Khamenei and Trump are celebrating a victory, but it’s unclear who they were fighting against. Orban is blocking Ukraine’s accession to the EU, while Trump is demanding a pardon for Netanyahu and halting the investigation into Russia’s crimes.
News Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 27. It’s currently 07:41 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Prisoner Exchange Link to heading
First, some good news — Russia and Ukraine have carried out another prisoner exchange. The exchange, as stated, was conducted on a parity basis, meaning the same number of prisoners were transferred on both sides. This was announced yesterday. Russian servicemen were brought to Belarus, as stated by the Russian Ministry of Defense. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian soldiers returned home to Ukraine.
Honestly, I don’t know if any of you, dear friends, understand this strange logistics — why not directly to Russia? Well, it’s not the most important question, of course, but still, this constant route through Belarus is somewhat puzzling. Oh well. Anyway, if that’s more convenient for them, so be it.
Orban Blocked Ukraine’s EU Accession and Sanctions Package Against Russia Link to heading
Now, a few less pleasant news items. First of all, in the category of “Baba Yaga is against” — meaning Viktor Orban is against. Viktor Orban has blocked the start of negotiations on Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. Twenty-six EU member states have called on Ukraine and the European Commission to step up efforts to prepare for Ukraine’s entry into the EU. But since accession must be approved unanimously, it’s impossible to start the first phase of negotiations until Hungary lifts its blockade.
In addition to blocking the beginning of negotiations on Ukraine’s EU membership, Hungary has also blocked general EU financial support for Ukraine. So — what’s happening now, along with Orban’s recent statements, which we’ve discussed on our channel — openly Ukraine-hostile and arguably even Nazi-like — shows that Hungary, under Orban’s leadership, has slid to rock bottom.
Furthermore, the EU summit failed to adopt new sanctions against Russia. It did manage to extend previous sanctions, but the new, tougher 18th sanctions package was not approved, again due to Hungary’s blockade.
Well, it may seem like nothing new, really — and yet it still feels like yet another bottom has been hit, both in terms of Ukraine and of Russia. This openly mafia-style and arguably now Nazi regime under Orban continues to shine in ever darker shades of brown.
Trump Advises the Israeli Court Link to heading
So, from the same category — more sounds from the empty barrel named Trump, this time coming from across the ocean. The President of the United States has once again called on the Israeli judicial system. The U.S. President urged Israeli courts to pardon Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently on trial for corruption. Or rather, he demanded that the case simply be dropped. Just like that — dropped. Well, you know, if Trump is asking… I can just imagine a judge in Israel thinking, “Well, if Trump asks, how can I say no? It’s Trump, after all.”
Trump wrote in his social media post that the U.S. saved Israel, apparently, and now it will also save Netanyahu. So, he’s the savior now. This is related to the fact that Netanyahu is expected to appear in court on Monday on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. This whole case has been dragging on since 2020. And Trump decided to step in, saying that Netanyahu is a warrior, a great hero who has done much for Israel, and he demanded — just flat-out demanded — that the trial be immediately canceled.
That’s the story. In addition, he declared that the case against Netanyahu is a witch hunt. In essence, I think his solidarity with Netanyahu stems not only from political considerations but also from personal ones, since Trump himself has been found guilty on a whole number of criminal charges. So here’s a man who genuinely believes he can command not only the courts in his own country — which he already tries to do — but courts around the world as well. Separation of powers? Never heard of it.
Iran Celebrates Victory Link to heading
Now, regarding the aftermath of the 12-day war. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, once again emerged — from his bunker or somewhere else — to congratulate the Iranian people on their victory over Israel and declared that Iran had delivered a powerful slap to the United States. This refers to the missile strike in the direction of an American base, about which Iran had warned the U.S. in advance, just in case, telling them to take cover. If that was a slap, it was more symbolic — more of a wind-up than an actual strike. Still, the words were spoken.
Trump, for his part, said that it was very harsh, that it was total destruction — meaning the destruction of Iran. As for what happens next, it seems to me that after his recent triumph, flaunting his laurel wreath at the NATO summit, Trump has lost all interest in the Middle East and is simply waiting for November, when he expects to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Because even regarding the nuclear deal with Iran, he said, “Maybe we’ll sign an agreement. I don’t know, I don’t think it’s necessary.” A stunning phrase — what was the point of it all then?
Khamenei, in turn, said that the U.S. entered into a direct war, realizing that without their intervention, Israel would be wiped off the face of the earth. Interestingly, Khamenei and Trump’s positions here oddly align: Trump claims he saved Israel, and Khamenei agrees in a way, saying that without U.S. involvement, Israel would have been erased. Quite the coincidence — remarkable, really. And once again, Khamenei stated that Islam had prevailed, delivering a powerful slap to America.
Trump Halts Investigation into Russian War Crimes Link to heading
Now, another move — in my opinion, a very significant one — from Trump is his demand to stop funding projects that investigate war crimes in Ukraine. The White House has issued recommendations to the State Department — and I doubt Marco Rubio will go against them — advising the termination of funding for about 20 programs investigating war crimes around the world. In particular, this includes investigations into Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
One of these is an $18 million grant to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office and a project aimed at collecting evidence across Ukraine of crimes against humanity, including sexual violence and torture. On Sundays, we usually have a weekly roundup with Mikhail Valentinovich Savva, who is directly involved in this. He has repeatedly stated that his project, which is also part of this documentation and evidence-gathering effort, does not depend on U.S. funding.
So I’d like to hear from him — we’ll wait for Sunday and get a detailed analysis and information on how exactly this decision by Trump impacts the investigative work. How much does Ukraine’s war crimes investigation rely on U.S. funding? I think that will be quite important to understand.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
So, that’s the kind of kaleidoscope of events we have — moving in all directions. On one hand, an unknown number of Ukrainian soldiers are returning home. On the other hand, we have events related to Orban’s actions, Trump’s actions — such is the multidirectional world we’re in today. To help make sense of today’s developments, Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky will join us. It’s Friday, and at 19:00 we’ll have our regular weekly conversation with Andrey Andreyevich Piontkovsky — be sure to synchronize your watches. And now, I’m moving on to answering your questions.
Is There Trump’s Help Link to heading
A subscriber who calls themselves “No to Lawlessness.” Igor, do you agree that without Trump’s help, Ukraine and some other countries have no chance of winning?
You know, let’s clarify the terminology — I’m not afraid. I would just like to clarify the terms. First of all, there never was and never will be any help from Trump. Trump has sometimes interfered. We know about U.S. aid — he blocked that aid, but he never actually helped. So the most that can be expected or hoped for from Trump — and, frankly, the whole dance around him and constant pandering to his ego — is simply for him not to interfere, not to tie people’s hands, as in the case with Israel. Because all those tales about Trump saving Israel are utter nonsense. Trump prevented Israel from finishing off Iran. I don’t know to what extent Israel intended to go, how far they planned to press, but at the very least Trump’s call for Israel to stop its strikes clearly worked in Iran’s favor. So, the main thing is that Trump doesn’t prevent the American military-industrial complex from making money selling weapons to Ukraine. If you consider that “help,” then okay, I won’t argue. I just wanted to clarify the term.
