Israel has launched an attack on Iran. This is the first stage

Israel has begun eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat. Nuclear facilities and missile bases have been destroyed. The head of the IRGC has been killed. Trump stated that “this will ruin everything.”

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 13, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Historical Rhyme Link to heading

The historical rhyme for this day—or more precisely, for the night of June 13 to 14, 1941—is that in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, the countries that had only recently been occupied by the Soviet Union, mass deportations of people to Siberia began. Entire families were sent to Siberia, and many of them perished during the deportation—from cold, hunger, and disease. That was how the then-Soviet, so to speak, pseudonym of the “Russian World”—the Soviet World—arrived in the Baltic states. The attitude toward what happened is clear. Historical memory is still very much alive today.

Israel Has Launched an Attack on Iran Link to heading

Let’s move on to today’s main news. The most important events are currently unfolding in the Middle East. Just a few hours ago, at 3:00 AM, Israel launched an attack on Iran. This attack was carried out simultaneously by aircraft and Israeli intelligence—specifically, Mossad special operations. Strikes were launched not only on Iran’s nuclear program but also on its missile bases. The main uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, as well as missile bases in Kerman, Shah and another base, were targeted. In addition, there were strikes from Tabriz on Tehran and other major Iranian cities.

This simultaneous attack aimed to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, to undermine Iran’s offensive capabilities, and to stop an imminent attack on Israel. Netanyahu simultaneously released an address in Hebrew and English. The English version was directed at the United States. I’ll quote a few key points: “We struck at the heart of Iran’s nuclear program. We targeted the main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz.” He also said: “We hit the heart of Iran’s ballistic missile development program.” Furthermore, Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted. According to Netanyahu, the operation will continue for as many days as needed to eliminate the threat from Iran.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, announced that a state of emergency has been declared in the country. A retaliatory attack by Iran is expected in the near future, according to Israel’s Ministry of Defense. It is also emphasized that this is only the first strike, the first phase. The main reason why the attack occurred now—more on that in a few moments—but it is clear that Iran is now closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons.

According to Israeli military sources, Iran currently possesses enough enriched uranium to produce at least 15 nuclear bombs in just a few days. That is why the attack was launched so urgently this night. I want to draw special attention to one phrase in the English-language address to the United States: in Iranian political rhetoric, Israel is referred to as “the Little Satan,” while the United States is “the Great Satan.” This was a direct message to the U.S., intended to explain that by striking Iran’s nuclear sites, Israel is protecting not only itself but also the United States.

How did Trump respond? Just a few hours ago, Trump stated that Washington hopes for a diplomatic resolution and urged Israel not to attack Iran. I quote: According to him, a “pretty good deal” on the Iranian nuclear program is close, but Israel’s attack on Iran could destroy the chances of reaching an agreement. “I don’t want them to go into conflict because, in my opinion, it will ruin everything.” Sound familiar? This is essentially the same stance Trump has taken on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine—a policy of appeasement. I don’t know what his real surname is—Chamberlain, Daladier—something smells like those long-dead men.

The United States has firmly stated that it will not intervene and will not participate in the attacks. After the strikes began, U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio confirmed that Washington did not participate in the operation.

From the Iranian side, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already warned Israel of bitter and painful consequences. I can’t quote him exactly right now, but he referred to some dire consequences for Israel.

Also significant is the fact that, as a result of the Israeli strikes, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein—along with several other high-ranking Iranian officials—was killed. In addition, Farideh Na Abbasi, a nuclear scientist and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was also killed. So again: there were simultaneous airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force and special operations by Mossad. The top military and scientific leadership in Iran was surgically eliminated—those who actually make decisions. These include military officials, scientists, and of course, nuclear experts.

Why last night? What prompted such urgency? It happened just ahead of another scheduled nuclear deal summit this coming Sunday. Trump, by the way, expressed confidence, or hope, that the summit will still take place. I don’t know—frankly, it’s hard to imagine Iran participating in a nuclear deal summit after this. But why the urgency?

The reason is that on June 12, for the first time in 20 years, the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially documented Iran’s non-compliance with its nuclear obligations. Specifically, traces of uranium were discovered at several sites that Iran had not declared as nuclear facilities. These uranium particles and their concentrations, detected by IAEA inspectors, indicate that Iran is realistically capable of producing nuclear bombs in the very near future—enough to cause significant harm to Israel. According to Israeli intelligence, this could have happened within just a few days. Hence the urgency.

A state of emergency has been declared in Israel. Schools, kindergartens, universities, and all businesses not essential to life support are closed. Israel’s airspace is shut down. Naturally, Iran has also closed its airspace. That’s the situation.

Once again, I want to emphasize: Trump, as always, washes his hands of the matter—just like always, pretending to be Chamberlain and complaining that events like this are getting in his way.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Before moving on to answering your questions, dear friends, I want to say that today at 7:00 PM, as usual—today is Friday—we will have a conversation with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. Now, let me proceed to your questions.

About Who Started the War Link to heading

Several questions have come in about Ukraine. There’s a rather strange one from Dmitry Borodin, but I’ll read it and try to answer: How accurate is the statement today that Putin started the war and Ukraine is defending itself? Not Zelensky.

Well, honestly, I’ve reread the question again—trying to make sense of it. I’ve read it all the way through and still can’t quite grasp the meaning. Maybe something is eluding me, but who has any doubt that Putin started the war? Probably only Russian propagandists. As for “Ukraine is defending itself, not Zelensky”—I don’t understand what is meant by that. Yes, of course, Putin started the war, and Ukraine is defending itself under the leadership of President Zelensky. What else is there to add? Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. Putin is a war criminal. What other axioms still need to be confirmed? Dmitry, maybe you could explain in a follow-up comment to this stream what you meant?

About the Population of the “LPR-DPR” Link to heading

Korniy Prokhorov: Do you think Ukraine considers the residents of the DPR, LPR, and Crimea to be Ukrainians? Has eight years of propaganda been enough to turn them into Russian vatniks? And what do you think will happen to the population of the DPR and LPR when Ukraine returns there? Because it will, sooner or later, right?

Dear Korniy, let’s think this through together. First, what exactly is the population of the DPR, LPR, and Crimea today? What proportion of them are former Ukrainian citizens? And what part is the result of population replacement? I think answering this question will clarify a lot. It’s not so much about what will happen when Ukraine returns, but rather about who is actually there now. Many Ukrainian citizens who once lived there—in Crimea, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions—have already left. A significant number were killed, as casualties are huge, including those lost to forced mobilization. And a substantial portion of the current population—especially in Crimea—consists of “imported” people. These are individuals who arrived from central Russian regions.

Those who illegally occupied homes and apartments once owned by Crimean Tatars or Ukrainians who were forced to flee—they must be sent back to their registered place of residence in Russia, so to speak. Some of them—those who were involved in crimes—will face a different fate. As for the rest? The rest will have to make a decision. Those who do not want to be Ukrainian citizens will probably have the opportunity to move to Russia, or whatever remains of it.

Now, regarding whether Ukraine considers residents of the DPR, LPR, and Crimea to be Ukrainians—it depends primarily on how those people see themselves. That’s the key issue. The attitude of Ukraine and Ukrainians will depend entirely on their self-identification. Personally, when it comes to identity, I take a consistent liberal stance: the most important thing is how a person sees themselves. If someone still considers themselves a Ukrainian citizen, then they will be treated accordingly. If not, they’ll be offered the chance to go where they feel more comfortable. That’s how I see it.

About the “People’s Movement,” the UNR, and the “OUN-UPA” Link to heading

Zavisima: My dream has come true. Yesterday, almost by chance, I came across a wonderful library with rare books collected over decades by members of the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. There are several thousand books, written starting from the years when the idea of a Ukrainian state was forming, even before the proclamation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic. Yesterday I started reading a book about the issues in Ukrainian-Polish relations during the ‘divorce’ after centuries of cohabitation in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. I found proof of what I had been looking for—evidence that we lived peacefully with Jews during that period. It’s clearly stated that Jews, on equal footing with Ukrainians, were to have their own party and deputies in the Ukrainian People’s Republic’s parliament. Since the UNR existed only briefly, I haven’t yet found documentation of how that plan was implemented. In addition, yesterday our veteran journalist Mykola Veresen shared interesting details about how the leadership structure of the People’s Movement (Rukh) was organized. They modeled the structure after UNR traditions. The leader of Rukh had four deputies, each representing one of the largest ethnic groups in the country: a Ukrainian, a Russian, a Pole, and a Jew. I thought: if such political traditions existed in the Ukrainian People’s Republic, then the OUN and UPA, which emerged soon after, must have had exactly the same traditions. Are my theoretical assumptions correct? What do you think?

