist and analyst Vitaly Portnikov. I think both of these conversations will be very interesting. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions. Alright.
About the Russian Community Link to heading
A question from V.—that’s how the person identifies themselves. This came from the Telegram channel chat.
If it’s not too much trouble, could you share your thoughts on the Russian Community? What is your opinion of this organization?
Dear colleague, I’m a bit surprised by this question—not because it’s hard to answer, but because, well, what do you think? Later in our list of questions, someone even asked what I think about Hitler. Well, you ask, I’ll answer. The Russian Community is… it’s basically fascist fascists who would have been kicked out of Hitler’s Reich for being too fascist. It’s a Russian ultraright, Nazi, Islamophobic organization that is undoubtedly pro-Putin. It was founded about five years ago, as far as I know. Its main agenda is anti-migrant activity, denunciations, and generally it’s an extremely xenophobic group.
Again, this is a case where the organization might soon be banned for being too radical—even in a fascist state, they’re too fascist, even for the current regime. It’s the extreme edge. There’s also the Sorok Sorokov group, another dark, obscurantist outfit, and a few others of the same type, but this one is ultra, ultra, ultra. So yes, everything there is quite clear.
What Is “Zhlobstvo” Link to heading
A question from Kac.
In the latest episode of “Mediafrenia,” you briefly touched on the phenomenon of zhlobstvo—of vulgar boorishness—as one of the foundations of fascism. Could you explore this topic more deeply, with examples, to give a broader picture of the phenomenon? Perhaps this could be done with the participation of director Yuri Borisovich Mamin, who has spoken about this phenomenon in a similar way. I’ve heard his remarks on the channels of Ksenia Larina and Natalia Vlashchenko, where he appears as a guest speaker. Maybe you could invite him to a conversation about it?
We’ll think about it, of course. Quite possibly. It’s something I’d need to consider. You see, every guest speaker is a task in itself for me. I have to figure out what makes them interesting and how their potential can be revealed. It’s a separate challenge, something to think about. Thanks for the idea.
As for zhlobstvo—you see, since it’s a colloquial word, not an academic term, to bring it into a sociological or psychological lexicon, we need to clarify its meaning. And such clarification inevitably involves a bit of subjectivity. I understand that, but I still think it’s worth the effort.
Here’s how I interpret zhlobstvo: it’s, in a way, the opposite—the antithesis—of intelligentsia or intellectual refinement. If we define intelligentsia by two core elements: first, a certain level of education and culture, and second, tact, tolerance, and respect for others—then zhlobstvo is its complete opposite.
First, it’s unquestionably about ignorance and lack of education. And second, it’s about boorishness. In essence, zhlobstvo is a blend of rudeness and triumphant ignorance—a type of ignorance that’s inflated and sees itself as a kind of greatness.
There are countless literary and real-life examples one could bring up. In fact, almost all staunch Putinists and Trumpists are unmistakably zhloby—they are classic representatives of zhlobstvo on either side of the ocean. So, if you’re looking for examples, that’s roughly what it looks like.
What in Russia Is a Bug, and What Is a Feature Link to heading
Here’s a question from Tadeusz Kościuszko.
Putinism, as is well known, is not a bug but a feature. The same could be said about the Soviet system. How would you characterize those five to seven years of Russian history in the 1990s—from the collapse of the USSR to the complete power grab by the security services in 2000—as a bug that they quickly fixed?
There’s a second question, but I’ll start with this one.
First of all, dear colleague, I don’t feel entirely comfortable with this programmer newspeak of yours. Still, I do have some idea of what a bug and a feature are. If I understand you correctly, you’re coming from the assumption that Putinism and the Soviet system represent a kind of default system, and that any attempt to reform it is the bug, while Putinism, which you call a feature, is actually an enhancement of the Russian system.