That’s why, overall, yes, the American military-industrial complex could of course sell weapons elsewhere too. But we shouldn’t forget that Ukraine is currently the most important, the largest consumer of American — and Western — weapons in the world. So I think what we’re really talking about here is not “help,” but what Trump himself loves to call a “deal.” That’s what this is really all about. I just wanted to clarify that concept.
And as for whether they have no chance of winning, well, I wouldn’t frame the question so categorically. But yes, of course, American weapons are extremely important. In some ways, they’re irreplaceable — but again, this isn’t about help; it’s about sales.
Might Makes Right Link to heading
Sergey Basov. “Common sense prevails,” writes Sergey Basov. “If America pulls the weight in NATO funding, then the attitude toward the U.S. should reflect that, not be the same as toward Estonia. Isn’t that right?”
Sergey Basov asks. You know, dear Sergey, I’d like to respond to you — and, while I’m at it, to all our viewers and listeners, since many listen without watching. So, I’d like to ask you: what exactly does “appropriate” mean here? Let’s clarify. How many times should others squat? And how many bows should they make? Yes. If the United States really does invest more than others in NATO, then what exactly should the other members do? How many times should they squat before the U.S., before Trump personally? How many bows should they perform?
This isn’t a legal question. Don’t think I’m just being sarcastic — I’m raising a serious point. Here’s another question: as we know, in the United Nations, the United States is the largest donor, right? So should voting rights also depend on the size of one’s economy or financial contribution? Let’s follow that logic further. In the UN, it’s the same — the U.S. is the biggest donor. So what does that mean? That the United States should have the decisive vote?
And in the European Union, there are also various countries, and yet each votes as one country, one vote. Although, of course, financial contributions vary. So, you see, this is a very convenient position for the ears of Putin and Trump — the idea that “whoever pays for the dinner gets to lead the dance.” But you know, that’s more of a gangster mentality. That’s not how things are done in modern international relations.
So, dear Sergey, I just propose we reflect together on how exactly this “appropriate” attitude toward the U.S. should manifest. What, specifically, should that look like? That when the President or Secretary of Defense of the U.S. appears, everyone should rise and salute? What exactly are others supposed to do?
This is an alliance, a bloc, a union. Let me go back to different approaches to international relations. There was once the Brezhnev Doctrine. It essentially stated that the Soviet Union had the right to interfere in the internal affairs of all Warsaw Pact and Comecon countries. It was the doctrine used to justify the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, etc. A doctrine that meant: all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. And the Soviet Union, as the “big brother,” reserved the right to dominate.
The Brezhnev Doctrine — an imperialist stance. The West has seemingly moved away from that approach. So, despite how convincing your argument may sound at first glance, I must say: you ask, “Isn’t that right?” I respond: No, it’s not. And I’ve tried to explain why.
Why Read Books Link to heading
Tatyana. Thank you for your response about the nature of Jewish antisemitism. Could you please tell me how to answer the question “Why should people read books?” — especially when it comes from someone who seems to be doing just fine without reading. This could be a question from a school student, for example. I usually get flustered and don’t know how to give a short, convincing answer. After all, reading is absolutely unrelated to material success. And that kind of blunt argument is hard to counter. The same goes for questions like “Why listen to good music?”, “Why visit art galleries?”, or “Why watch good films?” I can’t find an answer. “For pleasure,” “to broaden one’s horizons,” “to shape personality” — these answers don’t work either. People say, “We’ll live just fine without all that intellectual stuff” — and they do. I feel totally at a loss. Or is it that everyone has their own thing, and I shouldn’t even try?
You know, dear Tatyana, that really is an interesting and rather unique question. You see, every time there’s a demand to answer briefly, I… I’m not a big fan of Hegel, but I liked what he wrote in a letter to Auguste Comte. Comte indignantly asked him why his prefaces were always so long — in fact, why his books were these massive bricks you could kill someone with. Hegel sharply replied, “My thoughts cannot be expressed briefly and in French.” That’s how I feel. Brevity is not always the soul of wit.
So, dear Tatyana, first of all, I would like to introduce a concept into our thinking about this question — not just “why read books,” but also why listen to good music, visit art galleries, and so on. I would introduce the idea of the fullness of life. Yes, indeed, there is no direct connection between reading and success in terms of material wealth or money. Reading books is not a key to a bank account or any other material benefit. That’s true. Maybe indirectly it helps, but probably not much.
What do I mean by the fullness of life? It’s the sum of all the joy a person can get from different spheres. For example, there is something called “muscle joy.” Anyone who has done physical exercise or played sports knows what I mean — when every cell in your body is shouting how healthy and strong it is. That’s muscle joy. Sure, you don’t have to exercise or play sports, but then you’re depriving yourself of that piece of life. You can live without love — emotional or physical — but you’re cutting yourself off from that aspect of life.
You can also choose never to listen to music or just listen to the same two bits of garbage. But then you’re cutting out yet another side of life. The same idea came up clearly during the pandemic — another facet of fullness. When people lost their sense of taste while sick, they suddenly understood what pleasure food brings. I’m not talking about gluttony or indulgence, just simple enjoyment of tasty food and drinks. And when food loses its flavor, you realize that a small piece of life’s fullness has been taken away.
The same goes for music. And the same goes for books. The world of books is another part of that fullness of life. You can choose to do without it.
That’s one side of it. The other side is that the world of books is still a somewhat more exclusive window into the world of knowledge than others. Sure, you can get by with just the internet, but books offer a different mechanism for grasping the world. There’s a lot to say about that — but I’ll just leave it at this: fullness of life — that’s the most important thing.
Why Did Trump Help Israel? How to Explain It to a Child Link to heading
This is what Nadezhda asks: My nine-year-old granddaughter is interested in politics? Wow, that’s my girl! I tell her the facts, but I can’t always explain the reasons behind them. How would you explain this to a child? You have grandchildren, don’t you? Why did Trump help Israel? That’s one of Maya’s latest questions.
Well, first of all, dear Nadezhda, warm regards to Maya. She sounds like a very interesting person — growing, or perhaps already grown! This time, I’ll try to keep my answer short. The United States of America has, for some time now, traditionally supported Israel. There are several reasons for this — and this was true even before Trump. He was, in a way, more of a supporter of Israel than previous presidents. One could say it’s part of his character — as a person and a president who was very, very oriented toward supporting Israel. That’s true.
But in general, for the past few decades, the U.S. has always helped Israel. The reasons are as follows. First, from humanitarian considerations: the United States supports the existence of a Jewish state which, from the very first moment of its creation, has been threatened by a hostile environment. So the first reason is humanitarian. For example, Iran, just recently, has stated at the state level that it aims to destroy Israel. That’s a very clear example.