You know, this definitely requires a separate historical study. But the gap between the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which existed from 1917 to 1921, and the People’s Movement of Ukraine (Rukh), which was established in 1989, is so wide that it’s difficult to draw a direct line between them. It’s also difficult to argue for a clear institutional continuity. So to answer this question definitively would require detailed research. The time gap is simply too large. So for me, this remains an open question.

And as for the OUN and UPA—the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army—it doesn’t necessarily follow that they had the same political traditions as the Ukrainian People’s Republic. An army is an army, it fights, and it may well have operated under entirely different political traditions. So I’m not certain. I’m not trying to disprove your conclusion—I just don’t see what it’s based on.

About Merz’s Cowardice Link to heading

So. The author of the question identifies as “Krik.” Today I learned that Germany will never give Taurus missiles to Ukraine. That’s really sad. Just another Scholz. Well, thanks at least for the handful of pennies they promised. Can someone please explain this to me? Is this another disgrace, or is it about wanting to sell Mercedes and Siemens to Russia in the future, made with cheap Russian gas?

Dear colleague, if I understand you correctly, your rather harsh judgment is based on yesterday’s statement by German Defense Minister Pistorius, who, when asked whether Germany would supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine, replied that they are not planning to. The word “never” was not used. That’s your interpretation. That’s the first point.

Second, Pistorius also said that in the very near future, Ukraine will begin receiving long-range missiles produced through joint German-Ukrainian manufacturing. In other words, the logic of Germany’s political and military leadership is, to put it simply, not to give Ukraine the fish, but to give it the fishing rod—joint production. What’s the real difference—whether missiles are handed over directly or whether military production is set up on Ukrainian territory, with German assistance, to continually produce such long-range missiles?

In my view, this is at least equally, if not more, promising. One option is to give a certain number of missiles that will eventually be used up, leaving Ukraine once again empty-handed. The other is to build production inside Ukraine, with German help, that will continually supply these weapons. That seems, to me at least, a more strategic approach.

As for the idea that Germany wants to sell Mercedes and Siemens products to Russia again in the future—I, for one, see no such intention on their part.

About the Protests in the USA Link to heading

Now, a question from an ordinary person. Don’t you see it as a problem that in American rallies against the inadequate Trump, along with normal people, there are PRO-Palestinians, enemies of Israel, aggressive gay transgender people, and that their participation discredits any vitally important events?

Dear ordinary person! I have a few questions for you. Forgive me for answering a question with a question. Tell me, please, what is the difference between aggressive gay people and aggressive transgender people and aggressive men and women of traditional orientation? That’s the first question. Why do you emphasize aggressive gay people and aggressive transgender people? That’s the first question. The second question is—where did you get the information that there are many pro-Palestinians there? I’ve already encountered situations where people who express such views simply make a mistake, confusing Mexican flags for Palestinian ones. Since this is an important issue, what’s happening in California—or has happened and continues to happen in California—is a significant event. I’ve watched a lot of videos, looked at many images. I haven’t found a single one. I’m not saying there weren’t any Palestinian flags, but I didn’t see a large number. There were definitely a lot of Mexican flags. That’s true. But I didn’t see any Palestinian ones. I think there may have been some confusion. Now, on to the next point. In any protest, the scum always surfaces, provocateurs always emerge. In fact, that’s the whole point—to stage this confrontation, this provocation. That’s Trump’s calculation: to provoke such incidents in the most democratic, the largest, the wealthiest, the most technologically advanced state in the U.S., which opposes Trump—California. To stage such provocations there, to bring in the National Guard, to bring in the Marines, and then to provoke riots. So yes, the scum does surface. That happens.

About Persuasion Link to heading

A question from Igor Stella. Tell me honestly—honestly—have there been any real cases in your teaching or journalistic career when you actually changed someone’s mind about something? I don’t mean some foreign students or instances when you managed to prove a specific fact to someone. I mean, has anyone ever seriously changed their worldview or at least their fundamental opinion on a more or less significant issue? For example, were you ever able to persuade someone that the war with Ukraine is not good, but bad? I’m asking because I myself keep running into this impenetrable ideological wall that people are now fenced off with. Aren’t we adults? Isn’t it obvious that the more information there is, the less people want to seek out the truth? Everyone just keeps believing in whatever is comfortable and pleasant to believe in.

Well, you know, I started thinking, trying to remember stories like that of the Pharisee Saul, who was a persecutor of Christians and who later went blind from the dazzling light of truth that was revealed to him. But then he saw again. He converted the proconsul Paulus to the faith and was, in connection with this, appointed by Jesus—Jesus named him Paul, and Saul became Paul. I can’t give you a story like that, of someone’s sudden enlightenment caused by one of my lectures or something I said. But there have been quite a few cases where I received feedback that I provide arguments that help people reinforce their positions. That definitely happens. I’ve seen feedback like that. But as for actually changing someone—say, someone from Putin’s camp—I haven’t been able to do that. And, to be honest, hand on heart, that hasn’t even been my goal. It all works a little differently. We talk to each other, exchange opinions, clarify our positions. There were a few cases, you know, a few cases—since, as you can see, I have conversations with dozens of people every day—there were times when someone would admit, say, “Yes, you convinced me.” But as for something like Saul turning into Paul—no, that hasn’t happened. And it’s not really the goal.

About Stephen Hawking Link to heading

All right, Sergey. As always, I’m interested in your opinion—your attitude toward different people. Today it’s about Stephen Hawking. What kind of mark do you think he left on science? I mean, his work, though large in scale, is mostly theoretical. What is your attitude toward him and others who are ill? I myself have such a diagnosis, and I think about the attitude toward and way of life with such a condition. Because if you think about it, it’s a cruel joke of nature when the body gradually loses all external functions—moving, speaking, eating—while the brain continues to function and perceive everything as before.

Yes, that’s really, truly a terrifying thing. A brilliant mind imprisoned in such a body—it’s like a prison. It’s a deadly, progressive disease that leads to loss of control over the muscles. And yet the person retains consciousness and mental capabilities. If this is your situation, dear colleague, I wish you courage. And truly, the example to look to is this genius—Stephen Hawking. As for his scientific achievements, they’re well known. He was the first to present a cosmological theory that combined concepts—a synthesis of general relativity and quantum mechanics. But he is certainly more widely known as a popularizer of science. His book A Brief History of Time—with black holes, young universes, The Universe in a Nutshell, and so on. My attitude is one of reverence—this truly is something… I would even say it’s like a biblical story or something similar. The scale—the scale of this man, who basically had only one working facial muscle left in his entire body, and with that facial muscle operated a speech synthesizer and, essentially, kept creating, kept communicating with the world, kept giving the world extraordinary discoveries. The number of books he wrote while in such a condition is staggering. And not just the quantity—the quality. It’s something… something beyond imagination, you see? To me, this person is an unattainable—an unattainable—pinnacle.

About the Dud’ Phenomenon Link to heading

All right, just a few questions. What’s the question? First—what is the phenomenon of Dud’? After all, he’s clearly neither better nor worse than other popular bloggers and journalists. But for some reason, there’s always more buzz around him. And his subscriber count on YouTube is just off the charts—over 10 million.

I don’t consider him either better or worse. I see a very high level of professionalism. I’ve said several times already what journalism is, what it means to be a journalist in terms of potential. It’s not just a craft, like mastering technique, being able to write text, being able to film. The next level is professionalism—that is, knowledge not just in the field of journalism, but broad knowledge across various domains. Or in one domain, if the journalist specializes—like a sports commentator, political analyst, economic reporter, etc. Then comes artistry—if it’s print journalism, that’s literary potential; if it’s video journalism, then artistry, the ability to direct, and so on. And finally, there are the ethical norms of the journalistic profession. He’s top-tier in all of this. Well, maybe not always perfect with the norms of the profession—but the first three components he possesses at the highest level. Plus, he puts out a very expensive product, you see? He invests serious money into each of his interviews. And each is a piece of journalistic art. I really value his professional qualities. Other aspects—there may be questions. But in terms of professionalism, in my opinion, he’s very strong. And beyond that—his style. A natural, unpretentious, youthful style. That definitely appeals too. That lightness, openness, lack of complexes or stiffness. That really draws people in.

