Today, global evil has taken the form of two specific individuals: Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. No one has the political will to deal with Putin. As for Khamenei, Israel does have the political will—it’s important that Trump doesn’t interfere.
Main Topic Link to heading
Hello, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. I’m not saying good morning, because today is a morning that can hardly be called good.
Massive Strike on Kyiv Link to heading
Last night, on the night of Tuesday, June 17, Russia launched a massive drone strike on Kyiv. Preliminary reports indicate 14 dead in Kyiv and over 40 injured. The latest figure is 44 people injured. This happened literally just before we met here in this broadcast. The occupiers also launched a massive drone attack on Odesa. There is significant destruction in the city, fires, damage to civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, preschools, and so on. According to preliminary reports, 13 people were injured in Odesa. That’s what this morning looks like, a morning like this in Ukraine. So it’s pretty hard to call it good.
G7 Summit Link to heading
In other news, the G7 summit continues today in Canada. On the eve of the summit, Trump made several statements. First, he once again said that excluding Russia from the G8 was a big mistake. I’ll quote exactly what he said: “Putin talks only to me. He’s offended by Russia’s exclusion from the G8. Putin talks to me; he doesn’t want to talk to anyone else. He feels insulted that he was thrown out of the G8. And I understand him,” said Trump. “I would also feel insulted. And so would you. Anyone would,” declared Donald Trump.
Well, I don’t even know how to comment on that. Considering that Russia was thrown out of the G8 after it occupied Crimea and after the war in Donbas began—how can you say that anyone would feel that way? If anyone occupied a significant part of a neighboring country’s territory? Well, maybe then one could feel offended. But that’s Trump’s logic—logic and Trump are things that never intersect.
According to Trump, the initiative to exclude Russia allegedly came from then-Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, who was supposedly supported by Barack Obama. Trudeau convinced one or two people, and Russia was expelled. “And I can tell you,” said Trump, “Putin is not happy about it.” So the whole world is supposed to closely monitor Putin’s mood and adjust to the ebb and flow of his emotions. Whether he’s happy or not.
Furthermore, Trump announced he would not sign the G7 joint statement calling for de-escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran. And after saying all that, Trump left the G7 summit. A meeting with Zelensky was planned on the sidelines of the summit, but naturally, it didn’t happen.
And on top of that, Trump also stated that he is postponing the introduction of new sanctions against Russia, as he expects a possible deal to end the war in Ukraine. Well, basically, Trump is acting true to form. He continues to bail out Russia and Iran, saving them, preventing their defeat, and blocking measures aimed at weakening their military and economic power. So, that’s where things stand with Trump now.
On the Elimination of Khamenei Link to heading
I would like to move on to the main topic of our conversation today. I’ll start with a statement by Netanyahu, which I think is very important. Netanyahu stated that the assassination of Khamenei would bring an end to the conflict with Iran. Specifically, this statement was made yesterday by Netanyahu in an interview with ABC News. He said the following: if Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is killed, it will not lead to an escalation of the conflict between the Islamic Republic and Israel. On the contrary, it will bring that conflict to an end.
Later in this interview, Netanyahu said that we are dealing with a half-century-long conflict fueled by this regime, which terrorizes everyone in the Middle East. He referred to the regime that bombed oil fields in Saudi Arabia, spreads terrorism, subversion, and sabotage everywhere. Iran wants an eternal war. It is bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. In fact, Israel—sorry, Israel—is preventing this and putting an end to this aggression. We can only do this by standing up to the forces of evil. When the BBC anchor asked him whether Israel would actually target Khamenei, Netanyahu evasively replied that his country does what it must.
I am absolutely convinced that eliminating Iran’s Supreme Leader is absolutely necessary. Now, whether this will actually be done or not, I obviously don’t know. But that it is an absolute necessity today—not just for Israel but for the whole world—is completely obvious to me. I’ll try to make the case. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the supreme leader, the undisputed personal ruler, and the most powerful political figure in Iran. He is the head of state, the commander-in-chief of its armed forces. He can issue any decrees, make final decisions on all areas of policy—government, economy, foreign policy, and so on. He has direct control over the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the armed forces, and the media. Almost all senior officials in Iran, in one way or another, are vetted by the Guardian Council, whose members are directly or indirectly appointed and selected by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
In reality, during his rule, Ali Khamenei has drastically transformed what was already an authoritarian-theocratic regime into one of even greater power concentration. And here’s what I think about that. There are moments in history when global evil is personified—when it all seems to concentrate in the physical body of one specific individual. And today, there are two such people personifying global evil: Vladimir Putin and Ali Khamenei.