The second reason is that Israel is a democratic state, and the United States has traditionally supported democracies around the world against tyranny. That’s a second layer of reasoning.
And finally, the third reason is more domestic: there are about 8 million Jews living in the United States. Please don’t jump on me for being too precise — I understand that the number of Jews in the U.S. is always a matter of debate. Still, the range is roughly between 6.5 and 8.5 million. Jews are a relatively close-knit group and they are active as lobbyists. So to a certain extent — and not just Jews but also religious Americans — they advocate for supporting Israel.
So there’s a lobbying factor too. And since American leaders — including the president, who is elected — depend on voter support, they are influenced by the opinions of their voters, especially the most active ones who advocate for their interests. That’s the third part.
But as for weighing these three factors — humanitarian, democratic, and lobbying — I wouldn’t presume to rank them. Each of them matters.
“Russian Profanity Is Sexualized.” Have You Noticed Swearing in Other Languages? Link to heading
A question from Ilya. I heard — I think it was on Sheitelman’s show — one of his subscribers made a thought-provoking comment that Russian profanity is very sexualized. And that this is what makes it unique, different from the obscene language in other languages. Of course, “unique” here is meant in a negative sense. Have you ever paid attention to the nature of swearing in other languages? Where does this sexualization in Russian swearing come from? As far as I know, much of the filthiest Russian language was borrowed and adapted from Turkic languages.
Dear Ilya! Well now, you and I have been acquainted in absentia for some time, so I always take your questions and reflections with great respect. But here, somehow, you’ve managed to transmit several myths at once.
First of all, the Turkic origin of Russian profanity is a very widespread legend. Back when I taught lectures and seminars at the university, I had at least several sessions devoted to the phenomenon of profanity in Russian culture. I had to explain to students why the Turkic version — and also the Mongolian version — of the origin of Russian profanity is incorrect. Russian profanity has entirely Slavic roots.
I know of several 19th-century authors who proposed the Mongolian origin theory, but today both the Turkic and Mongolian versions have been completely disproven. This is one of those rare cases where the disproof is 100% conclusive. For instance, birch bark manuscripts have been found that contain swear words — from a time when there were no Turkic or Mongolian peoples anywhere nearby. Also, certain engraved stones in the Polotsk church — a church built later, but the stones are from an earlier period — contain strong language. So, yes, Russian profanity has purely Slavic origins.
Now, as for the idea that the sexual focus of Russian swearing is unique — that’s another myth, though not one to be proud of. Some people boast that “Russian swearing is the most profane in the world.” That’s false. Let’s not start reciting English swear words here, but the most common English curse is also explicitly sexual.
And as for origins — they’re fairly well understood. It’s connected to ancient pagan fertility rites. These were magical rituals with sacred meaning tied to agriculture and the fertility of the land. The act of inseminating the Earth was symbolized by the most basic swear word — the one that references intercourse with the mother. Everyone knows it, so I won’t repeat it. But “mother” here stands for “Mother Earth.”
These were magical incantations to ensure fertility. Why did it become taboo? Because with the adoption of Christianity, these words became forbidden and were used only as insults. Swearing moved from the sacred to the profane, from public to marginal. But it could never be eradicated.
Attempts to suppress profanity have gone on for centuries. It moved into folk culture — puppeteers, jesters, etc. But no one ever succeeded in wiping it out — not the Church, not Soviet prudes. Profanity is part of culture, just like in other countries.
By the way, the four core Russian swear words we know today weren’t always four. There were originally three. In the 18th century, under Empress Anna, one more was added — the word for a fallen woman. Before that, it was entirely acceptable in public speech. But that’s just a side note.
So I hope I’ve answered Ilya’s question.
About the State Duma Link to heading
Arkady Mikhailov. You mentioned that the State Duma is something like a nominal institution, but it does pass laws that aren’t always aimed at improving people’s lives.
Well, of course, yes. Of course, the State Duma is. First of all, it has extremely limited agency, because all these laws are actually only passed if they’ve been approved by the presidential administration. By the way, this isn’t just the case with the current caricature of a Duma — even from its very first convocation, the influence of the presidential administration was immense. Passing any law that the presidential administration categorically opposed was practically impossible. I experienced this firsthand. As soon as you raise a law about television or public broadcasting, that’s it — you realize you’ve touched a high-voltage wire. The response from the presidential administration was crushing, and their influence was dominant. Yes. Even in situations where, formally, the majority in the State Duma didn’t belong to pro-presidential factions. So, well, but in the current situation, that doesn’t remove responsibility, you understand? The fact that they’re not fully autonomous actors doesn’t change the fact that they are all criminals. Because they passed, they supported this war simply by voting for it. So in fact, these people committed criminal acts by voting for the war. That means they are still responsible.
Why the Kerch Bridge Is Being Targeted Specifically by Underwater Drones Link to heading
So, Yulia? As always, a few questions. Please explain why the Kerch Bridge is being targeted specifically with maritime drones and tons of explosives? After all, the piles are built to last for centuries. Why not launch two waves of drones from above — not necessarily along the length, but around the perimeter, etc.?
You know, dear Yulia, I’m not ready to discuss something I know nothing about. You’re suggesting — well, perhaps you’re an explosives expert? I certainly am not. So let’s do it this way: I’ll try, if appropriate, to ask this question to someone who is a specialist.
On the Causes of Antisemitism and the Role of Christian Culture Link to heading
So, the second question from Yulia. Your program has been asked multiple times about the causes of antisemitism. But what do you think — did the Christian religion further influence it? Just based on location, I think yes. Like, the bad Jews betrayed and crucified the good Christ. If these events had happened in, say, India, people would have hated Indians. But I’m curious whether this was an addition to already existing antisemitism or if Christianity actually served as the trigger?
Well, you know, so to speak. The persecution of Jews, the bad attitude toward Jews — it appeared, of course, long before, long before Christianity. And there’s another question here: whether to call this antisemitism or, so to speak, simply persecution of Jews — that’s a question. Because antisemitism, as a term, comes with modern connotations. That is, it implies a certain system of beliefs with a multilayered nature. But it is well known that there was ancient antisemitism long before the emergence of Christianity. That is, pagans in the ancient era — maybe not en masse, but still — held prejudices against Jews, accusing them of secret and open crimes against the dominant religion, of undermining the economy, and so on. Generally, of disloyalty, among other things. In fact, it was in the ancient period that something like a precursor to the blood libel took shape — accusations of Jews performing human sacrifices, cannibalism, and so on. The blood libel wasn’t articulated in the ancient period as it was later in the Christian era, but it already existed in some form. And besides, you see, if we take the Greeks — the Greeks considered anything not written in Greek as barbaric, and so they couldn’t comprehend how Judaism could claim any sort of superiority. They viewed Jews as culturally inferior because they didn’t write in Greek. As for — well, I won’t go into detail about Roman persecution of Jews, involving Tiberius and a number of other emperors — that’s well documented. But the point is, antisemitism in antiquity, and even earlier in Egypt, did not have a systematic nature. Christianity, however, yes — it gave antisemitism a systemic character and essentially shaped its modern form. So, was it a trigger? Maybe not a trigger, but certainly a catalyst. Antisemitism within Christianity was indeed part of the structure. Although it’s clear that Christianity originally emerged as a sect within Judaism, and nothing is more vicious than intra-species competition. Initially, Christianity was indeed a variant that arose within the Jewish milieu, above all. And the crucifixion of Christ itself — you know that famous joke from Shirley-Merry: “They created him, they crucified him themselves.” It’s our internal Jewish dispute. But Christianity undoubtedly played a significant role in the emergence of antisemitism — that is, in shaping this fully formed version of antisemitism.