Next—second question. Also from Lemeshev: Do you consider Dud’ to be a representative of Russian liberal “vatniks”?

No, not really. As far as I know, his position—well, I’ve heard he’s sometimes said things that contradict what I say. But I don’t think he has that kind of core importance. He doesn’t have that thing that others in the so-called liberal crowd have.

Third question—if he wanted to do a full interview with you, would you agree?

Well, I think the probability of that happening is basically zero. Because for him, you see, it’s a commercial venture, and he evaluates each interview in terms of how much it will bring in—audience growth and money. Because again, he invests in each interview—he has a fairly large team, and he invests financially as well. I think an interview with me wouldn’t bring him much. But if he did propose it, of course I’d agree. Why not?

About Venediktov and Harassment Link to heading

And the final question from Lemeshev. At one point, there was talk about harassment accusations against Venediktov. Can you elaborate a bit—where did that come from? Is he really just an old goat?

Well, overall—overall, I suppose that term could be applied to Alexey Alekseyevich. But all of this is pretty well known. About five years ago, journalist Anna Veduta accused him of making advances toward her. He apologized—though he said he didn’t remember it, he apologized just in case. Then there’s Lesya Ryabtseva—that’s a well-known story. So yes, yes—His Excellency was fond of domestic birds, so to speak. So yes, he’s known for that. And in fact, I don’t think he particularly denies being inclined toward that kind of behavior. I don’t think he even sees it as particularly wrong. He kind of treats it as normal, or maybe as a forgivable weakness.

About Research on Jews in Russia Link to heading

All right. And, so, a postscript from Lemeshev, then. You also said you’d mention the title of your research about Jews in Russia?

Oh wow! I totally forgot to post it—I’ll definitely upload that book. It’s a study I conducted—how many years ago now? About 15 years ago. It’s called The Jewish People in Russia: Who Belongs, How, and Why? It’s a large-scale sociological study, very comprehensive, which was conducted up until 2010. The book was written over the course of several months, and this large, complex study was carried out.

About Courage in Solitude Link to heading

All right, a question from Ilya—two questions from Ilya. How can one find, in solitude, if it can be called that, points of support for courage—books, teachings?

Stoicism. You know, I don’t think there are universal solutions. I believe that one of the supports is the presence of a reference group—even an imagined one. That is, a person might be alone, but they still lean on this reference group. It doesn’t have to be a support group standing behind them, but rather the understanding that these might be people who have already died, or people who haven’t yet been born—but it’s still a kind of reference group. I think complete solitude rules out a point of support for courage. So in any case, there’s that. And certainly, it’s also about cultivating in yourself the habit of not being afraid.

About Viktor Erofeyev Link to heading

All right. Are you personally acquainted with Viktor Erofeyev? He had an author program on Svoboda called Encyclopedia of the Russian Soul. Would you be interested in inviting him for a conversation?

You know, as for being acquainted—I’d say more no than yes. What do I mean? I spent a few hours with him on the same panel, sat next to him on a panel at the Free Russia Forum. We supported each other in the discussion—well, as usual. We held similar positions, I supported him, he supported me. After that, we exchanged a few remarks. After the panel ended, we shook hands and, I don’t know, probably didn’t even exchange contact information. That was it. So calling that an acquaintance would be a stretch. As for whether I’d be interested in inviting him for a conversation—of course. He’s a very vivid personality, an interesting person. And his books are definitely fascinating—Life with an Idiot, The Russian Beauty, all of that is really, really well done. The only thing is, you know—my only interaction with him lasted about an hour and a half, right? And I noticed something: Viktor Erofeyev is really only interested in talking about himself, about his work. That struck me a little. I don’t even remember the exact topic—it was political, of course, as always at the Free Russia Forum—but he kept steering everything toward himself and his writing. Maybe it was a coincidence, maybe I was just unlucky, but that gave me some reservations. Still, in principle, he’s definitely an interesting person—but I don’t currently have any plans to invite him.

About the Era of Empathy and Humanism Link to heading

A friend of a Chekist asks: Assange—can we already say that the era of humanism and empathy, which briefly took hold after World War II, has hopelessly ended and a new era of cynicism and stupidity has begun? Just something that’s been on my mind after the news of the past six months.

Dear colleague, you know, before I answer your question, let me point out something—I was struck by that last phrase of yours, that it was inspired by the news of the past six months. And I want to draw your attention to an idea, or rather a concept, from the outstanding German sociologist Nick Salomon. He developed a concept about what news really is. You mentioned being “inspired by the news.” So what is news? He had this concept: out of countless billions of events, only a few become news. Indeed, think about it—an enormous number of events happen in the world every day. Someone is born, someone dies, someone kills someone, someone saves someone, someone helps, someone pushes someone. And from this endless stream of events, the media acts as a filter—some events get through, others don’t. Some become news, others don’t.

He identified ten criteria—ten bases for this kind of “face control” of events that make it into the news cycle. First, the information must be new and unique—novelty and uniqueness. Second, conflict—for an event to become news, it must be conflict-driven. Third, it should ideally include quantitative data—specific figures, especially those that hit hard. Casualties, for example—number of people killed, etc. Then, a local context—if it’s close to home and emotionally charged, it works better. Fifth, and very important—an event is much more likely to become news if it involves breaking norms. Say a car moves down the highway without incident—that’s not news. But if there’s a crash—a violation of the norm of safe travel—that’s almost certainly news.

Next is moral evaluation—especially when there’s a violation of moral norms or principles. Then come motives—what motivated the event. Serial uniqueness—news should be an exceptional event, but one that recurs. Expert opinions and participant comments are also a factor. And finally, format—it needs to be in some kind of striking packaging. All these ten criteria for selecting events from among countless others show us that negative news—scandals, sensations, blood, death—have a much higher chance of being reported than ordinary things. If someone helps an old lady across the street—that’s humanitarian, but not news. If someone pushes her into traffic—that’s news.

So, I don’t know how well I’ve explained my position, but I don’t think we’re witnessing the end of humanism. Rather, the inner logic of the media gives us that impression. I understand that what’s happening in Ukraine now makes us feel like it’s all over. But if we look at human history, I think we’ll see that overall, the movement toward humanism is continuing. Once again—news isn’t just about events. It’s a tool through which public opinion is shaped.

About Nuclear War Link to heading

A question from the people of K: If the whole world is afraid of Putin’s nuclear trap, then there’s no point in hoping for a quick end to the war, because no one will dare to confront him out of that fear. That means the war won’t end until he disappears or is eliminated. And if that’s the case, the outlook for the future is quite pessimistic. Glory to Ukraine!

Glory to the heroes! I don’t see it that way. The fact is—yes, the war will end either with the assassination or the death of Putin. I’m convinced of that. But the war could also end as a result of a severe military defeat for Russia. And in that case, the system could break down. So things aren’t all that hopeless. I’m not expecting a quick end to the war, but over the next few years, most likely, the war will continue. However, its end could take different forms.

About Sergey Aksyonov Link to heading

A question from Igor: Collaborators. Aksyonov, the Russian head of annexed Crimea—yes, the pseudonym is Goblin, a well-known figure—called on Russian diasporas in Western countries to stage unrest in support of Russia. Russia, he says, must mobilize its diasporas in the West for mass demonstrations in support of the war against Ukraine, similar to how Arabs acted during Israel’s operation against Palestinians. Aksyonov made this statement during a meeting of the Livadia Club on the topic “Russia on the Western Front: Strategic Defense or Strategic Offense?” According to the collaborators, such demonstrations could allegedly sway public opinion in Western countries and influence their ruling elites. Therefore, a threat must be created to their power. I wonder how the main opposition leader will react to this? And how should one react?