If we take the Russian system as a constant over the centuries, then yes, the Soviet regime is a feature—a modernization attempt of the same underlying system. And Putinism, in that sense, is also a feature. So in that framework, I agree with you. The attempt to reform the Russian system, which was made in the early 1990s, would, from that point of view, be a bug. That’s true.
But I personally hold an entirely different worldview. And if we apply your programming terminology to my worldview, then I proceed from a very simple idea: I believe Russia is still part of European civilization. And from that point of view, both the Soviet Union and Putinism are bugs. In fact, the entire Russian system is a bug.
So, yes—it’s a different worldview, a different coordinate system. I’m not imposing it.
About Ukrainian International Broadcasting Link to heading
Now the second question, which is more specific.
The Kremlin regime actively spreads the myth—the lie—about the so-called illegitimacy of Zelensky. So what prevents Ukraine, the questioner asks, and the collective West from launching a counter educational campaign about the illegality and illegitimacy of Putin? His target audience outside the Russian Federation is still quite broad and, theoretically, should be engaged. Or shouldn’t it?
Yes, it should. Of course it should. That’s my answer. But I have only one point—not a question, but a statement. Russia and Ukraine have completely incomparable capabilities when it comes to delivering and spreading information.
In numerous conversations on our channel, we often have Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak, an adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine. And I always ask him: why don’t you launch a serious international broadcasting effort? And each time, he responds in a somewhat condescending tone, saying yes, you’re right, but they just haven’t gotten around to it.
Sure, you can spread the word—but how? Ukraine has no serious international broadcasting, and how do you get that information to its audience? You see, it’s impossible to compare it with the billions that Margarita Simonyan handles, or with the gigantic Kremlin propaganda machine.
So yes, it should be done—but who will do it, and with what money?
Did Trump and Putin Collude? Link to heading
Serafim Karnavalov. Two questions as well.
Don’t you think that Trump and Putin are now working together to confuse Ukraine and the EU in order to pressure them as much as possible and force them to accept the most favorable terms for Trump and Putin in a ceasefire?
That’s the first question.
You know, I’m not sure—your question implies there’s some kind of collusion between Trump and Putin. I’m not sure about that. I think both Trump and Putin act based on their own interests. And the fact that those interests align—well, yes, they do.
And yes, the fact that Trump is effectively acting on Putin’s side is obvious. That’s a fact. So when you ask “don’t you think”—no, it’s not just that I think it. I assert it.
Is Trump Deliberately Starting a War to Secure a Third Term? Link to heading
Second question.
Trump doesn’t hide his plans to seek a third term. There’s a well-known precedent from the 20th century—the formal reason being World War II. To what extent, in your view, might Trump be interested in provoking a war between Putin’s Russia and NATO shortly before the end of his term, using Putin as an “Icebreaker 2”? You know what I mean, right?
Well, I assume you’re referring to Suvorov’s book titled Icebreaker.
Yes. For example, he probably wouldn’t be allowed to directly supply weapons to Russia, but there are still a thousand ways to offer support—for instance, potentially lifting U.S. sanctions against Russia, something often mentioned in various leaks.
You know, even in Suvorov’s book that you’re referencing, the point was that Stalin used Hitler as an “icebreaker” blindly—there wasn’t some explicit agreement. Yes, there was the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, but the subsequent use as an “icebreaker” was not coordinated—it wasn’t a planned collusion.
And I think it’s the same here. I don’t believe Trump is explicitly trying to ignite a world war. The premise of your question suggests that Trump wants a third term and is therefore trying to start World War III to justify it. I’m not convinced.
First, Trump doesn’t plan that far ahead. Second, I still think it’s highly unlikely that he’s sitting in the Oval Office thinking, “Let me start World War III so I can squeeze out a third term.”
First of all, Trump is less about war and more about money. And second, I don’t think such a multi-step scheme even crosses his mind.
Yes, closer to the end of his term, he might indeed create some kind of emergency situation, and in the wake of that emergency, he could try to push for a third term. That’s possible.