How Long Will the War Last? Link to heading
A question from Herpes. What do you think, how much longer will the war last? Just your personal feeling, intuition, sixth sense, any kind of sense, etc.
Well, dear MUS, I’ve already answered this question. Again, based on a combination of information I get from experts, my own attempts to analyze and project the current trends into the future — this kind of extrapolation — everything suggests the war will continue until 2027. Beyond that, the planning horizon becomes blurry. There are just too many possible factors, making it very hard to predict. But I really hope — I repeat, I really hope — that a series of events will interrupt the inertia of the war. 2027 will definitely still be a wartime year, but that’s just the momentum. What events could intervene and disrupt that inertia — I don’t know. So I’m answering this question as best I can.
About the Word “Intervjúer” Link to heading
Larisa Smirnova. Excuse me, please, for a question that might seem like a correction, but it’s not. In the word “intervjúer” you place the stress on the letter Ю. In my 1991 dictionary, the stress is on the next letter — Е. My dictionary is outdated, I don’t know anything about this.
I can only say that I lack what many people have — absolute literacy, that kind of linguistic instinct that completely eliminates the possibility of mistakes. I don’t have that. But you know, I’ve also heard such corrections, but I just can’t make myself say intervyúer. My tongue trips over that word. Intervjúer — it comes from intervjú, and intervyúer, well, I don’t know, it’s just hard. Of course, if there were some kind of mass movement or call for it — but I don’t currently see the source of such a movement. So for now — intervjúer. It seems to me that this isn’t a strict rule, a categorical demand to place the stress on the final syllable.
How Do Globalization and National Identity Fit Together? Link to heading
A question from Bastard Jones. Our colleague Jones complains — says he’s not lucky with the questions and answers on the channel. And finally, here’s a question: I don’t remember exactly, but I think I heard from you that the most optimal path for humanity is globalization. I believe it was in the context of Putin’s isolationism. So how does that align with humanity’s national identity? The separateness of nations, carriers of culture. Wouldn’t it be better for humanity to realize that a unified language, unified measurements and governance systems, the absence of borders — more or less refined — work much better in democratic societies than archaic and cave-like customs, and that national traditions belong in a museum? Or am I looking too far ahead? Is globalization just an intermediate stage? How do you see it, or what do you believe? The right path for humanity? If we abstract from the current state of humanity — what’s your cyberpunk? 2077, or maybe even 3077? And one more thing — since we’re on the topic of future visions. I remember you were once looking for a topic to discuss with Dmitry Glukhovsky. Well, his Metro universe began with a war between Israel and Iran. It turned into a nuclear apocalypse. I think you’ll find plenty of other interesting themes for a conversation — just like you do with Shenderovich as a journalist talking to a writer, right?
Shenderovich and I know each other personally, so we have some common topics to discuss — and also to argue about, by the way. So that’s a different story. As for Glukhovsky — well, yes, probably, I agree. Thank you for the suggestion as well. Regarding the relationship between globalization and the preservation of national cultures — well, listen, there’s nothing more globalized right now than Europe. Yes. I mean, the European Union is a glimpse into the future, in my view — or at least, I hope so. At any rate, that trend is there. So, look: the fact that the EU has abolished borders, eliminated customs duties, and is creating a common legal framework — that absolutely doesn’t mean that Italian culture ceases to exist. And it certainly doesn’t mean, for instance, that Scandinavian or British culture disappears. I don’t see any problems here. Culture is culture — and economic or political unity is another matter. It’s about integration in some areas, preservation of identity in others. I don’t see any issues with that.
Discussion Between Sheitelman and Novikov Link to heading
So? Two questions about the discussion between Ilya Novikov and Mikhail Sheitelman on the show. This is a question from Lena Bobkova and a question from a writer. So, I’ll answer both at once — I haven’t seen it. It caught my interest, I made a note of it for myself and saved it. I’ll definitely watch it. If I find it interesting, then yes — it’s worth reading about. As far as I understand, the central point is a harsh critique of Zelensky from Novikov and Sheitelman’s commentary. Interesting — I’ll watch it, read it, and report back.
Arrest Warrant for Putin for the Deportation of Ukrainian Children Link to heading
Irina. What about the arrest warrant for Putin for the deportation of Ukrainian children? As far as I know, it’s still in force. So Putin is guaranteed a life sentence anyway — with or without war crimes? Or has that too been postponed until better times?
Dear Irina, as I understand it, this is a reaction to the information that a new international tribunal has been created — which, from the outset, somewhat neutered itself by excluding the possibility of trying that trio: Putin, Mishustin, and Lavrov. But that’s the newly established international tribunal. Separately, the International Criminal Court still exists and continues its work. These are different institutions. So the ICC’s arrest warrant remains in force. The creation of a new judicial body does not affect the existing one. So everything’s in order on that front.
Self-Hatred and Why Do Jews Get Privileges? “Can You Tell a Georgian Jew from a Georgian?” Link to heading
Alexander asks: Igor Ivanovich, continuing the topic of Jewish antisemitism — why do Jews get privileges again? Specifically: are there similar studies on other peoples? For example, Ukrainian Ukrainophobia. Let’s set aside the fact that the Mariupol theater was bombed by a man with a Ukrainian surname, or the case of the doctor. Let’s set aside that the imperial decree wasn’t drafted by Buryats or Chechens, or Ryazan or Nizhny Novgorod people, but by a Ukrainian — Mikhail Yuzefovich. There’s also the striking example of Oles Buzina. Or a couple of Ukrainians — some would say they weren’t Ukrainians but imperialists. But you wouldn’t say that about Jews. So the next question: is this problem limited to European Jewry, or is it global? And the final question to the whole audience: can you tell a Georgian Jew from a Georgian?
Well, I can answer the last question very simply. Of course — easily. I can answer that off the top of my head. Just like you can easily distinguish a Mountain Jew from, say, a Lezgin or an Iranian. The difference is actually very simple — a person self-identifies, for example, as a Polish Jew. By the way, that same study I conducted back in the day on the Jewish people in Russia showed that Mountain Jews actually had the strongest sense of identity. That is, their criteria for who is considered a Jew are much stricter than those of the broader Jewish population in Russia. This is due to the process of assimilation — and the question is, into what environment does assimilation occur? Jews in Russian-speaking areas assimilated into one environment, yes? While Mountain Jews assimilated into mountain peoples, who tend to have much stricter requirements for national identity. Hence the stronger national identity among Mountain Jews. I saw this firsthand — you know, when you go over a questionnaire with an interviewer, when you talk to the respondent, you can feel it: Mountain Jews are, so to speak, much more “Jewish” than the average Ashkenazi.
