Four reasons why the “Istanbul road” will not lead to peace.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 13th in Kyiv. It is now 07:42, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls. Well, since yesterday I temporarily, at least in the morning, let’s say, deserted from the information front—I mean the absence of the morning broadcast. Nevertheless, there were five broadcasts yesterday. So, to some extent, I think that what we will be discussing today, I partially, very partially, touched upon on other channels yesterday, but today I would like to talk about it in more detail. Well, actually, the Istanbul dead end. Why do I think so? I will try to list and justify four reasons why the Istanbul road does not lead to peace. So, what do we have for today?
Technical Details of the Negotiations Link to heading
Well, let’s start with some technical details. Erdogan called Putin and announced that Turkey is ready to host negotiations on the war in Ukraine. As we remember, there was Putin’s nighttime sortie during which he proposed to hold these negotiations in Istanbul on May 15th. After that, the President of the United States published a post on his social media, initially stating that it could potentially be a great day for Russia and Ukraine, and then demanded that Ukraine immediately accept Putin’s proposal. I remind you that on May 10th, there was a completely opposite proposal from the quartet—the leaders of Europe: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Poland—together with Ukraine. They quite ultimatum-like demanded that Putin declare, by the 12th—that is, yesterday—a 30-day ceasefire. Otherwise, European leaders threatened Putin with sanctions and increased military aid to Ukraine. The 12th ended yesterday. So far, we do not know of any new serious, at least officially announced, sanctions from Europe. There is talk about them, yes, but no actual sanctions have been imposed. As for Donald Trump—his position looks as follows: he only recently himself supported, essentially proposed, a ceasefire. So, two positions. The position of Europe, Ukraine, and the United States is first a ceasefire, and then, in conditions of silence—when the guns are silent—diplomats can talk, or leaders can talk. A normal situation, indeed, because to start negotiations, the war must first be stopped, or at least paused for 30 days. A normal, understandable situation. Putin’s proposal is the exact opposite. He rejected this proposal and offered to start negotiations without stopping the war. In this situation, it is absolutely obvious that these negotiations serve as a cover for the war. Negotiating during a war is a nonsense because it means the situation on the battlefield is still changing. And each time, what, in fact, can you negotiate about when people are being killed right now? From an emotional, political, and diplomatic point of view, it is practically impossible. That is, people are being killed in Ukraine, and some people are sitting and talking. It’s hard to imagine, but nevertheless, this is Putin’s goal, because for him all these negotiation games are undoubtedly a cover for the war. And the proof of this is that since the beginning of these negotiation games—which have been going on, as we know, for about half a year—the number of strikes on peaceful cities in Ukraine has significantly increased, the number of meat-grinder assaults has grown substantially, and the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine has also sharply increased. For Putin, these negotiations are like water for a fish because they are a cover for this war. So, here are two diametrically opposed positions: first a ceasefire and then negotiations, or negotiations without any ceasefire.
Another Betrayal by Trump Link to heading
Quite unexpectedly, Trump suddenly delivered a stab in the back. An obvious, blatant stab in the back to Ukraine and to his, well, still seemingly European allies, by demanding that Ukraine abandon the previously agreed position—first a ceasefire, then negotiations—and immediately support Putin’s proposal. As for Trump, the diagnosis has long been clear. He is a person who destroys everything. That is, it’s a form of infantilism. You know, the outstanding Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget has a concept of child development. And a child up to the age of four goes through a destructive phase, when they are curious to see what is inside toys, what is inside butterflies, and so on. They pull the heads off dolls, break toy cars, tear the wings off butterflies, and so on. Actually, this is how they learn about the world. Trump is somewhat older than four. Usually, this phase ends at four years old, but for Trump, at his 78 years, it continues. So he is like a four-year-old child at the head of the most powerful, most influential country in the world. This is a great misfortune for humanity. But it has already happened—he is already the President of the USA. And now he has dealt this stab in the back to Ukraine and, in general, to his still existing European allies. To President Zelensky’s credit, he reacted instantly and made a statement—his famous statement that he is waiting for Putin on May 15th in Istanbul. Waiting to personally conduct negotiations with him.
Position of Other Parties Link to heading
So what? What is the position of the other parties here? Well, French President Macron is skeptical; he believes that Putin is looking for a way out—I quote—looking for a way out but wants to buy time. Lindsey Graham reported that 72 American lawmakers supported a bill for new sanctions against Russia if it refuses to engage in peace talks. Now, as for Russia’s more or less obvious reaction, Putin has not made any statements on the matter—at least, I have not found any. However, the Federation Council stated that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky on May 15th is impossible. I will find my notes now. I wrote down the quote here. So, the quote: Deputy Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev told the Russia 24 TV channel that the President of Russia will reject Ukraine’s proposal for negotiations in Turkey on May 15th, called Zelensky’s statement a comedy performance, and stated that such a high-level meeting, especially in such a complicated situation, will definitely not be organized. That is a quote from Federation Council Deputy Speaker Kosachev. He also said that a potential meeting between Putin and Trump is being worked out, and that an unprepared meeting is worse than no meeting at all. Well, excuse me. Besides that, he added that the President of Ukraine is trying to shift the blame onto Russia, accusing it of being allegedly non-negotiable. And then followed a very strange statement from Kosachev that Zelensky absolutely does not need a meeting with the President of Russia right now. That he should be afraid of this meeting. Well, how Mr. Kosachev reconciles the fact that Zelensky is planning to arrive in Istanbul on the 15th to wait there for a meeting with Putin, and the fact that he should be afraid of it—that’s a question of how Kosachev’s mind works. Well, actually, that’s the answer. That is, Putin—stop. That is, if immediately after the statement by the President of Ukraine someone had doubts about whether Putin would come or not, then I think after Kosachev’s statement there are no doubts left.