But using World War III as a pretext for a third term? That, as they say, is too much—even for Trump.
About Vitaly Dymarsky Link to heading
Vitaly.
What is your opinion of Vitaly Dymarsky’s work? Would you agree to speak with him on the “Inhale Exhale” program?
Well, first of all, I’m quite sure I will never be invited to Vitaly Naumovich’s program. Simply put, Vitaly Naumovich is—well, to me, it’s obvious that he’s one of the reincarnations of Venediktov, one of his shadows. And just as I’ll never be invited to Venediktov’s show, I doubt I’ll be invited to Dymarsky’s either.
He represents the core of the liberal crowd, in which there’s more crowd than liberalism. That’s why I doubt such a dialogue will happen.
Though, to be fair, as a person—rhetorically speaking—he uses liberal, reasonable, humane language. He’s against the war, of course, and against Putin. All of that is there.
But, as with many in the liberal crowd—I emphasize, in those two words, it’s the crowd that’s key. The liberalism is secondary, incidental.
On Whether Gerasimov and Shoigu Understand Modern Warfare Tactics and Their Influence on Decision-Making Link to heading
Van Van Gogh Xi asks:
Was it really unclear to Gerasimov and Shoigu that tanks are ineffective in modern warfare? This is a war of drones and AI-driven robotic systems. Tanks are obsolete—they’re fighting like it’s World War II.
Dear colleague, first of all, I don’t quite understand—what does Shoigu have to do with it? Shoigu has about as much to do with military affairs as I do. So blaming Shoigu for not understanding this is probably unfair. He truly doesn’t understand, because his background is in a completely different field, and he became defense minister simply because he went pine-cone picking with Putin in the taiga. That’s his main military credential.
As for Gerasimov, I don’t know what he understands or doesn’t understand. He’s a somewhat more complex figure than Shoigu. But he’s still not the main player here. Gerasimov is a function, a tool. And I want to emphasize again that I have reasons to believe Gerasimov was actually against starting this war. I’ve shared my reasoning on that many times.
That doesn’t mean I don’t consider Gerasimov a war criminal—of course I do. But that he opposed the start of the war seems quite evident to me. I’ve already outlined the arguments for that more than once.
So, in the end, what Gerasimov thinks doesn’t matter—he is not an independent figure in this situation. Not at all.
Why Do People Fall for Disinformation Link to heading
Irina asks:
How would you describe a person—their mental or emotional state—who claims that Bucha was staged, that the war was started by America, and more recently adds Europe to the list, who sends videos featuring Andrei Fursov, says things like “What is Germany really?”, claims Gorbachev signed his own death sentence… You once said that Fursov is pure conspiracy theory, and that listening to someone like that means you don’t respect yourself. How do you explain this? The person isn’t stupid. What makes people adopt such propaganda-influenced views? Is it the desire to avoid feeling that your own country is the aggressor? They say I’m the one with a pot on my head for not understanding who started this war. Their idols are people like Sergey Mikheev, Tatyana Montyan, and so on.
You know, dear Irina, first of all, I don’t know the person you’re describing, and diagnosing someone from a distance without seeing or knowing them is completely irresponsible. So it’s hard to say exactly what the reason is in this specific case.
As a hypothesis, I can suggest the following. First, it may be an unwillingness to leave their comfort zone. I can judge this from some of my own experience. Every person acts as a filter for their social circle. In my case, I don’t personally know anyone—among those I regularly speak with—who believes Bucha was staged or that America started the war, or Ukraine. I simply don’t have people like that in my circle.
But I do know, through others, that some acquaintances of mine—people I no longer interact with—do think and say such things. Naturally, these are people still living in Russia. So what is this behavior?
Well, first, it’s the refusal to leave a comfortable psychological state. A person who lives in Russia and doesn’t plan to leave—whose life plans depend on staying—realizes that acknowledging the truth would mean their country is a fascist Reich that attacked a peaceful neighbor. That realization demands action. You must either leave, or try to change something, or retreat into internal emigration.