Now, to the main question — about self-hatred. You know, I personally researched this myself — with my own hands, my own mind, through my own work — I studied Jewish self-hatred. So I can speak about this with confidence. As for similar studies on self-hatred among other peoples — well, surely they exist. But first of all, I haven’t conducted them, and second, I haven’t seen such texts on Ukrainian self-hatred. Though I can immediately name at least a dozen examples — like Arestovych, who recently said so many nasty things about the Ukrainian people that, well — let’s just say even people on Channel One would be outraged by that kind of Ukrainophobia. To conduct such a study — a serious one, not a superficial one — requires serious effort. Serious funding, time, effort, the development of a research concept, methodology, hypotheses, and so on. I don’t know of any such serious studies. A journalistic or op-ed-style investigation — sure, that’s easy to do.
As for whether “imperialists” are Ukrainians or not — no, Ukrainians are definitely not imperialists by definition. There are imperialists among Ukrainians, yes. But Ukrainians are not an imperial people. By the way, there are also imperialists among Jews and among Georgians. So that’s not an issue. But Ukrainians as a whole — not an imperial people.
Now, regarding the question of other peoples — like why it’s always about Jews. For example, I had a graduate student who wrote a thesis on Udmurt self-hatred. The topic was about Udmurt journalism and the Udmurt language. As part of her research, she conducted a sociological study in Udmurtia — in Izhevsk and other cities — and she came to a very interesting conclusion. She documented the fact of Udmurt self-hatred: Udmurts are embarrassed to speak their language in cities. This is a widespread phenomenon.
So again — studying self-hatred among various peoples is a separate, important, and interesting topic. But you just can’t do everything. Especially because it’s not something that can be done off the cuff. You can write an article based on open sources, just by analyzing them — sure. But that won’t be a high-quality study capable of uncovering hidden realities.
How Should a Young Male Lecturer Establish Authority with Students? Link to heading
This question comes from an unidentified user or subscriber: What’s the right way for a young male lecturer to establish authority with students? If you loosen the reins even a bit, they start climbing on your head or showing disrespect. What’s your advice?
Dear colleague, you know — I have one recommendation. First of all, behave naturally. Don’t try to fake anything. Don’t strain yourself trying to be a “buddy,” inviting students to interact outside the department or the classroom. Though that can be done — still, communication should be respectful and among equals. But there must be distance. Maintaining distance is essential. It’s important not to walk into a classroom carrying your own authority in front of you. Just behave normally — always use vy (formal “you”). Using patronymics with students also works really well — at least, that’s my thing. I know many people who address students informally (ty) and it works great for them. Everyone has their own style of communicating with students — it’s not something that’s advertised. Humor helps a lot. As soon as you sense over-familiarity, condescension, or rudeness, humor is very effective. Harshness — when a professor starts acting like a tyrant — I don’t know, that seems like a step down in terms of interaction quality. Calm, respectful communication — as with equals. But the most important thing is your ability to hold the audience’s attention.
On the Development of Humanism and Overpopulation of the Planet Link to heading
So, a question from Igor: Posed a bit abstractly, to break up the political topics — a question on the development of humanism. Do modern humanists take into account the continuous reproduction of humans as a factor in the overpopulation of the planet by a single species — namely, humans? In the wild, population control is built into the mechanism of evolution, often taking cruel forms. But humanism assumes the value of every human life, of each individual. Yet sooner or later, a moment of critical overpopulation will come. And it’s not just about food crises or ecology — people simply won’t have personal space to be alone. What then? How can population be regulated within today’s framework of humane values? Please don’t talk about the imminent colonization of Antarctica, the ocean floor, or other planets. That won’t happen before the crisis hits.
Dear namesake! The problem you raise has been discussed, well, since at least the beginning — no, sorry, the beginning of the 19th century. It was brought up in particular by Malthus, who wrote his classic Essay on the Principle of Population in the first third of the 19th century. It’s a staple among humanities students — many will know or have read this book. Malthus believed that without natural checks like war, famine, and disease, population would grow geometrically, which would inevitably lead to catastrophe, since food production grows only arithmetically. That was his idea — if you don’t somehow kill people off, population explodes.
But what can I say? Modern science considers the Malthusian approach inadequate. Why? Because Malthus didn’t account for new sources of resources. Take Israel, for instance — where something like 1% of the population can feed not just the entire country but even a large portion of Europe or Russia. The situation has changed — new technologies, new stages of agricultural and industrial revolutions, the “green revolution” — all that has reshaped things. That’s one part of the equation.
The second is the drop in birthrates in industrial societies — often to what’s called the replacement level. In many places, birthrates have fallen so low that population either shrinks or just replaces itself: one generation leaves, another of roughly the same size takes its place. This is sometimes called the “female trap.”
The issue you describe does still exist — but mainly on the African continent. That’s the primary region experiencing current overpopulation. There was a time when China was the demographic explosion zone — not anymore. China has now been surpassed by India in terms of total population. And even India, in terms of growth rates, is being outpaced by Africa.
Why? Because higher living standards lead to lower population growth. The better the quality of life, the less threat of overpopulation. So that’s the overall trend. As for the kind of threat you’re describing — it exists, but it’s local, not global.
On Freedom of Speech and Propaganda. Where Is the Line? Link to heading
Now another question from Igor. Stella, could you please talk about the criteria for distinguishing such concepts as propaganda and the use of freedom of speech? After all, freedom of speech is praised, while propaganda is criticized and banned. Where is the line? Freedom of speech is when they say what I like. Propaganda is what my enemies say. That’s not right. I’ll explain why. I just ask that you do it without using mutually permeable definitions like truth and lies. Even a cosmic mind doesn’t know the exact meaning of those concepts. Especially since propagandists who freely express their opinions may consciously or unconsciously use both.