Situation at the Current Moment Link to heading
So, the situation as of today looks like this. Donald Trump has committed yet another betrayal—the thousandth one—by stabbing Ukraine in the back. Instead of stating that, well, how come, we had an agreement, we demand continuity—that is, the sequence of a ceasefire first, and no negotiations at all, especially not the idea of sudden negotiations in an ultimatum format like “come on the 15th and let’s negotiate,” which is obviously a provocation. It’s more or less clear to anyone who, well, even if they do not participate in any diplomatic processes, at least observe them from afar. It’s clear that things of this kind must be prepared. That is, before meeting, there should indeed be some serious diplomatic work done to bring positions closer together, to draft preliminary demands, and so on. In any case, negotiations must be prepared; you can’t just say “let’s meet on the 15th”—that’s not how it’s done. Moreover, it is obvious that for Putin, it is clear that he intends to continue this Istanbul performance, where from the Russian side, there was a clown—obviously, a figure with zero political weight, Mr. Medinsky. Medinsky is a person who, in the Russian hierarchy, occupies, I don’t know, the 1025th place. That is, someone who is not only not close to Putin, but not even part of his third-tier entourage. An empty figure. And the fact that Medinsky was appointed as the head of the delegation shows that for Putin at that moment—I mean the 2022 negotiations—it was just a facade. These same negotiations will look approximately the same if and when they happen. It is obvious that Zelensky, most likely, will still fly to Istanbul. But again, he may take the position that since it has been announced that Putin will not be in Istanbul, Zelensky might say, “Well, if Putin is not there, why should I waste my time? There are many things to do in Ukraine.” Another possible position is that Zelensky might still fly to Istanbul and, standing in the middle of the city, simply call out, “Putin, come out, you cowardly scoundrel.” Both positions are quite advantageous. Trump stated that he is ready to fly to Istanbul if necessary—that is, yesterday there was a report that he might take part in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations in Istanbul if his presence at these negotiations would be useful. Again, Trump’s participation in which negotiations? Will there even be negotiations? Because if Putin sends a delegation led by some Medinsky-like figure—it doesn’t matter who plays the role of Medinsky, just another clown—in any case, if it’s not Putin, then who? A clown? Because Putin is obviously the sole decision-maker in Russia’s hardline regime. And any figure leading the delegation other than Putin is an obvious, completely unserious display of intentions. So, in this situation, Trump’s presence would be laughable, and it’s unlikely he would go for it. By the way, at the same time in Istanbul, from the 14th to the 16th, Marco Rubio will be present. So he, in any case, might somehow participate in these negotiations if they take place. Again, after—I don’t know, in the near future—Moscow’s position will probably become clear—whom they are going to send to these negotiations or, at least, the potential composition of this delegation. Presumably, this should be made public. After that, Ukraine’s position will become clear. Whether Zelensky is really ready to come. It is obvious that a meeting between Zelensky and a Medinsky-like figure is impossible, because what would the President of a country talk about with some clown who decides nothing? Clearly, this will not happen.
What Are the Possible Scenarios Link to heading
Well, from here, various scenarios are possible. Theoretically, there is a possibility, although an unlikely one, that Zelensky, in order not to appear as the person who is disrupting the negotiations, might also assemble some delegation, though, in the end, also made up of people who might make decisions but are nevertheless not the top figures. From my point of view, this scenario is highly unlikely. It would be a major loss for Ukraine because it would be a complete and absolute submission to Putin—in other words, to the extent that one would go along with Putin, which is essentially what Trump is doing, this is a serious question. From my point of view, this is already some sort of red line. So, let’s try to draw some very preliminary conclusions. So, from my point of view, this Istanbul road will not lead to peace. Well, to me, that is obvious.
1. Putin Is Confident That He Is Winning Link to heading
There are several specific reasons. First, Putin is confident that he is winning. It is clear that his confidence is based on a certain informational bubble in which he resides. He does not see the real situation. He is convinced—his lackeys report to him—that everything is going well, that he is winning, that the constant offensive is bringing success, and so on. His confidence in victory forms the basis for him to make demands, essentially. That is, when he stated that he proposes negotiations without preconditions, he once again lied. Because in his statement, during this nighttime sortie, he said that negotiations should be about eliminating the root cause of the war. What is the root cause of the war? Of course, the most important thing from Putin’s and his entourage’s point of view is obvious. The root cause of the war for Putin and his circle is undoubtedly the very existence of Ukraine. He has said this repeatedly. And this is the obvious thing—that Putin is not satisfied with the mere fact of Ukraine’s existence as an independent state. This is evidenced by all his rhetoric, all these euphemisms of denazification, demilitarization of Ukraine. In fact, this means eliminating Ukraine’s political subjectivity. This is quite obvious. His entire line, his entire logic, the entire emotional background accompanying his statements—this nighttime sortie on the night before Sunday came right after this act of victory frenzy, where it was basically declared that this so-called special operation is a continuation of World War II, a battle against Nazism. Well, let’s apply logic. If this is a battle against Nazism, then you don’t negotiate with Nazism; you don’t hold talks with it. You destroy it. This is exactly the position dominating in Putin’s speeches, in Lavrov’s speeches, in Medvedev’s speeches. And this position fully dominates Russian television. So, in fact, this is Russia’s completely obvious negotiating position—that there must be the full and final capitulation of Ukraine. So, the first reason is that Putin is confident that he is winning. And therefore, the negotiating position in Istanbul, if and when it takes place, will be that Ukraine must sign an act of full and final capitulation. Period.
2. For Russia, War Is a Form of Existence Link to heading
Second. The second reason is the entire situation inside Russia itself. On February 24, 2022, Russia became a country for which war is a form of existence. And as Russia has become more deeply involved in the war—this is now the fourth year—a huge number of war beneficiaries have emerged. These include conscripts themselves, who are receiving unprecedented amounts of money, and their families. There is also a huge number of people now working in the military-industrial complex (MIC). The situation is changing—we have very poor access to information about public sentiment in Russia—but nevertheless, for some time, the MIC and Russia in general were flooded with helicopter money. That is, enormous amounts of money were distributed to participants of the so-called special military operation—like the famous 5 million rubles for signing a contract—and huge salaries in the MIC. As far as I know, these helicopter payments have now been somewhat suspended. But when workers at a military factory are receiving around 400,000 rubles, that is precisely those helicopter payments. And, of course, such people—this is a huge segment of the Russian economy—are certainly interested in continuing the war. A very large number of people in Russia are involved in the war and are its beneficiaries. This is the social base on which Putin relies to continue this war. So, the second reason is Russia’s entrenchment in the war, and for that reason, at the present moment, he neither wants nor is able to stop this war.
3. Lack of a Decisive Breakthrough on the Battlefield Link to heading
Third. The third reason is the lack of a decisive breakthrough on the battlefield. Of course, if the situation changed at the front, then perhaps Putin would have at least some signs of motivation to stop this war. But this is not the case.
4. Lack of Consolidated Western Pressure Link to heading
And finally, the last reason is the absence of consolidated, decisive pressure from the West. Unlike World War II, when there was an anti-Hitler coalition, today there is nothing resembling an anti-Putin coalition. Even the faint signs of forming an anti-Putin coalition, such as the Ramstein format—where more than 50 countries gathered to discuss how to help Ukraine militarily, financially, and primarily militarily—have now practically collapsed, because the United States has simply deserted this anti-Putin front. At the last Ramstein meeting, the U.S. Secretary of Defense participated remotely. That is, precisely, a symbol of the collapse—the collapse of the barely forming anti-Putin coalition, which could, in principle, have made these Istanbul negotiations a road to peace. But that is not happening.