Any of those options require stepping out of your comfort zone. So the person “corrupts” their own consciousness—they bribe themselves, so to speak. They adapt their views to maintain psychological comfort. This is a very widespread phenomenon.
And second, yes, it may indeed be the result of propaganda. In the case you describe—I don’t know for sure. I mean not you personally, but in the case of the people you’re referring to.
On Lenin as a Philosopher Link to heading
Andrey Lisichki:
The system of reflections described by Lenin—if I recall correctly, in the Philosophical Notebooks—was that his original idea, or a continuation of someone else’s? I remember it categorized four types of reflection, from inanimate nature to conscious reflection. A trace, like one stone hitting another. Reflective change, like chemical reactions. Reactive response, like reflexes in living nature. Conscious reflection, associated with awareness. Each higher level of reflection includes and is built on the lower ones. I remember thinking it described nature quite well. But I read this some 30 years ago and no longer recall where exactly—it might’ve been Lenin, or maybe another book, like one on neurophysiology that referenced Lenin’s work.
You know, dear Andrey, I must say: the very concept of reflection is, of course, not Lenin’s invention—that’s obvious. It goes back at least to Hegel, and also appears in Diderot—in his book D’Alembert’s Dream.
In that work, Diderot asserts exactly what you mentioned—that sensation is a universal property of matter and a product of its organization. I may not be quoting exactly, but it’s in that book—D’Alembert’s Dream—where Diderot writes about this.
As for Lenin’s concept of reflection—it’s essentially a materialist inversion of Hegel’s notion of reflexivity. Hegel very thoroughly develops the idea of reflection in his system: spirit reflects on itself, becoming aware of itself through interaction with the external, objective world.
Lenin, by contrast, has nature reflecting itself within itself.
As for the books, Lenin outlines his theory of reflection in Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and, of course, in the Philosophical Notebooks.
Now, I understand that, to some extent, what you’ve written is a response to my earlier remarks on Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, where I said I view Lenin as a student-philosopher—his works are student-level, not groundbreaking.
Still, if we’re to look for Lenin’s strengths as a philosopher, they do exist. And the main strength is simplicity. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible when expressing my view of Ulyanov.
Lenin was, without question, a very talented politician—he knew how to seize power, and that can’t be taken away from him. He was also a very strong polemicist and a powerful publicist—again, no doubt about that.
And this is where his strength as a sort of amateur philosopher comes from: all the ideas he tries to express, he presents very simply. He’s clear, unlike, say, Marx, whose philosophical works are written in a much denser style. Lenin is far simpler.
By the way, the same is true of Engels—his strength lies in clarity. Lenin is even simpler than Engels. So if you’re looking to identify some merit in Lenin as a philosopher, it’s his simplicity—his accessibility.
Can a Humanist Eat Meat? Link to heading
But Maksim is not Veller
so touching about animals, it brings tears to your eyes. But why, may I ask, are you a humanist and an animal lover? You eat them, to put it mildly.
Now that’s a question. Before answering it, I want to quote a comment under your post, Maksim, under your question. A comment by a subscriber who calls himself Max. Quote: “The first opponents of slavery were slave owners. The first Protestant reformers were Catholic priests. Any new idea does not come from Mars, but is born in the very world it aims to change.” Many would easily switch to food printed on a DS3 printer, precisely out of concern for the humane treatment of animals. But while there are no such technologies, there needs to be public demand for them. And for that to arise, the idea needs to be formulated. That’s how it works. I agree with that. But I want to slightly expand on this straightforward question from Maksim Veller. I want to say that the very idea of the Genesis religion, the very idea of a humane attitude toward animals, the extension of humanism to include non-human creatures as well, provokes a huge number of snide, mocking, “left-field” questions—just like any expansion of humanism always has. You know, if I had another life, I’d dedicate part of it to the history of humanism. Because every time humanism tries to expand—for example, just read how the idea of women’s rights was received in the British Parliament. That women are also human beings, that they have rights. And there were very amusing, sarcastic lords who declared that if this continues, we’ll end up talking about animal rights. And they were right, in a way. Some time later, the idea of animal rights did emerge. So, there are tons of these mocking questions about the Genesis religion. I’ll get to the classic one: “You fight for animal rights, yet you eat meat.” We’ll get to that. But there’s much more. People start giggling about how soon we’ll be protecting the rights of worms, or the rights of mosquitoes, and so on. That’s a separate conversation. The question of what rung of the evolutionary ladder marks the beginning of pain, suffering, empathy, and so on in animals—that’s a whole research topic in itself. And the Animate religion project includes analysis of such questions.