I don’t quite understand why—well, I get your sarcasm, your irony toward that trio—Navalny, Yashin, Kara-Murza. But I don’t think they’re in any position to react to this. The ones who should be reacting first and foremost are the intelligence services of Western countries. This is a threat—it’s a matter of national security for Germany, France, Lithuania, Estonia, and so on. They need to respond to this statement. They need to check whether Russia has the capability to use these diasporas for such purposes. They need to monitor it, they need agents in place—the intelligence services should be ensuring security, monitoring what’s happening within those diasporas. That’s their job. So I think they should be the ones primarily concerned with this.

About Duntsova Link to heading

All right, a question from the gloomy donkey. I watched a party video from Duntsova, where she speaks in front of the Kremlin about preparations for the State Duma elections and her party’s plans for the near future. You’ve constantly told us, writes the gloomy donkey, that Duntsova is an independent opposition politician. So the question is—do you really believe that in a country where people get years in prison for comments, reposts, or changing price tags in stores, someone can relatively freely, as a real opposition figure, gather audiences and prepare for elections?

You know, what always—not so much surprises me as just catches my attention—is that people seem to live in some other dimension, where there’s a different version of me saying completely different things. I have never called Duntsova a true opposition figure. I have always viewed her very critically and skeptically—and I still do. So I don’t know where you got that supposed statement of mine. I even invited her—well, invited her to our channel. I tried to ask her politely, you know—what exactly is she planning to do? And, well, she didn’t really say.

Is Putin Doomed to Rule Forever Link to heading

And a second question from the gloomy donkey: Continuing the question about fear. You’ve repeatedly said that opposition figures who were forced to leave the country and who continue to call for protest actions are moral frauds and scoundrels. But if they stay or return, they’re imprisoned or killed. So does that mean the Putin regime is doomed to rule forever? Let’s leave the “Ukrainian factor” aside for a moment—if it’s that easy to suppress one group of protest leaders by imprisoning them and exile the others, then isn’t this a closed loop?

You know, gloomy donkey—your slip of the tongue, “let’s leave the Ukrainian factor aside,” is actually the decisive point. If Putin hadn’t invaded Ukraine—more than that, even if he had just occupied Crimea and continued the slow-burning war in Donbas, but hadn’t attacked on February 24, 2022—then yes, I think his rule could have lasted a very long time. Not forever, but for a very long time. You see, if not for February 24, 2022, we could’ve ended up with a scenario like North Korea—which has existed for how long now? It suppressed all internal dissent, paired itself with nuclear weapons, and still exists. China still exists. The Soviet Union lasted 74 years, you see? So yes, I think if not for what you call “the Ukrainian factor,” it would have been a long—not eternal, but long—rule. So that “exception” you mentioned is actually the key.

About Atheism and Agnosticism Link to heading

Petya Kantor: People often write to you that you’re not an agnostic but a full-fledged atheist. Yet you consistently insist on your agnostic identity. Starting from that terminological contradiction, I’ve thought a lot about it and came to wonder—are these two concepts really that different? Are they truly mutually exclusive? After all, agnosticism sees the universe as something unknowable, far from any definitive interpretation, while atheism reflects a person’s attitude toward a creative force—an absolute mind, God, a Creator. In my own case, I can show that explaining the laws of nature doesn’t just fail to bring understanding—it actually generates even more insoluble questions. So the fact that I’m an atheist doesn’t mean I couldn’t also be called an agnostic.

Dear colleague, the thing is—I believe what’s happening here is a very elegantly smooth shifting of the premise. Here’s what I mean. If we’re talking strictly about the question of the existence of God or a cosmic mind, then the atheist firmly answers: no, there is no such thing and there cannot be. The agnostic says: I don’t know. That’s my position—when someone tries to convince me, tries to push me toward atheism, I resist and say: I don’t know. And when someone tries to push me toward religion or belief in a higher cosmic intelligence, I also resist and say: you can’t prove that to me. So again, this isn’t a matter of limited thinking. You’re shifting the subject a bit. An agnostic and an atheist may both acknowledge the limitations of human reason. Sure, that’s possible. But on the question of God’s existence, the positions are different. I hope it’s now clear why I consider myself an agnostic, not an atheist.

About the Origins of Belarus Link to heading

Yes. And a second question from Petya Trump—it’s about the history of Belarus. And here the colleague lists a large number of Belarusian authors. You know, I’m really not the right person to have a conversation on the history of Belarus. Of course, I have some general ideas, but I’m probably not a good interlocutor on this topic. So, let’s say—I’ll invoke the Fifth Amendment, so to speak. I won’t answer this question, simply because I’m not sufficiently competent in the subject.

About the Debate Between Kara-Murza and Kasparov Link to heading

All right, Pan Stepan. A question: Thank you for your responses about Kara-Murza and so on. I agree with much of what you said, but it seems to me you can’t deny the influence of these people, if only for the fact that they’re invited to the European Parliament, to the U.S. president, and so on. In light of that, wouldn’t it be possible to organize a public debate between one of them—ideally Kara-Murza—and someone from your side, either you or Kasparov? For the Russian resistance, I think it would be useful to clarify positions. I believe the most effective format would be a face-to-face meeting, one-on-one.

Dear Pan Stepan! Well, about a face-to-face meeting—maybe, I don’t know. That would need to be organized somehow, with both sides willing to travel somewhere. If it were to happen on my channel, on our channel, then I think the ideal format would be Kara-Murza vs. Kasparov. Now, again—I’m not sure either of them would agree, but as an idea, it’s not bad. The key is to define the subject of the debate very clearly, you understand? Because on many points they actually agree. But the core issue is more or less clear: should Russia be defeated? If not—why not?

About Yulia Navalnaya Link to heading

A question from Yulia: You said you don’t understand why Yulia Navalnaya is fighting Russian corruption. Well, I’m not saying I don’t understand—I’m saying she’s going about it the wrong way. But it’s obvious, writes Yulia. It’s groundwork for the future. If you just say, “Why are you, Musk’s cattle, going to the front lines so easily and dying for nothing,” the response will be, “You’re the idiot.” But if you show bad generals robbing good, ordinary people, then people will start to follow you and vote for you. What I don’t understand is—does this so-called opposition really believe that if a real movement begins in Russia, if the butchers from the front start laying down the rules, they truly think they’ll come to power? That same Girkinesque type would hang them from the nearest lamppost. And another thing—today, during wartime, can the term ‘opposition’ even be used at all? Imagine the Third Reich, and next to it an anti-Hitler opposition that’s begging to raise gas prices for the Führer. The time of the opposition is over.

I agree with you. They all operate within a non-existent electoral reality. How much they actually believe in it—I don’t know. But, by the way, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office and Investigative Committee are constantly jailing corrupt officials in power. Constantly. So trying to compete with Putin in the fight against corruption is rather strange. He’s very actively fighting corruption—even at the highest levels of Russian power.

On Personal Racism Link to heading

A question from Yuriy. So, Yuriy writes: I know your position on racism very well, including towards Russians. You’re irritated by questions about genetic slavery among Russians, supposed particular cruelty, and so on. You’re irritated by the genetic slavery part, not by the cruelty part. Then Yuriy writes: I want to ask you a question as part of my personal struggle against this racism, not to vilify the Russian nation. So I ask you to treat it with understanding. How do you explain that even within the Russian opposition, all those who have an adequate or relatively adequate position have non-Russian blood or surnames — Shenderovich, Kasparov, you, Naki of Russia, or Bykov, Katz, Khodorkovsky, national anti-communists. And vice versa. Almost all those who have a pro-Russian or pro-fascist position belong precisely to the pure Russian nation. Latynina, Navalny, Volkov, Svitov, Zhdanov, and so on. I’m absolutely convinced that if Navalny had absolute power, he would have been much scarier and more effective than Putin. Well, I have a different opinion on that. But all right. That’s not the point. I understand that you’ll object even to the very framing of such a question, but help me sort this out and dismantle such an argument so I can fight my internal racism and prejudice. Personally, in my life, I’ve never met a single decent Russian. They either lied, or had no conscience, or something else. Friendship and trust only occurred with people of non-Russian blood, more often Ukrainian or Jewish, of whom there are many in Russia. So why is that?