As for Putin, as of today, no one on Earth has the political will. Well, maybe some individual people do, but political will in the sense of a unified structure or leader having both the desire and the ability to act—no one has that. I have no doubt that in various situation rooms in Ukraine and the United States, the elimination of Vladimir Putin is being discussed. But at the moment, there is still a massive gap between those discussions and any actual political decision.
As for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, judging by Netanyahu’s words, such political will does exist. Israel has it, and Israel’s political and military leadership—and indeed the citizens of Israel—understand very clearly that only one may survive on this planet: either Ayatollah Ali Khamenei personally, or 10 million Israeli citizens. That’s an existential choice. And that’s why, when it comes to Khamenei, Israel has political will. The main thing here is for Trump not to interfere.
Trump is trying to interfere. He clings to Ukraine’s hands over actions against Russia, and he clings persistently to Israel’s hands over Iran in general and over Ali Khamenei in particular. I don’t know how a decision could be made here without Trump. Ultimately, it’s clear that openly acting against his will is quite difficult. But we saw that right before that strike on Iran, Trump kept insisting for a week that Israel not launch it, saying it would ruin the deal he was planning with Iran. Yet, Israel carried out the strike anyway. And afterward, Trump gradually changed his position and claimed that he had actually come up with the idea and organized everything himself. So Trump will side with the winner no matter what.
Therefore, it’s hard for me to give advice—and who am I to advise the leadership of Israel—but I think it would be very right if this political will were implemented. Because at the moment, the war between Israel and Iran has entered a war of attrition phase. So far, the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have affected only a third of the infrastructure. That’s based primarily on assessments from Israeli experts. The deep underground facilities—especially the Fordow plant—remain intact.
By the way, I fell for it. You know, naive trust is a journalist’s hazard. I believed the number given by the international nuclear agency. They stated some insane figure—800 meters. It’s clear now that the actual figure is 80 meters of depth for the shaft housing the uranium enrichment plant—not 800. That was a mistake. Again, I just saw the number multiple times in IAEA reports and assumed they knew what they were talking about. Turned out, they didn’t.
Anyway, even those 80 meters are something Israel cannot overcome without American deep-penetration or so-called bunker-buster bombs. For Israel, maintaining momentum is now crucial. It needs to keep the news cycle going. This is psychologically important, as it might give Trump a sense of victory—and if he senses that, he’ll side with the winner. But if the pace of nuclear site destruction slows down while Israeli casualties increase, then Trump may become an obstacle to Israel’s elimination of Iran’s nuclear potential.
As of today, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is reportedly hiding in a bunker, according to a number of media outlets—primarily Iranian ones. They say that from the very beginning, following Israel’s attack, Khamenei took refuge in an underground bunker in northeastern Tehran. In fact, this is his favorite hiding place. As soon as a problem arises… I mean, Ayatollah Khamenei clearly isn’t in a hurry to get to paradise—probably because, in my opinion, he’s actually an atheist. But that’s a subject for a separate investigation.
Additionally, Iranian sources report that the deputy to Iran’s Supreme Leader is conducting secret talks with Russian officials about the possibility of leaving the country if the situation further deteriorates. Now, I don’t know where exactly Putin is planning to put him. I imagine there will be strong objections from Yanukovych’s camp about Rostov under the slogan “Rostov isn’t made of rubber.” I don’t know where Assad is now either—where exactly Putin is hiding him. But in any case, Russia is big—there should be enough room for all dictators. That’s one option.
I think this would be an alternative to elimination. If Khamenei flees Iran, that would greatly simplify matters. He wouldn’t need to be eliminated. At present, Iran has lost most of its strike capabilities but is still able to carry out targeted attacks. Yesterday we spoke with Serhiy Hrabskyi about military capabilities. Overall, the war is clearly dragging on, and Iran’s resources are far from depleted. Tehran is clearly not ready to surrender, make a deal, or compromise on its nuclear program.
Strikes on Propaganda Link to heading
That’s why yesterday—yesterday, Monday—the Israel Defense Forces launched another strike on the headquarters of the Iranian state television company. This company is called Voice of the Islamic Republic in Tehran. And I want to show you, dear friends, what that looked like. Let’s take a look at how it happened. Allahu Akbar.
You know, when I first saw and watched this video, I felt a quiet sadness about the fact that Ukraine doesn’t do similar things to Ostankino. I think the sight of Solovyov, or Skabeeva, or Norkin fleeing their studio would be a kind of demonstration of great, great human justice. Well, I completely understand that Ukraine’s resources are quite limited, and so it tries to use those resources—long-range drones, heavy missiles—primarily on military targets. But I believe that the studios of Solovyov, Norkin, Kiselyov, and Skabeeva are also, in fact, military targets. That’s why I think it’s not out of the question that we might get footage like that from Ostankino, maybe even later this year.