The War Will Continue as Long as Putin Is in the Kremlin Link to heading
Therefore, to sum up, I want to say that all this fuss around the Istanbul negotiations, around this so-called Istanbul road to peace, is essentially a smokescreen behind which lies an obvious, simple truth—Putin does not want to stop the war, and Putin will not stop it. How long will it continue? It will continue as long as Putin is sitting in the Kremlin. That is the situation as it stands today. That is why I am very surprised that a number of my interlocutors—very respected, very intelligent experts—somehow believe that something could happen in Istanbul that would fundamentally change this situation. It will not. This will not happen. And why do I think it’s important to talk about this? Because illusions are very dangerous. When the opinion spreads that we are just five minutes away from a peace agreement, it leads to questions like: why help Ukraine then? Why provide weapons? Why give money? After all, peace is near. Why should people fight at all? Because to die five minutes before the end of the war is very bitter. So, in fact, these peaceful illusions are not harmless things, unfortunately. Of course, any normal person—and I still consider myself a normal person—would very much like peace in Ukraine. Even a shameful one. I will say something very unpopular among our audience, dear friends. I am a supporter of peace, even a shameful peace for Ukraine, because I believe that the lives of Ukrainian citizens are above all else. But the problem is that Putin is not going to conclude even that kind of shameful peace. So, I have named four reasons—they do not exhaust all the arguments why there will be no movement toward peace in Istanbul. But they are quite enough to understand that even a shameful peace will not happen. Hoping for this is a very dangerous utopia.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to inform you that the meeting with Vladimir Osechkin, which we had planned and which was canceled at the initiative of Vladimir Osechkin himself, will take place today at 1:00 PM. So, at 1:00 PM, human rights activist Vladimir Osechkin will be on our channel. And now, I will move on to answering your questions.
What Would the Author Do as President of Russia Link to heading
So. Drone Vito Corleone. Igor Aleksandrovich, if you were in Putin’s place, what would you do? It’s clear that you would end the war, but what is interesting is what comes next? What would you do with Russia?
Well, you know, to imagine this—you are offering me a thought experiment where I am in Putin’s place—in order to seriously answer your question, I need to imagine the conditions of this thought experiment. That is, what does it mean? Does it mean, how did I get there? You know, like in The Prince and the Pauper—where the pauper suddenly finds himself in the king’s place. And what does that mean? That the entire entourage remains in place? Well, to end the war, yes—that would probably be within the power of the President of Russia. What to do with Russia next? I think I would try, first of all—again, you see, dear colleague, I am not very interested in participating in this experiment, because it is such unscientific fiction. It is clear that I would try somehow to gradually and step by step conduct personnel reforms—to gradually replace, let’s say, the completely insane people. It is clear that bringing the Russian political emigration to power is immediately impossible, because the entire Putin entourage, well, it is capable—in the event of very sharp reforms, of a very sharp turn—it is capable of rebelling, and the cry of “the tsar is not real” would be universal. Therefore, probably I would try to somehow, excuse me, in some gradual way replace the personnel and gradually, gradually open the country, change priorities—a long, gradual path of turning around. A sharp turn would, of course, immediately cause the whole cart to overturn. It is clear that there can be no sharp turns. But, once again, I emphasize, this is such a fantastical scenario that, honestly, I am not very… I think, if we speak seriously about what will happen to Russia, I think that Russia is a project that is coming to an end. It is a project that is finishing before our eyes. I think that after this war ends, Russia as a state within these borders, with this system, will simply not exist. I think we are witnessing a difficult, prolonged process of the final collapse of the Russian Empire. That is what I think about Russia’s fate. But I am really not interested in participating in such fantasy scenarios.
Dyatlov Group Link to heading
Elena. Distracting you a little from the pressing issues, I want to ask about the Dyatlov group’s death in the Northern Urals in 1959. Considering the countless real and insane versions, the true cause is undoubtedly hidden. Do you have your own version or opinion about what happened?
Dear Elena, I must disappoint you. Naturally, I have taken an interest in this event, this tragedy, but—you see, there are so many insane versions. But still, if we proceed from the most likely scenario, I think that a natural disaster is the most probable cause. But again, you see, I have not been there myself. Still, in order to responsibly make any conclusions, one must visit the place of the event. The version that this was the liquidation of the group because they witnessed some important military secret—well, this version is possible, understanding the nature of the Soviet regime and how it functioned, I think this is a possible version. But the most likely scenario is, of course, some kind of natural disaster. At least, that is my superficial view.
A Series of Questions About Soviet WWII Heroes Link to heading
Question from Lemeshev When the Red Army divided Poland with the Wehrmacht, occupied the Baltic states, and attacked Finland, were there any Soviet citizens who openly expressed their disagreement and suffered for it? After all, they invaded Poland, the Baltic states, Finland. The same generation that later, together with the anti-Hitler coalition, defeated the Third Reich. In your coordinate system, are Soviet WWII veterans heroes? I don’t mean Zhenev, Astafyev, Nikulin, and other individuals, but the general picture. Did any of the surviving veterans of that war express their disagreement in Russia after February 24, 2022? On TV, it looks like everyone obediently loves Putin. Personally, I have no doubt that if Stalin ordered the Red Army to attack Hitler first to conquer and later occupy all of Europe, the army would have done exactly what they did in the first three cases.
Well, there are many questions here, dear colleague. I will try to structure them and answer them. So, the first question: were there any acts of disagreement with the invasion of Finland, the occupation of Poland, the Baltic states, and so on? You know, in the 1930s and 1940s, there was no political underground—let’s call it that. What existed, the dissident movement, only emerged after the disappearance of Stalinism. I would like to draw your attention to that. Yes, there were some isolated protests—we know about some protest letters. There were people who individually spoke out against Stalin’s regime. But considering that these people immediately disappeared, or they made these statements while already abroad (by the way, they were later killed), there was no political underground in the Soviet Union in the 1930s and 1940s. There were some attempts within the Communist Party, some form of opposition, but they were eliminated. The dissident movement only arose in the 1960s. Therefore, no serious protest statements against the occupation of Poland, the occupation or war with Finland, the occupation of the Baltic states—none of this happened. At least, there were no serious consolidated protests. So, this is just a fact.