Now, specifically: how is it that you humanists support animal rights and still eat meat?
The thing is, when Max says that there’s no technology for this yet—that’s not entirely true. The so-called lab-grown meat project has been actively developing over the last 20–25 years. For instance, in 2008, the American organization PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which advocates for animal rights—offered a $1 million prize to the first company that could produce lab-grown chicken meat for consumers. That prize was awarded, and several similar projects emerged. As far as I know, right now development is underway in the Netherlands, where more than $4 million has been invested in lab-grown meat experiments. In 2020, Singapore officially approved the sale of lab-produced chicken meat. In other words, lab-grown meat was officially allowed for sale in Singapore. Of course, there are opponents—many of them—who believe these experiments shouldn’t proceed to industrial-scale production because they’re not yet sufficiently tested for safety, and so on. For instance, in 2023, the Italian government passed a law banning the production, sale, export, and import of lab-grown meat made from animal cells. Italy is the only EU country, at least for now, to implement such a ban. This idea—that killing living beings for food is wrong—is currently evolving. Clearly, in a world facing many other pressing problems, this idea is not gaining very widespread traction. But undoubtedly, I believe this is the future. Just like, at some point, humanity turned away from cannibalism—even though people at the time likely said, “But it’s tasty!” or “It’s just normal.” So yes, this idea will definitely evolve too. I am convinced that eventually, humanity will shift to a sustainable diet that doesn’t involve killing sentient beings.
There are tons of questions here. In truth, any new idea comes with a mountain of questions. And it’s not just about eating meat—it’s also about how our species, Homo sapiens, can coexist with others. Without harming them, and so they don’t harm us, and we don’t harm them. Yes, this requires delicate calibration, but that doesn’t mean asking destructive, sarcastic questions. Maksim’s question is important—it’s worth answering. But, forgive me, it reminds me a bit of a classic “letter from a curious neighbor.” Like: “How can there be spots on the sun if it doesn’t burn?” That sort of thing.
Why Can’t Ukraine Bomb the May 9 Parade? Link to heading
A question from Pan Stepan
What do you think—shouldn’t Ukraine clearly and firmly reject Putin’s ceasefire? Why should he get to decide when Ukraine is allowed to fight? Ukraine’s response could be delivered with a couple hundred drones straight to Red Square on May 9. Even if they’re shot down, the celebration would be spoiled. After all, this is an extremely important event for Putin’s propaganda. Disrupting it might make many in Russia start to think. What absolutely must not happen is giving Putin’s troops three quiet days to work in that “zone of death” General Zaluzhnyi spoke about, as they prepare for the next offensive.