Dear namesake, you know what I like most of all? Well, not most of all, but what I really like. It’s this manner of asking a question and immediately demanding and, so to speak, presenting your own answer and forbidding certain kinds of responses. It kind of reminds me of that children’s game—remember it? I’m sure you do. Remember: “The lady sent 100 rubles”? Don’t say yes or no, don’t name black or white. Well, I haven’t played that in a long time, and that includes conversations with you. So let’s do it this way: I’ll still answer the way I think is right, not the way you demand. Because what you’re saying—I don’t agree with it. I don’t believe that freedom of speech is when they say what I like, and propaganda is when my enemies speak. Let me explain in detail. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to engage in propaganda, obviously. Because what is propaganda? Propaganda is the promotion of a certain way of thinking, the promotion of certain ideas, a certain ideology or worldview. That’s not always a bad thing. For example, I don’t think promoting a healthy lifestyle is a bad thing—and that is definitely propaganda. So, the difference lies in the fact that freedom of speech and propaganda are not concepts of the same order, you see? You can’t oppose them to each other, because they come from different categories. Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental values. And propaganda is one type of media activity. So they don’t exclude each other. As for truth and lies, that’s actually a very simple matter. I don’t think we need to invoke cosmic intelligence to understand what that is. So, regarding propaganda and freedom of speech—they simply don’t contradict each other. You see, sometimes propaganda is outright lying. Yes, sometimes it’s direct lies, sometimes it’s a phenomenon hostile to society. But freedom of speech doesn’t prohibit propaganda. In general, freedom of speech is limited not only in cases of propaganda, but also in expressions that are not propaganda—for example, insults, slander. Freedom of speech limits those too, but they’re not propaganda. So, you see, you’re comparing green and hot—these are concepts from different categories.
About Georgia Link to heading
A question from Tesla. There are several points here that are more like comments than questions—remarks, rebuttals regarding my statement. Let me explain what this is about. Here’s where the listener asks a question about Georgia. If I’m not mistaken, first of all, Yushchenko stood next to Saakashvili on stage during a large gathering in Georgia. So there was definitely political support. Then there was apparently support in the form of some military equipment, and there were also Ukrainian volunteers in Georgia at that time supporting Georgia. I don’t remember an official Georgian-Ukrainian army, but volunteers were definitely there. And regarding Crimea—at that point, considering the massive infiltration of Russian agents into the army and special services in Crimea, Ukraine resisted as best it could. The Russian occupation, especially at the level of individual military units in Crimea… and this was while Obama and Merkel were selling out Ukraine, trying to avoid resistance, supposedly to resolve everything diplomatically later. That’s why I believe your claim that Ukraine was somehow passive both in the 2008 conflict with Georgia and in the annexation of Crimea is unfair.
Same here—let me find and read a few similar comments, then I’ll respond to them all at once. Hello. Igor Aleksandrovich, you’re mistaken. Ukraine fought for Georgia. Google carefully and you’ll learn about the air defense systems transferred to Georgia and how President Yushchenko was in Georgia during very critical days. Hendrik Hossa Aleksandrovich, you are wrong. In 2008 Ukraine supplied military equipment and weapons to Georgia worth 2.5 billion dollars. There are also interviews with our veterans. When the armed conflict broke out in Abkhazia, on Georgian territory, which was of course supported by Russia, and when Georgian refugees were fleeing and trapped in the mountains, only Ukraine provided them with aid. We’ve always tried to support Georgia and the Georgian people. Please don’t accuse Ukrainians of indifferent inaction. I strongly ask you to voice this correction.
Voiced. I’ll explain further now. So. Basically, let’s not get too heated or come at me with sabers and pitchforks. We just need to understand what my words were actually about. These were in response to criticisms that Europe didn’t show up for Ukraine’s war. That was one of the questions—there was some pretty tough criticism of Europe, and talk about how Europe didn’t show up for Ukraine’s war. You see, everything you’re saying—when I said, “Excuse me, but what about Georgia?”—I meant that Ukraine also didn’t show up for Georgia’s war. What’s happening now—tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine, the building of joint military factories with Germany, with France, the transfer of jets, tanks, air defense systems… and you say Europe didn’t show up for Ukraine’s war? All the things you’ve mentioned—constant political support, constant military aid, constant material assistance—excuse me, Ukraine is currently surviving on funds that are being provided by, among others, Europe. The Ukrainian economy, life in Ukrainian cities now is only possible because, first and foremost, Europe is helping Ukraine. And you say Europe didn’t show up for Ukraine’s war—and that gives me grounds to say that Ukraine didn’t show up for Georgia’s war. Because yes—what do you want? Do you want Europeans to fight on the front lines against Russia? They don’t want to. Just as, yes, there were Ukrainian volunteers—this is well known. But the Ukrainian army did not fight on the side of Georgia against Russia. Again—you need to understand the context, and no one is criticizing Ukraine here. I’m simply saying that the accusations against Europe are unfair. What does Europe owe to anyone? When European politicians were elected, did they promise in their campaigns that they would go to war with Russia? They didn’t, right? So… So what? That’s why, you see, there’s no need to lash out. No one is attacking Ukraine, no one is accusing it—at least not here, on this channel. I don’t do that, and I won’t allow anyone else to do it either. But we still have to understand that countries have their own interests. And just as Ukraine as a state didn’t go to war against Russia—Ukraine didn’t go to war against Russia on Georgia’s side either. That didn’t happen. There was political support, yes, certainly. But it was the same as, or even much less than, what Europe is giving now. Europe is simply bigger than Ukraine, and so the support is immeasurably greater. And the significance of that support for Ukraine now is, of course, immeasurably greater than the significance of Ukrainian support during Russia’s aggression. So, well, we just need to hear what’s actually being said, right? And not charge at an open door.
“There Will Be No Tribunal”? Link to heading
All right, tribunal. DUPONT Let’s be honest. There won’t be any tribunal until the Russians themselves hand him over for trial. So the Council of Europe gave a fairly reasonable signal: remove him from power, hand him over for prosecution. But that’s unlikely. That’s why the entire civilized world will condemn him—this nation—and Ukrainians will curse them for all eternity.
You know, I… I can say right away that as for the claim that there will be no tribunal—I can’t predict the future. And I don’t know. Maybe there will be a tribunal, maybe there won’t. History brings surprises. Right. But to establish an international tribunal and immediately declare that we won’t try the main war criminals because of their positions—I still believe that’s wrong. And calls to remove them from power and hand them over for prosecution—well then, what’s the point of an international tribunal if Russia itself is capable of judging its own criminals? That doesn’t make sense. That’s why I think I maintain a critical attitude toward this strange message from the European Union, which created an international tribunal and then immediately said, “Well, we won’t try Putin, Lavrov, and Mishustin.” Why not? No one’s demanding they be tried right now. But clearly this was done under U.S. pressure. It’s another bow, another bending over backwards to Trump—another triple kowtow to Trump. Why? It’s unclear. I don’t think—see, it seems to me—it’s overkill. It’s excessive, right? You should speak politely with him, don’t pick fights, but constantly bending over is, in my view, also wrong.
On Zelensky’s Dress Code Link to heading
So, and here as well, as I understand it, this is also written by Dupont. As for the business suit, Igor is mistaken, as are some others. Look more closely—don’t just read the press headlines. Zelensky—only the color changed from khaki to black—was, as always, wearing a distinctive field jacket from a Ukrainian brand and tactical boots, just in black. It looks similar to what Defense Minister Umerov wore, who was dressed in a jacket in the style of Dr. Evil from a well-known movie.
Dear colleagues! I am, after all, capable of telling the difference between a T-shirt and a jacket. You can call it a field jacket if you want, but it was a jacket—just look at the now-famous video where the President of Ukraine gets out of the car, greets the guards, and walks into the NATO meeting hall. He was wearing a jacket. He was wearing a jacket. And I don’t need to read headlines. That’s quite enough for me. Although, of course, my eyesight isn’t very good—but I can see well enough.