Now, as for your proposal to assess in general terms the people who fought in WWII against Hitler—I don’t know what “general picture” means, you see? You are contradicting yourself. You say that you’re not talking about Zhenev, Astafyev, Nikulin, and other individuals, but about the general picture. But how can we speak in general terms if the participants of that war included Nikulin and Astafyev? Zhenev, by the way, did not participate in the war—he was repressed. But that’s not the point. The point is that you suggest a general assessment while mentioning specific people who cannot be lumped together. There were quite a few of them. Therefore, I can’t make a general assessment. There were a huge number of people—this is a significant part of the male population of the Soviet Union—who fought against Hitler. Were there heroes among them? Yes, of course, there were. These were people who fought against global evil. Yes, they found themselves in a situation where they were defending another evil. But that is how it was. Was heroism possible in that situation? Yes, of course, it was. Do I consider a significant part of these people heroes? Yes, I do. Did people commit crimes at that time? Yes, there were criminals who committed crimes. There were people who participated in the mass rape of German women in East Prussia—those are criminals. And there were people who committed heroic deeds. But I can’t give you a general assessment.
Did any of the surviving veterans of the war express their disagreement after February 24? No, I do not know of such examples. The problem is, you see, that after 80 years since the end of the war, veterans who participated in that war should now be around 100 years old. There are very few of them left. First of all, there are few of them, and secondly, there has been a certain unnatural selection because, after all, a significant part of those who today are considered veterans are people who did not directly participate in combat but were NKVD or SMERSH officers, and so on. In other words, those who survived were not necessarily the best. This is precisely a case of negative selection—the best were killed—so the survivors, and again, categorically no general assessment, but they are not necessarily the best people.
In Ukraine, there were people—you see, we forget that WWII veterans are not only in Russia but also in Ukraine. In Ukraine, they express their position—extremely negative toward the invasion of Ukraine, which is natural. But they are in a country that is the victim of aggression. As for examples of actual war participants in Russia speaking out against the invasion of Ukraine—I do not know of any. Maybe they exist, and I am simply unaware of them, but at least I do not know of such examples. This is related to the circumstances I mentioned—first, there are very few of them, and secondly, those who survived are not always… Again, I do not want a general assessment, but they are not always the best people. Well, I think I have answered many of your questions.
Is China Ready for a Tariff War Link to heading
Ivan Goncharuk. The West says that if Putin does not agree to a ceasefire, they will impose 500% tariffs on those who buy oil from Russia. The plan is that no one will buy from Russia. That is the essence of the sanctions. The main buyers now are China and India. Don’t you think that this tool will no longer work, since Trump already burned this card by imposing high tariffs on China during the trade war? China is already prepared for a tariff war. What’s the difference to them? They’ll keep buying the oil they find profitable, even if there are 500% tariffs, and will continue to find ways to work around them just like India is doing now in cooperation with China—something will be figured out even with 500% tariffs.
Dear Ivan! Well, first of all, the situation has changed. Trump, as we know, following the principle of one step forward, ten steps back, has already canceled everything—there are no longer any 100% tariffs. Now tariffs on Chinese goods are at 30%, and on American goods, 10%. That is, everything has dropped several times. But nevertheless, I think you are generally right, and this will not affect China. China, in general, acts without turning its head, as they say. Just as Xi Jinping sat at the parade without turning his head toward Putin, while Putin and Lebedev turned their entire bodies toward him, whispering something to the translator in his ear, and Xi Jinping remained unmoved. Well, China acts exactly the same toward the United States. It reacts quite calmly. If you want to stop trade—stop. There is a big world besides the US. So I think this ultimatum will not affect China. But again, we don’t fully know how consistent the United States will be with these secondary sanctions. The fight against the shadow fleet, all this—it all seriously affects Russia’s budget revenues. It really does hit hard. But to say that this can stop the war—no, it cannot. Can it hit the Russian economy? Yes, it can. But the Russian economy consists of two parts: the military and the civilian sectors. And Putin will redirect all the blows toward the civilian economy. That is, “Dad, you’ve been fired from your job, will you drink less now?” “No, son, you will eat less.” This is exactly Putin’s ironclad position. The civilian economy will suffer, but the military will continue to supply deadly weapons against Ukraine. So, the economy will not be the reason for ending the war. That’s what I want to say about this.
Was There a Peace Signing Without the USSR Link to heading
Elisey. Elisey is a sponsor of our channel, for which he deserves great thanks. On May 8, the Allies celebrated by accepting the surrender from a German general without the participation of the USSR. Because of this, the USSR took offense and found another general to sign Germany’s surrender on May 9.
Dear Elisey, this is one of those cases where you are wrong in every sentence. First of all, the first signing of the surrender took place in the city of Reims, France. The Soviet Union was represented, and no one accepted the surrender without the participation of the USSR. Representing the Soviet Union at the signing was General Susloparov. Therefore, there was no betrayal on the part of the Allies. So you are wrong. From the Soviet Union, the one who signed was whoever the Soviet Union itself appointed—no one dictated who should sign on behalf of the USSR. That was General Susloparov. The second signing, at Stalin’s demand, took place in Berlin. But it also did not take place on May 9—it was on the night of May 8 to 9. And representing the Soviet Union at that signing was Zhukov. So yes, there was Stalin’s whim that, like Yeltsin not being seated properly, Stalin had the whim that the wrong person signed. But in the end, no one dictated to the Soviet Union who should sign. In the first case, they put forward one general, in the second, another. So there was no betrayal—it was Stalin’s whim, which the Allies agreed to accommodate. After all, there was still that wartime brotherhood, the meeting on the Elbe, and Eisenhower was inclined to give in to Stalin’s whim.
Date When Dmitry Oreshkin Assessed Putin as Evil Link to heading
So. Agent Smith. By the way, this indignation over my assessment of Oreshkin’s position is shared by many subscribers. So Agent Smith is expressing the point of view of several subscribers. Igor, like any other YouTube blogger, it’s understandable that you might make inaccuracies, which you’ve done before. We all get it. We’re all human, we all make mistakes. But regarding the claim that Oreshkin realized who Putin really was only in 2008—why? Why, when Dmitry Borisovich, several times during your conversation, explicitly said that for him it was 2002, and the turning point was Putin’s killing of the hostages in Nord-Ost. What is this, if not a lie on your part?
You know, Agent Smith, I want to reproduce the entire position of Dmitry Borisovich, toward whom I feel sympathy, and with whom I have shared some joint work at one time. I want to fully reproduce Oreshkin’s position point by point. Therefore, there is no lie on my part, never was—what there was, was a complete reproduction. So, point one: Dmitry Borisovich stated that when Putin came to power, for him it was normal—that is, Putin in his eyes was someone from the democratic nest of Sobchak, he spoke languages, was an athlete, didn’t drink—everything seemed fine. Regarding the Salye report, he said that there were many reports back then. There was the Belkovsky report, which I pointed out was just lies—the man lied. The Salye report contained facts. But never mind.