You know, Pan Stepan, it’s certainly tempting. The problem is that Ukraine, in its actions, inevitably has to consider how its Western allies will perceive them. And again, you see, when Putin declares this so-called victorious ceasefire, he is clearly solving two problems. I’ve mentioned this before. First, it’s the problem of parade security, and second, it’s about courting Trump. Now, the first part—the parade’s safety—obviously doesn’t concern us at all. But the second part, this attempt to flirt with Trump, that does matter. You see, we keep saying that Trump is essentially an ally of Putin at this point, but still, he’s a situational and uncertain ally. He constantly makes contradictory statements. On one hand, he seems like an ally, but on the other hand, he keeps threatening Putin with terrible sanctions and so on. So we shouldn’t push him. We shouldn’t give—Putin, sorry—we shouldn’t give Trump extra arguments to move further toward supporting Putin. A strike on Red Square on May 9 would, without a doubt, be a very strong argument for Trump to support Putin in this situation. That’s 100%. So, as much as one might want it, we have to restrain ourselves. I don’t think it would be worth the cost.
Where to Flee from War If Europe Is in Danger Link to heading
Margarita,
a small real-life story to start with. I recently went to Tallinn and had this conversation with a taxi driver. Probably the most informed group—well, let’s say, a representative of that group. The driver brought a family from Ukraine but, according to him, doesn’t plan to stay in Estonia; he’s planning to move to Germany. The reason is that he believes Estonia could also be attacked. And he’s probably not the only one who thinks so. What do you think—would Germany be a safe haven if Putin goes on the offensive, or is everything still under threat? Food prices in Estonia have risen dramatically. Honestly, I used to come to Estonia from Finland without even looking at prices in grocery stores—they were always much cheaper than in Finland. But now some items are even more expensive. And now we’ll also have to start contributing more toward defense. That’s the everyday person’s perspective, but still.
Dear colleague, I have to say, first of all, I don’t know—I don’t live in Estonia, so I can’t speak about the prices there, but judging by prices in Lithuania, I don’t see a huge spike. I mean, I don’t go shopping very often, but once a week I do, and the receipt total has stayed pretty much the same. So I’m not seeing any noticeable price increases. Same goes for utilities, by the way. The talk about Europe “suffocating” under utility costs is just nonsense. As someone who pays those bills and goes to the store, I can say there’s been no rise in costs here.
Now, regarding the actual danger to life—the threat in the Baltic states, yes, it’s real. Definitely real. If someone wants to relocate to fully protect themselves from Putin’s aggression, they would have to leave not only the Baltic states but Europe as a whole. Because the risk exists. I don’t think it’s very high, but it does exist. In that case, you’d have to move somewhere like Latin America—war probably won’t reach that far. Or maybe Southeast Asia. That’s also an option. Both regions are accessible for now. So yes, Europe is a risk zone—no doubt about that.
On the Planned Screening of Alexander Nevsky in Berlin Link to heading
A question from Vera.
My question is both an expression of outrage and a request for advice and help. Perhaps you have contacts or suggestions on how to oppose this event? Here’s the issue. Vera continues: In Berlin, one of the city’s respected cinemas is planning to screen the 1936 film Alexander Nevsky on May 10 and 11. The film will be accompanied by a live orchestra. I won’t go into the film’s backstory—it’s on Wikipedia. The screening is timed around May 9, but the film’s message today is nothing less than “We can do it again.” This glorification of victory carries an element of information warfare, especially as many in Berlin are currently opposed to sending weapons to Ukraine. The cinema’s website justifies the screening as if Europe attacked Russia, not the other way around. I don’t know who’s behind all this.
Dear Vera, I fully share your outrage. Naturally, I wasn’t aware of this event, but I have no reason to doubt you—if this screening is indeed being planned, then yes, this film is absolutely a hardcore piece of propaganda. The history of this film is well known. It was director Eisenstein’s attempt to return to Soviet cinema after his time in Mexico, where he had begun making films like ¡Que viva México! and others. There was even a Politburo meeting where he was banned from filming. He was essentially excommunicated from cinema. His trajectory could have led to his disappearance altogether.
That’s one side of the issue. The other side is the figure of Alexander Nevsky himself. In early Soviet historiography and public discourse, Nevsky was seen as a prince who exploited the working people—a class enemy of the global proletariat. But later, when proletarian internationalism was replaced by Stalinist patriotism in the 1930s, Nevsky was rehabilitated. And so was Eisenstein, who took on this project.