Oleg Ganin And Zelensky in a jacket—isn’t that bootlicking?
No, it’s not bootlicking. I think it’s a rational consideration—taking into account the interests of his country. No, definitely not.
On the Attack on Iran and Trump’s Reaction Link to heading
KRAVCHUK Igor, I think the attack on Iran really scared Trump and made him very nervous. He was afraid of being left one-on-one. A turning point happened, and he realized that aside from NATO countries, there’s nowhere else and no one else to turn to for help. It’s the same story as during 9/11—well, obviously, referring to… the 2001 terrorist attacks—when Article 5 was invoked. That’s why he suddenly became so kind and polite.
Dear colleagues, I don’t think so. I believe Trump showed up at the NATO summit basking in glory. He was outraged at those who tried to spoil his moment of triumph. He was reveling in the praise—he accepted the flattery. That’s why he wasn’t scared of anything. I really don’t understand what Trump would have to be afraid of. Afraid of whom? Iran? They won’t reach him. So I don’t think there was any fear on Trump’s part. He’s the triumphant one. He’s wearing a laurel wreath on his head. He’s already looking for a place to hang his Nobel Peace Prize—or rather, not hang it, but spend the money that comes with it.
Remark from Max Link to heading
So, a few remarks from Max. A sort of sarcastic question: I’m moving toward solidarity with those celebrating Iran’s victory.
What does that even mean? Am I just sitting quietly and suddenly start half-heartedly celebrating, whispering chants and half-cheering Iran’s victory? Very strange phrasing. If I state that Germany defeated France in 1940, does that mean I’m expressing some solidarity with Hitler? Original.
I’m a pessimist. The most optimistic assessments say the damage is significant but not critical. The program is delayed by months or years, but not stopped. And what is victory? It’s the achievement of a goal. Iran had a simple goal: to wait it out, preserve the regime, and maintain the ability to continue the program. After the war ended, it achieved that. To my deep regret. For me, Iran’s defeat would have meant forced access to its facilities, being compelled into transparency, or regime collapse or demilitarization through military strikes. The latter would definitely have been possible if the U.S. were functioning normally. None of that happened.
Dear Max, I don’t know what I did to deserve such a rebuke, but I had a simple understanding of your point—you basically repeated what you wrote in your previous comment yesterday. Have you remained on that position? I understand your point of view. But regarding Iran’s goal—Iran’s goal is the destruction of Israel. That’s its stated goal. And that goal has not been achieved. So can what happened be considered Iran’s victory? I think not. Iran has a declared goal—the destruction of Israel. That goal has not been achieved. Victory? No. Avoided defeat? Yes. But that’s not victory. That’s why you and I have some verbal, semantic discrepancies. But overall, I also view what happened with pessimism.
Yuriy Fedorov Link to heading
Lena Plotkin Invite Yuriy Fedorov. He explained about the destruction in Iran,
yes? Yuriy Evgenievich is always a welcome guest on our channel. We’ll definitely invite him.
Retreat and the Threat of Encirclement Link to heading
Here’s another comment from Max: Rather strange reasoning—whether to surrender cities or not. France didn’t retreat because it was trying to preserve soldiers’ lives, but because it was getting beaten and beaten. The USSR didn’t retreat out of some great regard for soldiers’ lives either.
And who mentioned soldiers’ lives in the USSR? Excuse me, that’s a bit off-track.
Military conditions don’t ask—they dictate whether to retreat or not. Many have forgotten the phrase “Debaltseve cauldron.” But the Ukrainian military made the right choices. When there’s a threat of encirclement, troops pull back. Leningrad wasn’t surrendered only because it could be held. If it couldn’t have been, it would have been surrendered. Moreover, it could have been supplied better—like the army was supplied. The capability was there, but there was no confidence it could be held. And if that’s the case, then why feed it? That’s the grim logic.
You know, dear Maxim, what completely disappears from your reasoning is the military and political logic of military and political leadership. According to you, it seems: if it can be held, then it’s held; if it can’t be, then it’s surrendered. As if the commander-in-chief, the political leadership, the military leadership have nothing to do with it. But they do. You see, there is always a choice—to retreat or to hold. Let me take the first example that comes to mind: Kutuzov had a choice—defend Moscow or leave it to Napoleon. He chose to abandon it to Napoleon. But he could have defended it, just as in many other cases. If we look at World War II, there are countless examples where a decision had to be made to surrender a city or defend it. And this was by no means always dictated purely by capabilities. You understand? Stalin had a choice: to defend Leningrad—spending resources, manpower, and lives—or to focus forces elsewhere. I’m not making claims here, I’m not participating in those debates, but I’m also not part of the many arguments criticizing Ukrainian military and political leadership for defending certain cities at the cost of soldiers’ lives. Some say they should have surrendered. You see, the threat of encirclement—it arises anytime someone breaks into a defensive line. Whether to pull out or avoid such “cauldrons” is another matter. So I’ll stress again: there is always a choice—retreat or hold. And that choice is up to the military and sometimes also the political leadership. So to say, in your logic, that military conditions “don’t ask but dictate”—that’s a mistake. That’s not right. Military conditions may dictate many things, but it’s up to commanders and political leaders to respond. So what we get in the end is the result of both the demands of the battlefield and the decisions of commanders—and sometimes political leaders too. Artem Shevchenko.
Compliments to the Author Link to heading
A question—or rather a request to reflect. Please look at the outcome. And here, dear Artem, there are some evaluative statements about me—very complimentary ones—so I won’t read them aloud. Thank you for the high praise. It’s all very nice to hear, but uncomfortable to read. Reading such things about myself out loud just feels… off. Alexander Feigelman—now, criticism toward me, that’s always welcome. Compliments—I gladly accept, gladly, like Trump—but I can’t read such things aloud.
On the Privilege of the Outside Observer Link to heading
Alexander Gelman—I will read this part: You, dear Igor Aleksandrovich, have the privilege of being an outside observer, and moralist—a convenient niche to display moral superiority and stylistic disagreement. If Zelensky’s actions are justified by the fact that he has a country behind him, then others do too. And everyone, including Zelensky, will end up wearing pink tights. Who’s to blame if they’re all puppets in Karabas Barabas’s theater?
Dear Alexander! This reproach you’ve raised—the privilege of the outside observer, the moralist’s convenient niche for showing moral superiority and stylistic disagreement—well, let’s be honest, that could be said of any journalist, of any analyst. Because yes, we—all of us journalists—are outside observers, moralists. That’s our job, you understand? As for how convenient it is… You know, sometimes this role—this position of the outside observer, the moralist—gets you killed. Sometimes you get declared a foreign agent, an enemy of the people, thrown out of your country, imprisoned. So yes, convenient. Very convenient. Back when I was General Secretary of the Russian Union of Journalists, one of my tasks was to count murdered journalists—killed specifically for fulfilling this so-called privilege of being an outside observer and a moralist. You know how many? Several hundred. Several hundred journalists were killed for this very “privilege.” So, you know, don’t envy it. Yes, now I’m relatively safe—but I pay for this privilege with the fact that I’ve lost my home, lost direct contact with my family, and now live here in exile. So yes, a very convenient niche.