Now, about NTV. According to Oreshkin, this was a dispute between economic actors, and he still believes that. He still thinks that Koch was right when Koch fully carried out Putin’s orders to destroy NTV—that is Oreshkin’s position.
Indeed, Dmitry Borisovich said that he realized that Putin was soulless in 2002—that is, during Nord-Ost. My clarifying question about the Kursk submarine, which was before that? No, these were military people, they knew the risks. Why was the soullessness in the case of the Kursk not enough, but Nord-Ost was? That remains a rhetorical question.
Thus, Dmitry Borisovich names several dates. He has several positions. Point of no return—I asked, when was it? 2014—okay. Then he names 2015, the murder of Nemtsov, as a turning point too. That is, the earlier murders—Shchekochikhin in 2006, Politkovskaya—they were not signals for him. But the murder of Nemtsov was. Again, such selectivity.
Now we come to the main point—where did 2008 come from? I quote almost verbatim. Dmitry Borisovich refers to the version of Mikhail Borisovich Khodorkovsky, literally: “If—attention—if Putin had left in 2008, he would have remained in memory as the most successful leader of the last 100 years.” And then Dmitry Borisovich says: “I agree with Khodorkovsky’s version.”
So, let’s fix that. If Putin had left in 2008, he would have been remembered as the most successful leader of the last 100 years. Then Dmitry Borisovich continues: “Until 2008, he was more positive than negative.” That is Oreshkin’s position.
Why did I say that the cutoff point for Putin as a criminal, a destroyer, a creator of a fascist Reich, for Oreshkin is 2008? Because, for Dmitry Borisovich, that’s when Putin became negative. Personally, that Putin was soulless—he understood in 2002, that’s true. But that Putin was a bad political leader—well, let’s call it that—that came only in 2008.
Why 2008? Hard to say. But, you see, to say that if Putin had left in 2008, he would have been remembered as the most successful leader of the last century—and that until 2008 he was more positive than negative—that, to me, is strange.
For me, this is a very important symptom, because Dmitry Borisovich represents a huge layer of the Russian emigration and the Russian anti-Putin camp. Because by 2008, let’s list it all: the separation of powers had been effectively destroyed—is that a plus or a minus? The media had been cleansed, starting with the destruction of NTV. The entire media field and civil society had been completely cleaned out. The institution of elections had been effectively eliminated. There was the attack on Georgia. And finally, Putin’s symbolic Munich speech, in which he essentially declared war on the West.
All of that—is it all positive? You see, this is a very characteristic position for the Union of Right Forces—Koch, Irina Khakamada, all that. This is classic right-wing liberalism, so beloved by the liberal crowd led by Alexei Alekseevich Venediktov.
So, to me, Dmitry Borisovich Oreshkin is, first of all, a carrier of very important expert information about Russian statistics, especially electoral statistics. And he is undoubtedly a very interesting interlocutor, he knows a lot about Russia—that’s important. But, on the other hand, he is also interesting as a carrier of that right-wing liberal idea, which was politically represented by the Union of Right Forces. Remember that slogan? “Kiryenko to the Duma, Putin to the presidency”—that was the Union of Right Forces, that is Dmitry Borisovich Oreshkin. He was not a politician, but he was one of the experts, intellectuals who supported that position.
So, the position is: until 2008, Putin was more positive than negative. That is my literal reproduction of Oreshkin’s position. Where is the lie? I don’t know.
About Inviting a Nutritionist to the Channel Link to heading
Igor Stanislavovich, it would be extremely interesting to have a meeting with a nutritionist on your channel.
I promised. But given the situation, considering that I definitely do not want to turn our channel into a technological one, this will most likely be a discussion. For now, I do not see a candidate for such a discussion.
Is It Acceptable to Broadcast the Victory Parade on Dozhd and Khodorkovsky Live Link to heading
A subscriber named Lopukh asks: Igor, given your declared desire to dot the i’s and cross the t’s, how do you assess the fact of the live broadcast of the Moscow military parade on Dozhd and Khodorkovsky Live, no matter how they justify it?
You know, dear colleague, well, let’s put it this way—on our channel, I would not have carried out such a broadcast. But, let’s say, I do not have that kind of fierce condemnation that is implied in your question. In your question, there is an assumption of fierce condemnation—I do not share that fierce condemnation. While I have quite a critical attitude toward Dozhd and Khodorkovsky, and to the Khodorkovsky Live channel—they are different channels—my attitude toward Dozhd is more critical, toward Khodorkovsky Live more loyal, but in any case, I see nothing terrible here, you see? Because, well, how is this explained? It is explained by the fact that they wanted to give their audience the opportunity to see everything with their own eyes. Why not? For example, I also watched it—I don’t even remember where I watched it—but I watched that parade, yes? It was important for me. Because from it, you know, it’s like—“I didn’t read it, but I condemn it.” I didn’t watch it, but I condemn it. I wanted to see it. That parade gave me quite a lot—the broadcast of that parade gave me quite a lot of information for analysis.
And why should we—you see, dear colleague—in your position of such fierce condemnation there is this assumption that it’s forbidden to let people watch, because, God forbid, they might get imbued—the viewers of Dozhd and Khodorkovsky might get imbued with the spirit of victory frenzy. But we shouldn’t treat people as fools, you see? Like, we shouldn’t read it. It’s like I once said that back in the Soviet Union, at the Faculty of Philosophy, we studied bourgeois philosophy, modern bourgeois philosophy, from textbooks by Vilya, where it was explained why it was bad. But the original sources themselves were only in the special storage, only for scientific libraries. That is, in fact, there was a policy that treated us, quite rightly, as if we were fools who should not read the primary sources. Well, it’s from the same series.
Therefore, I see nothing wrong, I do not share this fierce rejection. Well, they showed the broadcast of the Moscow parade, and that’s fine. People had the opportunity to see with their own eyes all this, all this victory frenzy. For those who wanted to.
On the Usefulness of a Program With Slogans to Overthrow Putin Link to heading
Sergey Putin is unworthy of holding the high office of president. He must be removed from power by all available means. I think you, Sergey writes, should launch such a program. We’re not concerned with Trump or AI, but with the dismantling of the Putin system. This must be talked about constantly. And you have everything needed for this. Don’t you want to help Russia free itself from Putinism?
Yes, we do, Sergey, we do. But you see, if you repeat a thousand times constantly that the Putin system must be dismantled, the Putin system will not collapse from that alone. You see, my entire channel, all my activities are largely aimed at thinking together about how this can actually be done. But just having a separate program where I repeat a thousand times that the Putin regime must be dismantled—well, it seems to me that’s not rational.