It’s a rabid propaganda piece, a cartoonish and repulsive film, no question about it. And of course, something needs to be done. I don’t know how, or what exactly, but all efforts should go toward preventing this film from being screened. Watch it online if you want—it’s available there. By all means, enjoy it in that format if you wish. But to show it in a cinema, around May 9, is a disgrace. It’s not about appreciating a cinematic work—it’s a political act. A blatantly pro-Putin, fascist political act. Absolutely no doubt.
So—LEONID—yes, there are ways to protest. I believe in Germany those mechanisms are well developed. I think something can and should be done. There’s still time.
AI as a Conversation Partner Link to heading
A question from Leonid.
I wanted to ask about the process. Thinking requires conversation partners—I knew this about myself even back in my youth—but now it’s become harder to find the right partner. What do you think about artificial intelligence as such a conversation partner?
Dear Leonid, I… I’m a poor conversation partner—pardon the tautology—on this subject. Why? Because, despite understanding that artificial intelligence is now a part of our lives and that one really should learn to use it and communicate with it, I personally remain outside that realm of interaction. That’s why… You see, my attempt to answer your question would be like trying to discuss music while being deaf. Or like trying to talk about painting while being blind. I’ve certainly heard a lot about it, but since I don’t have any personal experience communicating with AI, I honestly have to say: I don’t know how to answer your question.
Will There Be a Cult of Putin After His Death? Link to heading
A question from Giorgio
Right now, a huge number of Russians admire Stalin despite all his atrocities and the mistakes that led to millions of deaths in World War II, and so on. Do you think that future generations of Russians will also admire Putin, despite everything he has done, saying things like “Life was good under Putin,” or “He would never have allowed this to happen”?
You know, dear colleague, I think that right now trying to peer around the corner and guess what’s there is risky. My hypothesis is no. That’s my hypothesis—no. The thing is, Stalin is credited, first of all, with victory in World War II. Now, we all understand how exaggerated that is, but still, the Soviet Union did participate and made a very significant contribution to the defeat of Nazism. And the fact that Stalin was head of the Soviet state during that time allows for the creation of a myth of Stalin as the vanquisher of Nazism. Russia has done nothing comparable. There are no real accomplishments under Putin to boast about—if we step outside the bubble of Putinist propaganda, it’s unclear what there even is to be proud of. So for now, the hypothesis is no.
That’s the first point. Second, we don’t know what state the country will be in after Putin is gone. If there’s a new ruler in power, that’s one thing. But if it’s a collapse of the empire—that’s something else entirely. Everything depends on what condition the country is in. So at the moment, it’s impossible to predict. But my hypothesis is that no—there won’t be a Stalin-style cult of personality around Putin.
You know, someone once said—was it Mikhalkov? No, someone else—maybe Simonov or someone like that… Anyway, speaking about the cult of personality around Stalin, they said: “There was a cult, but there was also a personality.” Now, that’s a debatable claim, but when it comes to Putin, it’s completely inappropriate. The man’s just too small of a figure, you see? He’s always trying to slip into Stalin’s coat, Stalin’s boots, but he just sinks into them. Out of Stalin’s boots all you can see sticking out is Putin’s bald head, you see? The shoes are too big for him.
So I think—no. I don’t think there will be a cult of Putin after his time in power ends.
How Should We View Hitler If He Had Some Positive Traits? Link to heading
A question from a subscriber with the username “Real Estate”
Perhaps my question will seem somewhat unserious or provocative, but could you give a detailed account of your view on Hitler’s personality? The fact is, this figure is quite contradictory—regarding his personal life, biography, and actions. We know the results—they are horrific. But there’s an opinion that some of his ideas were positive but later mutated into negatives due to his not entirely healthy psyche and the military-political situation he created. On the other hand, if we consider the principle that history is written by the victors, then perhaps he has been made into the ultimate scapegoat. I’m absolutely not a supporter of Hitlerism. I’m skeptical of all of it. But I’ve read about his relationship with his mother, and I’ve encountered people who view this figure rather positively.