On Criticism and Praise for Trump Link to heading
So, about Zelensky and the pink tights. You see, the point is that Zelensky is the only head of state who has, behind him, not just a country—but a country at war. A country where people are fighting and dying. None of the others at the NATO summit had a country at war behind them. That’s why his position is different. So to compare and say everyone has the same stance—that’s not valid. Zelensky’s position is different.
And as for the “puppets in Karabas Barabas’s theater”—well, I’ll leave that metaphor to your conscience. That same Zelensky, in my view, has convincingly shown he’s not anyone’s puppet in that theater—if you’re referring to Trump. So I don’t think it’s a very fitting metaphor.
Now, Alexander Shofir? Yes? Right, you’ve been regularly watching my videos for a long time. You say you agree with my views, that you approach politicians critically regardless of party. But in this case—regarding my sharp criticism of Rutte—you don’t quite agree with me.
European politicians, you say, having realized that there’s no use speaking any other language with this Nazi, are now singing his praises. Not because they hope to gain something personally, but because it’s in the interests of the states they represent—including Ukraine. And if singing praises helps save lives—then let the narcissist bask and let them keep supplying weapons to Ukraine.
I agree with that, and I say it all the time. The whole issue here is one of degree and zeal. You know, when Netanyahu stood next to Putin wearing the St. George’s ribbon on his chest, walking beside him in the Immortal Regiment, carrying some portraits—people always told me, “Why are you criticizing? He has a country behind him. He just doesn’t want Putin to attack Israel, so he’s trying to maintain a relationship that way.”
And again I say—I’m not sure that if Netanyahu hadn’t stood next to Putin, Putin would’ve attacked. If Netanyahu hadn’t worn that ribbon—there would’ve been no great disaster. But by wearing it, he de facto showed solidarity with the aggression against Ukraine. Because let’s be honest: the St. George’s ribbon was a symbol of support for the occupation of Crimea. That’s obvious.
So Netanyahu, by putting on that ribbon, expressed solidarity. Not to the extent of a swastika, of course, but it’s in that same symbolic range. So I believe that was over the line. And I think that if he hadn’t put it on—nothing would’ve happened, and Putin wouldn’t have attacked Israel.
That’s why the issue here is one of measure and zeal. And trying to be the best student in that class doesn’t seem right to me. Rutte stands out as a top student in that school. Once again: this is a stylistic disagreement, not a political one. You’re speaking politically, I’m speaking stylistically. And I think that matters.
Ukraine couldn’t fight for Crimea Link to heading
Irina Ukraine couldn’t fight for Crimea — it wasn’t that it didn’t want to. Look into General Marchenko’s interview, ask Hrabskiy.
Dear Irina! Dear colleagues! No one is attacking Ukraine here. It’s just that when you say Europe didn’t show up for the war, for Ukraine’s war — well, look, I understand perfectly. I saw it all with my own eyes, I understood what was happening, what was going on with the Ukrainian army. At that moment, in 2014, everything was clear. But again, when you now start with such harsh criticism of Europe, well, remember the state Ukraine was in before 2014. That’s it. That’s all. And understand that people who live peaceful lives, who want to live better, who want to raise children, and suddenly they’re told — go fight Russia. And this applies both to civilians and to politicians. Ukraine couldn’t and didn’t want to fight for Crimea. Europe now can’t and doesn’t want to fight Russia. That’s it. That’s what I meant when I said Ukraine couldn’t and didn’t want to fight for Crimea. That was a response to the claim that Europe didn’t come to Ukraine’s war, didn’t show up for it. A deserter, you see? Like Europe was summoned by some global draft office to the war with Ukraine. It didn’t show up. A deserter. To the wall.
About Sponsorship Link to heading
So, Vitaliy’s question I wanted to support the channel, but the recipient listed in the Monobank details is someone I don’t know. Another person also couldn’t figure out how to become a sponsor of the channel or how to reach out to Oleksandr Fich for clarification.
Dear colleague, dear Vitaliy! Judging by the spelling of your name, you’re from Ukraine, so I can say that the thing is this: all members of our team, our channel, are from Ukraine — except for me. That’s why I included the bank details in the description, and you can feel free, feel free, so to speak, to contribute there. Unfortunately, those details don’t do much good, because they’re often just skimmed over and no one really follows through. For obvious reasons, I try not to ask for anything myself. Well, of course there’s some light begging, but not as actively as some of our more enterprising colleagues. Those are the bank details of a person, our channel’s editor. So it’s all for the benefit, the benefit of our channel.
From Verbol Link to heading
And here’s a very important message — it came late at night from our colleague Verbol (I’m not sure where the stress is properly placed in the name). This is the person who wrote a rather indignant message about the fact that I had, apparently, criticized him too harshly and even mocked him a bit. Yesterday, I apologized to him because I truly believe that in this case, I crossed the line. Sarcasm was completely inappropriate — and I used it.
And today Verbol wrote the following: Thank you, Igor Aleksandrovich, for the comment regarding my comment. Thank you for your sincerity and for revisiting your opinion about my speech. I also apologize for poorly expressing my thoughts and for my extremely overly emotional reaction. Thank you for the important work and the opportunity to communicate. Have a good day. Best of luck with your streams.
Dear colleagues, I consider this message to be very important. Here’s why. Because, you see, what happens between us — this communication — it’s one-sided, it’s asymmetrical. I don’t have the opportunity to arrange any round tables, especially since — well, even though we have a small channel, there are 303,000 or however many subscribers, plus some number of people watching without subscribing — that’s quite a lot. And our communication is asymmetrical, because you know me, you see me — I don’t see you. And, so to speak, I don’t know many of you at all, some only through certain comments. Nevertheless, you know, we are engaged in this very important communication. When I call you dear friends, I truly mean it. Of course, it’s not friendship in the usual sense of the word, but we think together, and each of you is very important to me — with the exception of trolls, with the exception of people with fascist views. They end up here by accident — or sometimes not by accident — but generally don’t stick around on our channel. But with each of you, it’s very important for me to communicate. That’s why this comment from Verbol is very important to me. I’m glad we’re continuing to communicate. I’m glad we keep thinking together. And thinking together is only possible with people who have different points of view. Because I can think and communicate with myself — alone. So, I welcome Verbol staying in touch.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
That concludes our morning stream for today. I’d like to remind you that at 7:00 PM we’ll be having a conversation with Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky. Together, we’ll reflect on what’s happening, try to make sense of what’s going on today in Russia, in the world, and in our hearts. See you then! Take care of yourselves! Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Aleksandr Skobov and all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 7:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/2xbnZ5kcRUM