About Moderation on the Channel Link to heading
Nadezhda Denisova Igor, where are your moderators? Here, hungry Russians are begging for bread.
Dear Nadezhda! Well, this is because, as I have already said, for some reasons I was forced to desert the information front for a while and did not conduct a proper cleanup. That is why, indeed, there was some infestation of bots. I will correct this.
Restriction of Voting Rights Link to heading
Suslik I wanted to ask bluntly, what about introducing some kind of qualification for voting rights, so that the brainless vote for money wouldn’t be equal to the vote of a doctor, professor, philosopher, and so on?
Dear colleague, I must tell you that, from my point of view, this is all utopian, because the whole question comes down to who would be that incredibly wise person who would determine—this one is brainless, and this one is a respected philosopher. Because if such a qualification were introduced now, then, from the point of view of certain people who, for example, in Russia would get the right to decide, they would consider me brainless for thinking differently. For example, some Sharikov of theirs would be deemed a worthy person. So, who will decide? Therefore, it seems to me that these are quite utopian ideas.
Why Would Women Want a Career in the Church Link to heading
White Crow asks: Do women really need a career in the church? Let’s not forget that any Catholic priest cannot be married. This means that most of them belong to a community,
well, I don’t know what kind of community is meant—apparently, it’s about non-traditional orientation. That seems to be what is implied. I don’t know if women need a career in the church. I think that the movement toward liberalization in the Catholic Church is unstoppable. It’s already clear that deviating from the canons is quite difficult. And the current Pope, recently elected, basically continues a traditional line after all. But I think that the reformist direction in the Catholic Church exists, and it will ultimately lead to women also gaining the right to be priests. Again, this is a topic that—I haven’t taught my sociology of religion special course for quite a while, so I don’t follow the internal processes of the Catholic Church very closely. I think that the process—the general trend toward greater openness and democratization within the church—is present. Why would women need a career in the church? Well, why would women need a career in all other fields?
Statement on the Regime’s Hypocrisy Link to heading
Margarita, a very long question: You once seemed to mention that allegedly still-living veterans are present in the stands at the parade on Red Square. But by simple… well, by simple calculations, this is impossible. Why impossible? People do live to 100, and they really could be there. But it’s painful to see when in the stands at the Mausoleum there are men and women adorned with orders who, during the war, were either children or not yet born. Well, yes, that happened. Why do people believe this lie? But why do people believe lies at all? What are Russians proud of? What do they remember? That Stalin threw a million people into the furnace of war and then declared himself the victor? Or what they did when they “liberated” Europe from fascism? It brings to mind an old story when war invalids without arms or legs were sent to Valaam so they wouldn’t spoil the appearance of Soviet streets. Then the artist Gennady Bobrov painted an entire series of portraits of them. Does anyone remember this? And of course, the highest hypocrisy is the holding of parades by a country that attacked a peaceful country and is now drowning it in blood. When will this all end?
Dear Margarita, the question is, of course, rhetorical. When will it end? I think that as long as Putin remains in power, this will continue. Hypocrisy, yes—but it is part of, it is the core of Putin’s mythology. So I think this will end when Putin leaves power.
On Garry Kasparov’s Attitude Toward Biden Link to heading
Question from a subscriber named Real Estate, three questions: Do you share Garry Kasparov’s attitude toward Biden? It bothers me when he speaks of the former president as some kind of miserable and talentless person. Joe Biden was weak, indecisive, slow, and frankly too old for the office. But his intentions and what he still managed to do—I consider them correct. I have no personal claims against him. He did everything within his power.
Well, let me answer these questions step by step. So, look. I do not share some of Garry Kimovich’s categorical attitude toward Biden. Yes, we were all outraged by this aid issue. But, excuse me, now we see—we have something to compare it to. Therefore, I do not share that categorical stance. That is, let’s say, criticism must still be proportionate. And I think Garry Kimovich is somewhat more categorical than the reality warrants. At least, I emphasize once again, everything is understood in comparison.
The main task for Biden, in my opinion, was still to avoid a global war catastrophe. And perhaps Biden overestimated Putin’s willingness to start a nuclear war. Perhaps. But you know, in this case, I have only one question. You see, the position of publicists who observe the political process, and the position of the U.S. President—they are very different. It’s one thing when we observe the political process from the outside and say—well, here we had to act decisively, had to send Tomahawks, had to, conditionally speaking, strike directly, enter this war, and so on. That’s a publicist position.
But imagine you are indeed in a completely different position—the position of the President of the United States—when your decision might lead to… Well, what if indeed Putin, in response to more decisive actions, launches a nuclear strike, and nuclear war begins? And all the talk that it won’t happen—I believe it won’t. But is there a guarantee that it won’t? Who can give such a guarantee? And the position of the U.S. President is completely different.
Therefore, I still think that here I probably do not support such fierce criticism of Biden that Garry Kimovich has, with whom I agree on almost all other positions. But here I think it’s an overreaction.
On Inviting Experts Link to heading
Second, from the same author: Bilzho, besides his professional background in psychiatry, is simply a very interesting person. As an expert on mental health, agreed. As an expert on health and nutrition, I suggest Dr. Komarovsky.
Okay, let’s see.
On Disagreements With Sotnik Link to heading
Question from Alex Ivanov: What are your disagreements with Sotnik? I’m sure you’ve answered this question, but I can’t find it. He seems sincere toward Ukraine, apart from constant clashes, not about dates. And you used to cooperate? What happened, if anything? And Nevzorov—what’s wrong with him, in your opinion? Could there be a conversation with him on your channel or his? A few Russians are fighting the Reich. Every bayonet is worth platinum.
Well, let’s break it down—about Sotnik first. Regarding Sotnik. I want to ask you to take a look—on his feed, he had a list of FSB agents, where he listed me as an FSB agent. He considers Kasparov an FSB agent. Well, practically the entire political emigration that is negatively disposed toward Putin—he considers all of them FSB agents. Now, how do you think—after that, is any dialogue in principle possible with someone who considers us all FSB agents, including me?
Our relationship with Sotnik was such that when Sotnik conducted mass street interviews—the so-called street talks—he interviewed me, acting as an interviewer. That was fine. But at some point, I made a mistake—I invited Sotnik to a debate. Since he was extremely negative toward sociology, I invited him to a debate. And when he started speaking, it became obvious that he was completely incompetent. I tried very politely and tactfully to smooth it over. But he got very offended, and after that, he cut off relations with me.