Dear colleague, you see, I’m not particularly eager to give an in-depth answer to this question. Yes, one could say Hitler was a World War I veteran, that he loved dogs, that he had some other supposedly positive traits—he built roads, fought unemployment, and so on. That’s all well and good. Maybe he painted some watercolors too—not great ones, but still better than I could do.
Does that mean we should consider Hitler a contradictory personality? I don’t think so. I don’t see a contradiction in someone who was, in essence, a consistent villain. The man who created a regime ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 70 million people worldwide—yes, not solely by his hand, that’s true—but whose hands were, nevertheless, soaked in blood. And just because those same hands were washed before dinner doesn’t strike me as contradictory.
Hitler was not a contradictory personality. He was a remarkably coherent one—coherently evil. That’s all. A complete personality, entirely dark. So I don’t believe it’s worth spending time delving deeply into Hitler’s biography. That’s not my task. This is one of those rare cases where I have an absolutely clear-cut view of someone.
As for the idea that history is written by the victors—yes, that’s true. But it doesn’t apply to the figure of Hitler. With Hitler, things are very straightforward. That principle is more relevant when asking why Stalin’s regime didn’t receive the same condemnation. That’s a different issue—why Stalinism hasn’t been universally condemned the way Hitlerism has. It is being condemned in many countries, but not universally at the global level. And that is a valid question about victors writing history—but it doesn’t apply to Hitler.
Is It Possible to Organize Protest in Russia Through Enlightenment? Link to heading
A question from a chat participant with the nickname “UN”
Despite my dislike for those speakers who pretend to be Russian politicians and create Russian-language content aimed at appealing to a Russian voter who doesn’t exist—do you think it’s still possible to create a meaningful informational enlightenment program for that population? Or has the time for that long passed, and is it now impossible? The goals of such a program might include reducing recruitment into the Russian army, increasing cooperation between civilians and the SBU, and fostering partisan activity within Russia.
You know, dear colleague, I think a proper informational enlightenment program—well, there are quite a few people trying to run such a program. For example, could we consider our own channel here to be that kind of enlightenment initiative? I think I’m doing just that. I think many others who share my views are doing the same.
As for whether it’s possible to create a separate channel or some kind of coordinated effort aimed solely at the Russian audience—I don’t know. You see, even now, the majority of our viewers are people living in Russia, or at least those who present themselves as such online. So you could say our channel is one that enlightens the public.
As for how much this decreases army recruitment—I don’t know. How much it increases cooperation with the SBU—not sure. As for fostering a partisan movement within Russia—I don’t think so. I don’t think informational enlightenment alone can lead to the organization of a partisan movement in Russia. That’s a completely different task. And I’m not convinced it’s something that should—or even can—be organized from abroad. In any case, that’s a specialized task. It’s a task for intelligence agencies, for the SBU, and for other such bodies—those who are capable of doing this while considering the safety of participants.
Trying to organize a partisan movement from outside Russia… That seems to me like something that requires completely different methods—methods that at the very least include elementary safety protocols for people. Organizing such things while sitting safely abroad, while putting others at risk of long—practically lifelong—prison sentences doesn’t strike me as right. At the very least, if it’s to be done, it should be done by the professionals. That’s how I see it.
As for preparing the moral groundwork for such efforts—yes, I think our channel is, in effect, building the psychological foundation for the idea that the regime must be resisted, including by force if necessary. But as for directly inciting such action—that, at least, won’t be coming from me.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
With that, it seems I’ve covered all the questions. We’ll end our conversation here for today. A reminder: at 17:00 we’ll have Alexander Morozov, and at 20:00, Vitaly Portnikov. That concludes our morning stream. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov! For Darya Kozyreva, for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 17:00! Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/yr1BMisgCjI