Well, dear Yuriy, I really do find it quite unpleasant to step onto this — this platform. You see, I’ve never had and never will have a caliper to measure blood purity. But since you’re asking — you’re asking for help to fight internal racism. And solely for that purpose, I’ll step onto this — this field. So, since we’ve gone there, I’m pulling out the calipers and starting to measure skulls.

So then, as an example of a terrible Russian, you name Navalny. Navalny himself said in an interview that he was half Russian, half Ukrainian. In fact, most of his relatives live in Ukraine. I remember his exact words from an interview about himself: “I guess I’m more Ukrainian by roots, by blood, and genetically.” Those are Navalny’s words. So, there you go.

VOLKOV — you cite Volkov as a pure-blooded Russian. Volkov is Jewish by nationality. According to him, Judaism is an important part of his life. He definitely considers himself ethnically Jewish and culturally Russian.

You claim that you’ve never met a decent, intelligent Russian, and so on. Well, fine — Alexander Valeryevich Skobov, as far as I know, is Russian. Goryunov — Russian. Darya Kozyreva. Off the top of my head. Yuriy Sergeyevich Pivovarov. So, you see? Examples. If we start digging, pulling out skulls, measuring, searching for roots, honestly, it disgusts me to continue. I hope I’ve provided enough examples to prove that you’re wrong. And from here on, you’ll have to deal with your inner racism yourself. I wish you great success in that. I sincerely believe you can do it. I hope I’ve helped you at least a little.

On FBK Investigations Link to heading

A question from Sergey Pryadkin. The older a person gets, the harder it is to change their mind. Especially an intelligent person like yourself. Let’s at least have a debate. Because your view on FBK’s investigations seems too tonal to me. Do you really believe that Russian law enforcement doesn’t know about the corrupt helicopter guys? That’s the essence of the system. Everyone steals, and the FSB has a file on everyone. And they don’t pull it off the shelf when FBK reports something — they do it when the helicopter guy crosses someone more powerful, and so on. So then. What FBK does, in Sergey’s opinion, is meant for people to talk among themselves: “That one stole a billion,” “That one built a palace with stolen money,” “That one sent his kids to Switzerland but shouts about patriotism in the Duma.” All of this, in Sergey’s opinion, chips away at the regime bit by bit — but it chips away. Like, I’ll show a video to my mom. She’ll go: “Oh no! What is this? How much more can they steal? He’s been in power for 25 years and still hasn’t put things in order. Putin this, Putin that.” So in my view, it’s not worth criticizing FBK for their investigations. Let them investigate. Every bit helps.

Well, yes, of course, let them investigate. The problem is that corruption is being handled, and quite successfully and effectively, by Putin and his own prosecution apparatus. He doesn’t eliminate it, but he manages it. There are a huge number of arrests in the government, especially among generals, and so on.

The main point is something else. The main point is that investigating corruption is not currently an effective method of overthrowing the regime. Helping Ukraine — that’s what’s crucial. You see, when FBK categorically refuses to help Ukraine — well, that’s the main issue. The war is the main thing now. You have to pick a side.

And when Yulia Navalnaya says that you can’t help Ukraine because Ukrainian rockets kill Russians — well, that’s it. She’s on Russia’s side. She doesn’t say “our boys,” but that’s exactly what it means.

On the Prosecutor’s Office Link to heading

Klara S. I was recently listening to Lyubov Sobol about corruption investigations. I understood that such investigations, in wartime conditions, may not be part of the main agenda, but they can help open the eyes of Russian citizens — that those in power, who are waging war, are doing it not for ideology, but simply for money. Can’t that turn people away from the regime, from the war? What do you think — is there any point in that? After all, it seems to me the prosecutor’s office isn’t conducting any investigations against those in power and doesn’t intend to. But this way, the people might start to doubt. Dear colleagues, well, you see, nothing like that happens — the reaction to all these investigations is just: “Oh well, another investigation. They’re stealing.” There’s no revulsion toward the authorities. Those who are disgusted with the authorities already were. And those who aren’t are like: “Yeah, another exposé. What a huge palace! Wow, he stole 500 million last time, and another stole 20 billion. Who stole more? I would’ve stolen even more if I had power.” And what’s striking is that, in fact, the prosecutor’s office and the FSB are actively purging generals suspected of corruption.

Well, listen — the Deputy Minister of Defense, an actual Deputy Minister, Timur Ivanov, has now been dismissed, and there’s currently an investigation into his corruption. Several generals — I’ve lost count already. I think it was eight at first, now it’s even more. These investigations are dismissing people on corruption grounds from the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Federal Penitentiary Service, the Ministry of Defense.

In Shoigu’s team — I don’t know exactly how many — but I remember five generals were dismissed from his team. And there are even more now. So again, I’m saying: the Anti-Corruption Foundation is standing shoulder to shoulder with the prosecutor’s office, the Investigative Committee, and the FSB. They’re all fighting corruption. The Anti-Corruption Foundation is doing the same thing.

About Gagarin Link to heading

Olga Samoylova. A question about Yuri Gagarin. I remember reading during the perestroika years — I think it was in Ogonyok — that after his flight he really started to go off the rails, developed a case of celebrity syndrome. He drank heavily, behaved provocatively. There was some incident where he chased a female employee at a resort. And so on. Since Gagarin was a Soviet icon, a big ideological trump card for the Communist Party, they simply didn’t know what to do with him. They wrote the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism based on him — and he broke that code. The article concluded that Gagarin’s death wasn’t accidental. Unfortunately, I didn’t save that article. It was a long time ago. I’d like to know what you think about this?

Well, if I understand you correctly, you’re referring to the theory that the authorities killed Gagarin because he became inconvenient. I can’t say that I personally conducted an investigation into Gagarin’s death. But there is definitely a kind of dark spot, some confusion about what exactly caused the crash. There are a lot of theories.

But the theory that this was a deliberate killing by the authorities is a fringe one. That is to say, no serious investigator thinks that. I believe it’s out of the question. I really do.

There’s even a version that he was given a new identity and lived somewhere for a long time, dying an old man in secret. I think it’s all nonsense.

On Updating the Photo and Wikipedia Link to heading

Alexander Sukhorukov. Fixing some inaccuracies on Wikipedia, updating the photo. Thank you for updating the photo. There are still comments, additions, and inconsistencies on the page.

Well, first of all, Alexander, thank you very much for updating the photo. It really was quite an old one, there was that old picture. You know, I want to thank you once again, but I fundamentally do not comment on what Wikipedia writes about me. I really don’t want to be one of those people who try to retroactively edit their biography. There are inaccuracies, yes. But I just don’t really want to be involved in this. I know that many people are engaged in a sort of war, trying to clean up their biography after the fact, while others try to restore the truth. And so, there’s this ongoing struggle over, so to speak, cleansing or, on the contrary, tainting someone’s biography. I don’t want to take part in that.

About Kallas Link to heading

Margarita, I’ve asked you at least three times about Kallas, but it seemed to me that for some reason you didn’t want to answer that question. In one of your broadcasts, you once said that Kallas should go. But not only did Kallas not go, she also made a pretty good career. And now she is one of the prominent politicians in Europe. However, in Estonia, she is very unpopular precisely because of her strange statements or decisions. Maybe it’s because of her father, who was also an unpopular politician. I don’t know. Of course, it’s just statistics, but both Estonians and Russian speakers living in Estonia don’t like this family. So what is your attitude toward Kallas as a member of parliament?

You know, as a parliamentarian, I generally have a neutral attitude toward her. When she was Prime Minister of Estonia, well—first of all, she was a problem for the country’s economy. Her company, or rather her husband’s company—if I’m not mistaken—was doing business with Russia up until August 2023, profiting from trade with Russia. She apologized for her company and her husband’s company working in Russia. And it wasn’t just her husband’s company—it was a company she herself had personally invested in.

So, when she said she was sorry that her husband’s company was operating in Russia, and at the same time claimed that doing business with Russia during a full-scale war was morally wrong, and she was calling on all Estonian companies to stop dealing with Russia—well, while her own company and her husband’s company were working with Russia—that, to me, seemed fundamentally wrong.

Now that she’s no longer in Estonia but working as a diplomat, let’s say, on the European level—well, she’s working, and that’s that. So far, nothing she says has caused any particular objections on my part.

About Classical Music Link to heading

Taras Kobzar What kind of classical music do you prefer? Who is your favorite composer?