After that, he began to appear not as an interviewer but as a creator of his own content—that is, he started acting as a publicist, expressing his own opinions rather than just asking others. And at that point, a very simple thing became clear—that this is, let’s say, a rather foolish, very spiteful, and petty person. And these are not insults—these are just facts.
What do you have to have in your head to accuse practically everyone who was labeled and jailed, who had criminal cases opened against them—to accuse all of them of being FSB agents? Well, what kind of person is that? You know, there’s a simple Russian word—fool. Sotnik is a classic example of a fool, yes. He is a person who dislikes Putin, a person who supports Ukraine. But that does not mean that such a person cannot be a fool. Unfortunately, that is the case.
How to Cope With the Death of a Pet Link to heading
Artem Shevchenko. I know how you feel about animals, and I’m sure you’ve had to lose them. Now our cat, together with my wife, has cancer. He’s 13, he looked six, was young and full of energy. But after his teeth were removed, cancer appeared, and my wife and I couldn’t do anything. I’m telling you this only because I know you can understand—he’s not just some cat, he’s a real family member, and we treated him accordingly. Honestly, I wasn’t ready for this, and since I trust you and have been listening to you for a long time, I want to ask you for a small thing. What inner supports did you find to get through it? How did your mind help you explain to yourself that death is part of life and all that? Are there any tricks, or does this pain just have to be endured?
You know, dear Artem, I have no tricks, to my great misfortune. The lifespan of almost all those we domesticate is shorter than our human lifespan. And we have to bury our four-legged friends. It’s pain. And there is no therapy, you see, it doesn’t exist. For me, I don’t know of any therapy that could soothe this pain. I still dream of my four-legged friends. There were many of them. I still miss them. So there’s nothing that can be done. I can’t give you any advice, because I myself can’t cope with this pain. So—yes, you just have to endure it.
On Comparing the Genocide of Kazakhs and Jews Link to heading
Yes. Aliev Kazakhs were killed in greater numbers than Jews as a result of two famines, collectivization, civil war, and repressions. Out of 8 million, only 2 remained. This is not counting the victims of World War II, the victims of nuclear bomb tests at the Semipalatinsk test site, victims of the Aral test site, Baikonur, victims of the Kapustin Yar range, where Russian ballistic missiles are still tested, affecting ordinary people in the villages. So please take all these facts into account. If you compare, do not forget to mention the Kazakhs.
Dear colleague, I was talking about a very simple thing. I said that only when speaking of the Nazis, of Hitler, only Jews and Roma were exterminated for being Jews and Roma—that is, personal extermination, targeted extermination. There was no targeted, declared extermination of Kazakhs for being Kazakhs. Yes, there were peoples repressed under Stalin, but Kazakhs were not among those peoples.
That is, the destruction you mentioned—well, let’s say these were collateral victims. This, of course, is little consolation to the people and the nation that suffered. I’m just stating a fact—that a targeted, publicly declared doctrine of the need to exterminate peoples existed only in relation to Jews and Roma.
There was no such doctrine for Kazakhs. Was it any easier for the Kazakh people, who were subjected to real genocide? No, it was not easier. Was it any easier for the Ukrainian people, for whom the Holodomor was arranged specifically to exterminate them? No, it was not.
But again, doctrinal, theoretically fixed as a doctrine of targeted extermination of peoples—that only existed in relation to Jews and Roma. These are obvious facts that are not refuted by what you said. And, of course, genocide did occur in relation to a whole range of peoples. That is true.
Morality as a Socio-Cultural Factor Link to heading
Igor Vladimirovich, your answer to the question about killing sparked my interest in such a philosophical topic as Morality in the modern world from the standpoint of materialism. Your position, it seems to me, is just suitable for a detailed consideration of this issue. Now, perhaps a couple of words explaining why I propose this topic for discussion. In my opinion, from a systems approach, the unification of people into humanity, and its smaller parts—nations—occurs precisely thanks to moral norms that are formed within this community. Morality thus acts as the systemic property of a person that allows people to unite into larger systems. But religious Christian morality is exhausted by the Ten Commandments, and from a systemic point of view, in my opinion, such norms should be much more numerous, applicable to different dangers and even to separate collectives. A detailed analysis of this thesis by you would be, I think, very interesting.
You know, I largely stand on the point of view of my teacher and friend Alexander Shakheda, who studied society from the perspective of socio-cultural analysis. Morality is interwoven there, moral ideals are interwoven. But it is precisely socio-cultural analysis. A detailed conversation on these topics, I think, is possible. There are people on our channel who were participants in Alexander Samuilovich Shakheda’s seminar. And I think this is an interesting conversation. But this particular approach seems to me relevant—specifically socio-cultural analysis—that is indeed interesting and important.
What if Canada became a friend of Putin’s Reich Link to heading
A question from a subscriber who calls themselves this or that: What would the United States do if there were a coup in Canada and anti-American authorities, supported by Russia, came to power, and Canada was planning to join an anti-American military alliance with the deployment of troops from such an alliance in Canada?
Well, you know. Participating in an experiment. What if, so to speak, there were a coup in Canada? Well, I think that the United States of America would most likely be, so to speak, very concerned about this. And there would be a serious program to block it, to try to change the situation in Canada, definitely. Definitely. That is, you understand? To build some kind of thought experiment based on completely fantastic things, I think, well, theoretically, yes, it can be done. So, in this thought experiment, I think that the United States of America would be very concerned about this, and they would take all measures to influence the situation in Canada and change the world, to prevent this coup or, so to speak, carry out some activities. Well, there would definitely be an economic blockade of Canada. That is, well, if such a fantasy happened, then yes, probably the United States would take all measures, would use, would use all resources to overturn this coup back, so to speak.
Repeating the question about the futility of a tariff war with China Link to heading
Ivan Goncharuk. It seems so. Is this the second question? The second time? No. The West says that if Putin does not agree to a truce, it will impose tariffs of 500.
I think I already answered this question. For some reason, it has come up a second time, meaning that
500% China is already prepared for a tariff war.
Well, the fact is that the situation is completely different now. And China, of course, is ready for a tariff war. It doesn’t care about all the West’s attempts.
Why Turkey is not accepted into the European Union Link to heading
Through Batumi, right? Turkey has long been a candidate for the European Union. Why hasn’t it been accepted yet?