StreetTalk Link to heading
Dear friends, our project—initiated by our editorial team and supported by you—has slowly started to take off. This is the StreetTalk project. For now, it’s still very limited. But, as they say, the first step is the hardest. Let’s take a look at the first talk that came from the United States of America. Well, yes. I hope it’s here. I want to repeat once again—I don’t know if the subtitles were visible—but in any case, we can see that the mood, at least among some residents of the United States, is very much pro-Ukrainian. And that’s encouraging.
Well, we’ll see. In principle, I think we’ll be showing not only what we like and agree with, but also what we really, really don’t like. In any case, thanks to the author of this video for getting the ball rolling, as they say.
Q&A Link to heading
But before moving on to answering your questions, I want to let you know that today at 8:00 PM we have a very interesting event. At 8:00 PM we’ll have Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman—don’t miss it. And now I’ll move on to answering your questions.
About Nikolai Khalezin Link to heading
A question from the chat by Yuri: Can Nikolai Khalezin be invited to the “Thinking Together” segment?
Well, I don’t think there are any restrictions on that. Nikolai Khalezin is a well-known Belarusian director who takes a clear anti-Putin and anti-Lukashenko stance. He’s interesting—I don’t know if he would agree, but if he does, then it probably makes sense to invite him. Thanks for the good idea.
How and Why Great People Fall Under the Spell of Dictators Link to heading
So, questions. Several questions from Alexander in Germany: I wanted to ask you—how can it be explained that outstanding, talented people fall under the spell of figures like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and the like? A good education doesn’t seem to help. Nor do insight into human nature, or the talents of a writer or artist. I could mention Thomas Mann, Salvador Dalí, Bernard Shaw, Louis Aragon, and many others. So what can we say about ordinary, poorly educated people? They feed on cookies from the radio, shows from TV, they’ve never read economists or analysts from the New World or other journals. For such people, we need little booklets for 0.01 rubles that simply and clearly explain the essence of events—like during perestroika.
Well, there are two explanatory frameworks here. The first has to do with the fact that the Soviet Union was viewed—first of all, many people, when the October Revolution happened, didn’t really understand what had taken place. That is, the European and American intelligentsia traditionally leaned left—anti-capitalist. So when the October Revolution occurred, many supported it because they didn’t see what was actually happening—didn’t see the nightmare unfolding in Soviet Russia. They simply backed it as an anti-capitalist uprising. Later, when the German Reich began to roar across Europe, and the Soviet Union appeared to be resisting that Reich, the sympathies of many Europeans and Americans focused on the USSR as an alternative. So Stalin was seen as an alternative to Hitler. And that blinded many people—they didn’t realize that one evil is not better than another.
By the way, Churchill’s stance is quite telling here: he entered into an alliance with Stalin under the principle that if Hitler invaded hell, he would be prepared to make a pact with the devil. That’s one explanation.
The second explanation is more general and psychological, not specifically political. It’s the idea that villains are psychologically attractive. This is explained by the aura of mystery that often surrounds them—something that sparks a desire to solve the puzzle. Beyond that, in cultural studies, the popularity of the anti-hero is linked to the breakdown of moral behavior models. The rogue, the rebel, is always more appealing than the flat, poster-perfect character like Timur. This protest against clichéd moral models, against a fading culture and era, leads to villains appearing more attractive than heroes.
In other words, it’s a kind of rebel archetype. Mephistopheles is always alluring, always appealing. Woland is far more engaging than Jesus, because he’s vivid, he’s alive, while Jesus is a somewhat textbook figure. That’s the explanatory framework. As for the political side specifically, I’ve already touched on that above.
What Explains Iran’s Hatred Toward Israel Link to heading
Second question from Alexander in Germany: How can the Iranian leadership’s fierce hatred of Israel be explained? They’re not even neighbors.
There are two things here. First, the religious component. But the main factor is the perception of Israel through the lens of a specific formula: Israel is the “Little Satan,” while the “Great Satan” is the United States of America. This is tied to the view of Israel as a colonial outpost. The U.S. is seen as the main colonial Satan. Just as a reminder—the 1979 revolution was a revolt against the pro-American rule of the Shah. So, essentially, it was an anti-American protest that led to the establishment of the regime now ruling Iran. The U.S. is the primary Satan, the main evil, and Israel is perceived as its representative in the Middle East. That’s where the fierce hatred comes from—the desire to eliminate Israel stems from this perception.
What’s “People’s” About the People’s Republic of China? Link to heading
So, the third question is about the People’s Republic of China: It’s curious—what’s actually “people’s” about this republic? Is there a population poll on what to do about Taiwan or the Uyghurs? Are there elections or voting?
Well, regarding polls—I know for a fact that when major transnational firms like Gallup International conduct large-scale surveys, they usually don’t include China. Because in China, conducting opinion polls is essentially impossible.