You know, I don’t really have a strong desire to talk about my musical tastes, because I don’t consider them particularly important. They’re actually quite ordinary. Mozart, Beethoven. Just—when? When my mother bought me a subscription to the conservatory as a child, I went there, and from what I listened to there, those two composers stayed with me. So, Mozart and Beethoven, yes, I guess that’s it.

About Mikhail Schneider Link to heading

A question from Elsa What is your opinion of Mikhail Schneider?

I feel positively about him. I don’t know where he is now—we’ve somehow lost touch. But Misha—well, we did have some periods of, let’s say, conflicts. But overall, he’s a very, I would say, decent and active person, a very positive symbol—in my view—of democratic activism in the late ’80s and early ’90s. All the rallies—practically all the rallies of the late ’80s and early ’90s—that was Misha. Well, Dima, Rossiya—it was the great trio: Schneider, Bokser, Krieger. So yes, my opinion of him is positive.

A Series of Comments About Guests and Stream Participants Link to heading

Marina, have you ever heard of a staunch Trumpist who is also anti-Putin? If you didn’t want to include him in Trumpophrenia—well, he’s already been featured in Trumpophrenia. So not only have I heard of him, I’ve appeared on his broadcasts—until he became too much of a Trumpist for me. M. Indira: Could you invite political analysts from Kazakhstan to your channel? I have invited them, and I will continue to invite them. Sultanbek: Are you familiar with Mikhail Tripolsky? Could you do a joint stream on the situation in America? I’m not familiar with him. Not familiar at all. I’ll need to look into it—thank you for the suggestion. I don’t know him and know virtually nothing about him.

Now, a question from a user: Would you consider doing a stream with Kirill Podrabinek, the Soviet dissident? His views differ from many others’, even from those of his more well-known brother. I’m sure you’d find it interesting. You know, I know almost nothing—nothing—about this person. Of course, I know and am acquainted with his brother. We’ve spoken quite a lot. But Kirill Podrabinek—I don’t know him. I’ll have to look into it, probably. So yes, thank you for the suggestion, let’s say.

On the Exchange of Shlosberg Link to heading

A question from Naim: Alexander, You say you hope that Shlosberg will be included in some future exchange. What kind of exchange do you mean? Who would be traded for whom—someone under house arrest in Russia? Oh God, two months in exchange for a Russian murderer. A murderer—how does that work?

Well, of course, it’s not about trying to get him released right now. At the moment, there’s nothing to release him from. But if and when this person is sentenced to a long prison term, then such a possibility could exist. Right now, of course, it’s not relevant.

On Criticism of Gennady Gudkov Link to heading

Yes, there has been quite a lot of criticism directed at Gennady Gudkov. A question from Volya: I listened to your conversation with Gennady Gudkov today. I suddenly had the idea to ask someone to analyze this discussion. I only provided the audio. I didn’t get a reply for a long time. Then I received a message saying, “I’ll skip evaluating you and Gudkov as people. I only want to share a few final conclusions about the political opposition in Russia: there is no opposition—only dissidents in exile. Political émigrés are scattered, they have no shared goals or positions.” According to Gudkov, the West and the USA are to blame for the war in Ukraine dragging on for over three years. Mr. Gudkov does not understand that the governments of democratic countries are elected to solve their own countries’ problems—the European Parliament deals with the issues of EU member states, and the President and Government of the US deal with America’s issues. Of course, there are global problems, but the whole country is drowning in its own. And the final assessment of the conversation? Just hot air. Not a single proposal about what to do tomorrow, what to do in Russia, or how emigrants might unite. I fully agree with ChatGPT’s answers, since I didn’t quote them—I only conveyed the response. But what is your opinion?

Well, I don’t quite understand what kind of response you’re expecting from me. You see? Let’s do it this way—I’ll read a few more questions on the same topic so I don’t repeat myself.

A question from Graham: Maybe you shouldn’t invite Mr. Gudkov anymore? I could barely tolerate the nonsense he spouted today.

A question from Volga, Volga-GAZ: What is there to talk about with Chirikova? What is there to talk about with Gudkov?

And a comment from Stoik—not even a question: Were you aware, up until today, of this level of naivety from Gennady Gudkov? Or was his infantilism also an unpleasant surprise for you?

Ah—my apologies, I didn’t notice the signature “Sasha.” So, dear colleagues—regarding the conversation with Gennady Gudkov. We hold different positions. I made those positions clear during our discussion. The difference in positions is not only because we are different people, but also because we’ve been thrown into very different life circumstances.

I run this blog, essentially—I talk to people who want to join our broadcasts and exchange opinions. I invite guests. It’s purely a journalistic job. Gennady Gudkov tries to engage in politics—he meets with members of the European establishment. He is, you see, still trying to be a political actor.

So, I exist as a journalist, a sociologist—in a sphere where truth is the highest value. Gudkov exists in the political sphere, where the highest value is effectiveness. These are, so to speak, very different measures of success. That’s why we often disagree. For instance, when we talked about that trio of opposition figures in the European Parliament, I was very critical of them. He had a more loyal attitude. Why? Because I’m not afraid to quarrel with anyone, whereas for Gennady Vladimirovich—as someone who walks the same corridors as they do—it’s important to preserve those relationships. That’s all. That’s the difference.

Also, he has a more “Zelensky-style” view when it comes to many people, characters, and political forces, because he’s banking on some kind of political collaboration. That’s it. That’s the difference.

And of course, there’s another difference—we are simply different people. I also sometimes have disagreements with Portnikov or others. So I don’t see this as a problem.

Now, is Gudkov interesting to me? Well, first of all, his professional experience in certain special operations—he clearly knows more than I do. So to some extent, I think he can be useful as an expert. I will continue to involve him.

About Khodorkovsky Link to heading

So? Marina Kaminskaya: Regarding Khodorkovsky calling himself a leader of the opposition—it’s written in English, meaning not “the only leader” but “one of the leaders.” So the distinction is misunderstood—there’s a failure to pay attention to the English article. He’s not claiming to be the sole leader; he’s saying he is one of the leaders. And that’s accurate.

Yes, I agree. That’s probably an important point.

About Yakovenko Link to heading

Here’s the author of the question calling themselves Smena. Here’s what they write: It’s very amusing how Yakovenko talks about the need to support Ukraine, presenting his words as if it’s self-evident. But Yakovenko himself, Kudrin, and others who claim to represent Russians don’t just support Ukraine — they plainly take its side. Ukraine is a separate country with its own political, national, and ethnic interests. There’s a huge difference between seeking justice for a victim and fully taking the victim’s side — mixing those positions is a vile manipulation, writes the person calling themselves Smena. Therefore, yes, any Russian politician must stand for justice and, within that framework, undoubtedly defend the interests of Russia, not other countries. Complaints about Russian politicians putting Russian interests above Ukrainian interests — that’s insanity, writes the person calling themselves Smena. Imagine that — such complaints are being made. Not enough marbles in their head.

You know, dear friends, I’m not even addressing the author of the question now, because it seems pointless. I just want to state one thing. The author of the question has once again, for the thousandth time, confirmed that in Russia, patriotism and tram-style rudeness are simply inseparable. And of course, the author of the questions should be banned, but I think that will happen sooner or later, by the look of things. Nevertheless, I still want to respond to the substantive part that does exist despite the tram-style rudeness.

So, first of all — you, Mr. Smena. Or Ms. Smena, I don’t know. You lie when you say I claim to represent Russians. I never did. So, congratulations — you’ve lied.

Secondly. And most importantly — there’s a war going on. And the main thing here is the main event. Do you agree with that? Probably. And the most important thing now is to decide — whose side are you on? If you’re on Russia’s side — congratulations, you’re on the side of the aggressor, you’re on the side of the fascist Reich. And I’m on the opposite side — the side resisting the fascist Reich.

It’s a very simple question. You see, I don’t believe that being on Russia’s side right now means defending the interests of Russians. No. In fact, just like Willy Brandt — he was on the side of the anti-Hitler coalition, and he was against the Third Reich, against his own country. But later the Germans appreciated him, and they made him Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

I’m not planning to become a deputy again. I’ve already been one, and I didn’t like it. I especially don’t plan to become president. I don’t need that.