You know. Actually, initially, after Atatürk’s revolution, Turkey was indeed determined to Europeanize, to, so to speak, abandon its Islamic roots. Well, in many ways, so to speak, it was the case that Turkey knocked on the doors of the European Union for quite a long time. One of the reasons it wasn’t accepted was that the European Union was still perceived primarily as an alliance of secular but at the same time Christian countries, and the presence of a huge—and Turkey is very large—Islamic country was perceived as something alien. Was this a mistake? Should Turkey have been accepted into the European Union when it was ready for it? I don’t know. You see, what later happened was a rejection of Atatürk’s principles, and Erdoğan took a completely different position, meaning the structure created by Atatürk was destroyed. Well, there was still a lot in Turkey. Turkey was definitely somewhat of an alien body within the European Union. Should there have been an attempt to digest Turkey as part of the European Union? I don’t know. Perhaps it was a mistake? Possibly. By the way, I do not rule that out, but now it is too late to talk about it. Now Turkey is already in a state where even in NATO it looks somewhat alien. All the more so in the European Union. But I do not rule out that you are right. At the time, it was a mistake.
Why the allies can’t strike Russia from the air Link to heading
John Bonham, what do you think prevents a group of Western countries, without the USA and not as part of NATO—for example, the UK, France, Germany, Poland—from forming a coalition and launching an operation to force peace through powerful air strikes using their fighter jets, which France and Britain have? That is, to declare a kind of special military operation to hit Putin’s occupiers on the territory of Ukraine from the air without ground fighting. De jure, de facto, no war. The attackers would be four European NATO countries at once. Putin definitely wouldn’t dare to retaliate, while his troops couldn’t withstand such air pressure and would inevitably retreat. What’s wrong with that?
Well, dear John, Bonham, what’s wrong with that? Again, for us, nothing. I’m not 100% sure it’s not actually a declaration of war. Why do you say it’s not a declaration? Air strikes by European fighter jets—French, British, Swedish—on Russia, on Russian troops is a declaration of war. It doesn’t matter. After all, Putin didn’t declare war on Ukraine either, right? This is, in fact, a declaration of war. Will it happen? What would the response be? You see, European leaders mostly focus on the position of their voters. I’m 100% sure that the majority of European voters would not support such an idea. Yes, it would be good, it would be right. In particular, Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky constantly talks about this. But from my point of view, this will not happen for a very simple reason. Because European voters do not want a war with Ukraine. Or rather, sorry, a war with Russia. And this war is, well, an obvious war. How would Putin respond? I have no idea. Would he strike European countries’ territories? I don’t know. Again, we don’t know. And European politicians are guided by their voters—they don’t want this war. That’s all.
Why Western politicians don’t understand basic truths Link to heading
Viktor Yushchenko What negotiations with the Kremlin’s Satan? What are you talking about? This universal spawn of evil has destroyed and mutilated 1,000,000 citizens of Ukraine and Russians, and so on—only guaranteed physical destruction of this filth. The sooner it happens, the less terrible evil there will be. Don’t European politicians understand such basic things?
Well, again, there is no political will. Maybe they do understand it, but there is no political will. There is no, so to speak, understanding that the risks as a result… Well, you are now talking about an operation to eliminate Putin, I also talk about this constantly. But again, there is no political will on this topic.
Putin is gaining more and more legitimacy Link to heading
Svetlana. Well, this is what’s happening. The further it goes, the more legitimacy the fascist criminal Putin is gaining in the world. He continues to dictate the terms. No negotiations with this criminal gang will help. It’s a cancerous tumor. Only weapons for Ukraine can bring peace.
Well, I agree with you. That is, this is not really a question, it’s more of a statement of position. Dear Svetlana, I agree with you.
Moscow-centric nature of Russia Link to heading
Sergey Kirichenko. Wouldn’t you like to reflect on the topic of Russia’s capital? The opinion that Moscow represents a turn to Asia, while St. Petersburg is an attempt to cling to Europe? Or is it not very comfortable for you as a Muscovite?
Dear Sergey! I have raised this topic many times. I think that Moscow is evil. And for me, as a Muscovite, this is actually very clear. But what’s the point of discussing this now? From what point of view? From the point of view of building a beautiful future Russia. I do not participate in creating these utopias. That was relevant about 30 years ago. Discussions on this topic were relevant 30 years ago. Back then, in the early ’90s, you could fantasize about this topic. And the struggle against Moscow-centrism was relevant back then, but not now. Now it’s about the fact that this project is ending. What difference does it make where the capital is—in Novosibirsk, Moscow, or St. Petersburg? The very historical project called Russia is coming to an end, and this is an inevitable, historically inevitable process. When will it happen? Well, that’s an open question. But the topic of where the capital is seems not very relevant now.
Is Putin legitimate because there is no alternative Link to heading
Vadim Nikodim, Pan Fotiy, don’t you think that until at least one opposition candidate for the presidency of the Russian Federation appears, the West will continue to coddle Putin? After all, the West tried to talk to Navalny, to talk to Navalny, let’s say, to Yashin and other little-known people, but quickly realized it was useless. They’d rather wander around Berlin, shout, collect nonsense about NATO. They have no plans, they don’t even need power. Biden tried to meet with Navalny and the result was zero. And so on. Notice, Putin talks about Zelensky’s illegitimacy, about the Kyiv regime, about the junta. And who talks about Putin’s illegitimacy? Only bloggers. There is no legally significant proof. Who has proven that Putin is illegitimate?
And so on. That is, quite a long, long text, whose goal is essentially that no one claims the role other than Putin in the Russian Federation, and there is no one to talk to. Well, you know, in fact, there are quite a few investigations regarding Putin’s crimes. Actually, now, as it seems to me, there is already an understanding that Putin is a criminal. Right now, there is an initiative to create an international tribunal on the Putin regime. And within the framework of this tribunal, evidence of Putin’s crimes will be collected. I think that, in the end, this will play its role. So, I do not share your position. As for the fact that there is no one to talk to except Putin, well yes, at the moment, the political emigration or what is called the political opposition is quite fragmented, scattered, and it has no leader with whom one could negotiate. Well, you see, it’s important that any attempt to declare oneself a political leader who claims to be an alternative to Putin is very much tainted by imposture. That is, I do not see today the possibility of creating a political alternative to Putin. I emphasize once again, this is about the exhaustion of the historical project called Russia. This project is exhausted, it is coming to an end. And to try to lead this project, to create some alternative to Putin, seems to me a utopia. It is about dismantling this project. That is what it’s about. And in that, I am ready to participate. And discussing who can create an alternative to Putin to lead Russia seems to me a futile story. These are exactly the people you refer to with such irony. They are discussing the question of how they will return to Russia, someone will elect them somewhere, and they will, so to speak, lead the beautiful Russia of the future. I have not taken part in such kinds of discussions or projects.
Closing words Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream for today. And I want to remind you that at 1:00 PM we will have a conversation with Vladimir Osechkin, human rights defender and founder of the Gulagu.net project. See you at 8:00 PM. Please take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Skobov! Freedom to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/DoMjSXjGceU