But I believe that today the main thing is to choose a side. If you’re on Russia’s side — good for you. Maybe it’s precisely because you’re a tram-style boor that you’re on Russia’s side now. That’s somehow very connected. Very, very connected.

About Palestinians and Trump Link to heading

You know, the person asking the question here calls themselves a dumb Mongol. Well, alright. Regarding migrants who perform useful functions for a kibbutz in southern Israel — workers from the Gaza Strip, who for years came to kibbutzim to do various low-skilled jobs, were also kind of migrants, living in their own enclave and coming to work in the kibbutzim. But on the 7th, the 10th, the 23rd, those same migrants came with a slightly different purpose and killed local residents, cut off the heads of 40 babies — in the kibbutz, and in the U.S., writes the person calling themselves a dumb Mongol. In addition to useful functions, migrants bring with them crime, murders, drugs, and so they provoke the same outrage among U.S. residents, who are willing to vote and do vote for such a scumbag as Trump. So, there are a few more questions of a similar kind.

I will, so to speak, respond to all of them substantively in a moment, but first — first I just want to say that your analogy is completely limping on all four legs. Do you have any facts resembling a terrorist attack like the one on November 7, 2003, carried out by Mexican immigrants in the U.S.? Something similar, yes? Just so the analogy is at least a little relevant.

Do you have crime statistics that could prove — I’ll try to present some statistics now — that could prove that migrants are the main source of crime?

Well. In my opinion, there is a fitting analogy — a fitting analogy is Russia and migrants from Central Asia. And here it’s exactly the same. The same thing is going on. Completely false accusations. And I’ve had to prove many times that the accusation that migrants from Central Asia are the main or a significant source of crime in Russia is utter nonsense.

Statistics show the exact opposite. That doesn’t mean migrants aren’t at all a source. They are a source of terrorism, drug trafficking, and anything else you can think of. But they are not the main source. That’s the problem.

About Nazism Link to heading

So, here we go. Continuing the topic of migrants. The author of the question calls themselves Tsenyat. And here’s what they write: Speaking about Mexican migrants, you again were being disingenuous. Right after that, you said that 600,000 people returning from the war will destroy Russia. Isn’t that class-based Nazism? writes Watson. Married. Maybe there are different people there too, but you paint them all with the same brush. Yes, maybe because they’re criminals — because they went to another country to kill people for money. That’s all. And further he writes: You could say that war distorts their consciousness. But doesn’t life in the Mexican favelas also distort consciousness? Mexicans are used to living, writes Santana, alongside cartels. And when there are a lot of them, when they gather together, they don’t elect a sheriff. They do what they’re used to and how they were raised. They form cartels and connect with active Mexican drug cartels. And no matter what one thinks of the USSR, they tried to competently resettle emigrating national minorities. Specifically, they tried not to place them in large communities. So why doesn’t that work in America? Mexicans form gangs. Haven’t you noticed that they’re now waving the Mexican flag in California? So they’re proving my point. They’re building their own Mexico inside the U.S. It’s illegal for Chinese and Indians to enter too.

By the way, Chinese people are building Chinatowns inside the U.S. So this person is just blatantly ignoring reality. Right. And a postscript: I also want to remind you that one of your guests said on air that legal immigrants from Mexico, who worked hard to obtain residency, have the same negative attitude toward these agencies as Trump supporters do. So I don’t know where you’re seeing Nazism here. And then comes a call — from a couple of people at least — not to interfere in American domestic affairs.

Dear friends, you know, I constantly get asked or even demanded — just outright ordered — not to interfere in internal American affairs. Not to interfere in internal European affairs. As for Ukrainian affairs, well, I’m not interfering in those anyway. But more than that — I’m also told not to interfere in Russian affairs, because I don’t live in Russia.

Well, you know, let me just say this — I could, of course, write only about what I see in my room. I’m sitting in my room, I could write and speak only about what I see here. But I don’t think that would be very interesting.

And more importantly — who told you that someone who has lived their whole life in the United States understands internal American affairs better than I do? You know — where’d you get that idea from? We were just talking about this. I’m not comparing myself to Stephen Hawking right now, of course — but still, a person who is locked in their body, who can’t receive information in any way except through some sort of clever mechanisms, still manages to throw their thoughts across the universe in such a way that it’s considered true genius.

So once again — I’m not comparing myself to that great thinker. But I do have the ability to analyze, to read articles, to listen to leading scholars, analysts, different opinions, to look at statistics, to look at American sociology, to look at crime stats. And that gives me the ability to judge. I’m not interfering in American affairs — I’m judging them. And not judging them, but judging about them.

And I will continue, just as you put it, to “interfere” in American affairs. In European affairs. In Russian affairs. And if needed, in Australian affairs. In Middle Eastern affairs — I will judge them. I will “interfere,” as you call it. So stop trying to ban me from anything. I’ve had enough of all this censorship.

Don’t like it? Objecting? Fine.

Now let’s talk about the statement that 600,000 people returning from war will destroy Russia. Is that a class-based view? Maybe there are different people among them too, but you’re painting them all with the same brush. You know… That’s an absolutely insane statement. You’re drawing a parallel between Mexican migrants and, let’s say, occupiers who went to a foreign country to kill for money? What a comparison.

So let’s call all Mexican migrants Chikatilo. Or fascists. Go ahead — keep going.

Next. The real confrontation is not between illegal migrants and Trump. It’s between an entire population — or are you blind to the obvious fact that there’s a confrontation between the people of California, led by the governor, and Trump? The governor opposed Trump. Not just some group of illegal immigrants — the governor, got it? Is he a criminal too, by your logic? Is he also into drug trafficking? The confrontation is between a state and Trump.

Now, regarding your completely false claim that migrants are the main source of crime. Let’s put the dots on the i’s. There’s a great book by Chavez, Kudrin, and Graham Ousey — Immigration and Crime.

Their main conclusion: immigrants do not affect the crime rate on average. That’s statistics. Just statistics. On average, immigrants even commit crimes less often than U.S.-born citizens.

In fact, there are institutes for immigration policy that conducted analysis, showing that only 3% of illegal migrants had criminal convictions, and 4% had misdemeanor charges. That’s lower than the U.S. average, where about 6% have criminal records. Got that?

A particularly striking example is several towns where illegal migrants make up the majority of the population. There’s no sufficient evidence that Mexican immigration increases crime levels in the U.S.

For instance, analysis of prison demographics, particularly in California, shows that Mexican migrants are underrepresented — the proportion of Mexican migrants in the prison system is lower than their share of the state’s population.

So the claim that they’re the main source of crime is a lie.

A vivid example is the town of El Paso, in Texas. It’s a working-class town of around 700,000 people. 80% of El Paso’s residents are Latino — the vast majority are Mexican.

In other words, these are essentially migrants. El Paso is a migrant town. And it’s a town with the highest proportion of migrants among all U.S. cities.

According to your assumptions, it should be a place full of violence, murder, and drugs. But as it turns out — El Paso is one of the safest cities in the U.S., with a homicide rate of just over 2 per 100,000 residents.

Practically speaking, that’s one of the lowest crime rates in the U.S. — comparable to European capitals like Paris or Amsterdam, and significantly lower than the average across American cities.

So I’ve come across this kind of lie before — when Russian nationalists used to say back in the 90s, even on the floor of the State Duma, that all our problems come from Central Asian migrants.

You see, this is a lie that was disproven in Russia by police statistics. And here it’s disproven by prison and police statistics. So it’s just a lie.

The author should refrain from commenting on America Link to heading

Something in that same spirit. This was written by our channel’s sponsor, Philip from Las Vegas. For being our sponsor, dear Philip, thank you very much. Now I’ll read what you wrote: Igor Alexandrovich, along with the promise not to interfere in Ukrainian internal affairs, you might also consider promising not to interfere in American internal affairs. The situation in California has nothing to do with the war in Ukraine. Your experience is invaluable for understanding the situation in Russia, which, unfortunately, cannot be said about your understanding of the situation in the USA.

Dear Philip! Thank you again for your sponsorship, but I will still write about the things I can form an understanding of, you see? I just showed you that people who consider themselves experts on American affairs don’t understand a thing about them. And I have the opportunity to somehow get information from different sources, analyze it, and share it. Let’s, so to speak, debate and challenge each other, rather than forbidding one another from writing about certain topics.

Officer’s Honor Link to heading

Arkady Mikhailov, Today you were asked about bravery. One category went unnoticed — honor. Take the samurai, brave guys who put honor first; they don’t care about the social support you mentioned. You know. Yes. And then there’s officer’s honor.

You know, I think you somewhat misunderstand the concept of a reference group — and the concept of social support. That social support doesn’t necessarily have to be expressed by people standing behind the wall or out in the street. A crowd clapping — that’s not what bravery is. Again, the concept of honor: a person has an idea that there is some kind of reference group. It can be imaginary — imaginary — with which a person compares their behavior. That’s how it works. If a person were completely alone — in principle — that is, if they didn’t have this imaginary [group]… You see, the officer’s honor you just mentioned is the result of belonging to the officer class, you understand? And the same applies to the samurai code — the samurai class. So in any case, it’s the result of mentally comparing one’s behavior to a community. That’s the point.

Yes. Well, Mark writes the same thing: Bravery requires a reference group. It’s a personal quality of the individual.

Well, again, I think that’s a mistaken view, because in any case, the concept of honor, the idea of some kind of code — it’s always the result of identifying yourself with some community. In that community, certain norms are developed, and a person compares themselves to that community — mentally, unconsciously, however you like.

Konovalov and Nevzlin Link to heading

Gennady Konovalov I’m saying that Nevzlin’s personal lawyer, Blinov — who is reasonably suspected of organizing the attempt on Volkov’s life — remains in custody while Poland’s counterintelligence department investigates the case. Don’t mistake your wishful thinking for reality.

Dear Gennady! You know, I’ve encountered this before — some people have an uncanny ability to get inside others’ minds and fish out things those people never actually expressed. How do you know what I wish for? I certainly didn’t show it in any way. But somehow you’ve managed — like certain Russian generals in the intelligence services who supposedly got into Madeleine Albright’s thoughts and discovered a desire and intention to take Siberia from Russia. Just the same — you somehow got into my mind and found some supposed wish regarding the Nevzlin case? Where did you get that from, I have no idea. So far, no evidence has been found linking Nevzlin. Not found yet? Or not found at all? I don’t know. But not found. And it seems to me that you very much want Nevzlin to be guilty. That’s evident from the choice of words you use. For instance, the claim that Blinov is “reasonably suspected” of organizing the attempt — if the suspicion were truly reasonable, he would already be formally charged and sitting in prison. But right now he’s a suspect, so the word “reasonably” is unnecessary here. That’s your addition. As for calling Blinov Nevzlin’s personal lawyer — where did that come from? Are you familiar with any legal proceedings in which Blinov defended Nevzlin? That Blinov is a lawyer — that’s a fact. That he most likely did know Nevzlin — also a fact. But that he’s his personal lawyer — that seems to be your assumption, part of your effort to somehow tie Nevzlin to this case, though there’s no tie so far. Maybe there will be — and then it’ll be a different story.

Comment about impostors Link to heading

Nadya, in the movie you didn’t quite understand my comment about impostors. It wasn’t directed at you, but at those in the Monday stream who were outraged — “Why did you criticize that trio in the European Parliament, they’re doing just as much for Russia?”

Got it, understood. I was wrong.

Suggestion to stop discussing God and animals Link to heading

Yuriy Zhigalov In my opinion, discussions with opponents can help persuade people from their audience. Otherwise, the streams become dull, there’s no energy — truth is born in argument. But instead, you keep chewing over the same audience, which is either thinking about God or about animal rights.

Well, I don’t think the topic of animal rights is unnecessary. But all right, I’m willing to agree. I’m willing to agree. Yes, I think opponents are needed.

Olga, Donetsk aggressor Maybe it’s enough to keep discussing belief and disbelief in God? It’s getting tiresome to hear the same thing over and over. Freedom of conscience — end of story.

I agree. Yes, I agree. And I’m trying — I’m trying, in general, to close that topic, at least on our broadcasts.

What to compare this war to Link to heading

Max, so I suddenly reminded myself of Fitch’s dog, who started listing the virtues of his serfs — who were already dead. Traffic jam. Stepan Karetny. Mikheev. I started listing reasons why there’s nothing in common between modern Russia and the Russian Empire of the early 20th century. Got to a certain point and caught myself — they’re all dead. Putin won’t stop the war. What difference does it make what would’ve happened if something that won’t happen were to happen?

I’ll just say that this war has little in common with the Russo-Japanese or the Second World War, and most resembles the Finnish one — in its causes, its course, and the internal situation in the Russian Federation. Possibly so.

About the exchange Link to heading

Mask writes With all due respect to you, Mr. Yakovenko, allow me to completely disagree with you regarding Lev Shlosberg. Shlosberg is an enemy — to Ukraine, to everyone who stands for the victory of good over evil. Shlosberg is a blatant agent, an employee, a Kremlin worker, a man of Putin. One can only speak badly of him or not at all. Why should anyone respect this Shlosberg? Because this Shlosberg — though here for some reason the name is Kац, not Shlosberg, not SS — maybe that’s how they’re expressing their attitude. Because he’s turning Russian brains into mush, like rotten sauerkraut. Now this Shlosberg will come to Europe and start scrambling the brains of the whole European Parliament, under the guise of helping Navalny and Yashin — that gang of Putin’s agents. As for the dead paratroopers in Pskov — that’s a big question. What were Shlosberg’s merits, what was the message, in what context? Maybe Shlosberg just yanked some info out of the throat of some obscure journalist? In short, Lev Shlosberg is an enemy of Western civilization. He belongs back in the Russian Federation — anywhere in it. And don’t mention the name Skobov in the same breath as Shlosberg.

No, they do have one thing in common — Shlosberg and the rest. That is, the trial against them and the fact that… yes, they are very different people. Skobov is my like-minded ally; Shlosberg is my opponent. But what they have in common is that they are imprisoned unjustly. At least Skobov is already imprisoned unjustly, and Shlosberg is about to be imprisoned unjustly. That’s the difference. That’s the common ground. And as for Shlosberg supposedly yanking something out of the throat of some journalist — I know the situation in the Pskov region very well, and in Pskov itself, and in the local Yabloko party branch. All this stuff you’re throwing at Shlosberg — it’s just wild, vicious slander. He already has enough views one can argue with, object to, and be outraged about — and I’ve done so. But this kind of rage, well… it’s honestly a bit disturbing.

Right? Right, right. The same thing — Shlosberg is being persecuted unlawfully. Well, why should anyone demand his release?

And so on. Well, people should demand his release simply because he’s been convicted unlawfully — and only for that reason.

Yulia Artamonova — Artamonova from Kyiv Shlosberg is just another typical chauvinist of the Russian Empire. Anti-anti-fascist, anti-anti-imperialists are represented in NATO circles. And those like Mr. Yakovenko, Feygin, Kasparov — there’s maybe a dozen of you. Right?

Well, thank you for the kind words, but… yes, in general. You see, what matters now is something else — what matters is that a person is being tried unlawfully. That’s the point.

Genetics Link to heading

Here’s another comment: Don’t sociocultural conditions influence genetics? How are they fundamentally different from, say, climatic ones in the process of evolutionary change? It seems to me that factors of various kinds influence genetics. If a population’s survival depends on them, perhaps the ability to think was just as crucial for Jewish survival as the ability to run was for Ethiopians? But a dislike for everything different probably couldn’t become genetically fixed — I agree with that. There’s one problem: sociocultural conditions don’t last long enough to influence genetics. That’s the key point.

No, these are not genetically fixed traits. That is, there’s no such gene — no gene for patriotism, no gene for, I don’t know, servility, as people sometimes say — it simply doesn’t exist, it’s not encoded.

So, dear friends, on that note — I believe I’ve answered all the questions, at least those I intended to. From now on, I probably won’t respond to or comment on questions about religion or God. And I’ll also skip and ban openly rude questions.

Closing remarks Link to heading

This concludes our morning stream for today. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom for Alexander Skobov! Freedom! Darya Kozyreva. Lev Shlosberg. All Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 7:00 PM for a conversation with Andrei Andreevich Piontkovsky. Goodbye.

Source: https://youtu.be/mR4vxRRlmJs