As for elections—yes, elections are held, but they are neither universal nor direct. They use an indirect election system. And, in fact, President Xi Jinping is not elected by the people; he’s elected by the highest body—the National People’s Congress. This structure is far from democratic. Moreover, within this National People’s Congress, the Chinese Communist Party always holds absolute dominance. So, essentially, it’s a communist dictatorship. To put it briefly, without getting into the technical details of the electoral process: it’s a communist dictatorship, and the Communist Party maintains constant control.
About General Lebed Link to heading
Fourth question from Alexander: What is your opinion of General Lebed?
A complex figure, of course—there’s a certain charm in that dashing general persona, with his “ruble-shaped” face and his flexible, commanding baritone. He was undoubtedly an intelligent man—not the kind of soldier whose entire intellect fits into a map or a footwrap. He was a smart person, with a distinctive way of speaking and a good sense of humor. Definitely a strong character.
But he was someone who, in principle, could have given the army a sense of subjectivity—and that’s why he was killed. I believe his death in that air crash was no accident. I think, like General Rokhlin, he was assassinated, because Russia has a long-standing tradition of politically castrating its military. Figures like Rokhlin and Lebed represented a certain army subjectivity, a general’s subjectivity, which was utterly incompatible with the Russian regime.
Just like the most active leaders of the armed forces were once sidelined—people like Marshal Zhukov, and so on. All of this shows that in Soviet Russia, there was a sustained campaign and policy of politically disabling the army. So Lebed was, naturally, a problematic figure.
About Viktor Erofeev Link to heading
A question from Igor. Well, first a short comment about Viktor Erofeev. I once flew with him on a plane. At first I couldn’t remember his last name, I just remembered for a long time that he had hosted a show—either about history or about culture. He was flying with a friend, looked very refined, with a scarf tied in a French manner and all that. But in the cabin he ruined the impression. He sat down, sighed heavily and said with disdain, “So, this time we’re flying like everyone else, with the people, in economy class?” That’s the kind of person he is.
Well, you know, I’m not going to be either a lawyer or a prosecutor for Viktor Erofeev right now. I just can’t rule out that this happened. That something was said ironically—it’s just that I can’t rule that out. So I don’t know. I wouldn’t judge a person based on that one episode. That’s all. Well, at the very least, it seems to me there’s a bit of snobbery there. But again, I’ll say that I know Viktor Erofeev—or rather, I don’t really know him, since our only acquaintance was a shared panel at the Free Russia Forum, where we talked and then spoke for a few minutes afterward. But he didn’t strike me as the kind of boor your story suggests. I don’t rule out that it was just a joking remark.
Will you leave Lithuania if Russia attacks? Link to heading
Yes. Now a question from my namesake: If or when Russia attacks Lithuania, will you move to a safer country or stay in Lithuania to help repel the attack? Of course, I don’t mean in a trench with a rifle.
You know, dear namesake, I’m not of any use right now either in a trench with a rifle or, let’s say, out on the street with a cobblestone or a slingshot. Right. But I’m not going anywhere. I understand that something like that is possible, but I’m not planning to run. Somehow, running feels humiliating to me. And well, it was enough that I had to leave Russia. But if they come to Lithuania, well, then they come. That’s that. I hope it doesn’t happen. But at the very least, I’m not planning to leave.
Can a Russian who supports Putin be a kind and good person? Link to heading
A question from someone who calls themselves Crying Sky: Can a Russian who supports Putin and the war against Ukraine be a good, kind person?
You know, we need to figure out what a good, kind person is. Someone who saves a starving kitten from death, helps an old lady cross the street, or, let’s say, helps an unfortunate relative, and so on. So yes, I think such a person may support Putin and the war against Ukraine. That is, in everyday life they may be a good, kind person. But in this case, if they’re kind and good and still support the war against Ukraine, then I think a necessary addition to that kindness is stupidity. Just ordinary human stupidity. That is, the inability to use information, the inability to establish cause-and-effect relationships. I mean, you can imagine an intelligent person who supports Putin and the war against Ukraine, but such a person is clearly a scoundrel. And if he’s kind and warm-hearted in everyday life—saves kittens, helps old ladies—then he’s most likely just a fool. Well, that happens. It’s not a contradiction. That’s what I think. I can hardly imagine someone who is intelligent and good, and also supports Putin and the killing of people in Ukraine. That combination is unimaginable to me.
Comment on Adam and Eve Link to heading
Right? Elena—Elena doesn’t have a question, but a comment. I think it’s significant, so I’ll read it aloud. In the previous stream, there was a discussion about the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib. Since ancient times, this has caused confusion—why would God complicate things when he had plenty of clay from which he could have created Eve just as he did Adam? The writing on a tablet found in Babylon provided an explanation for this fatal misunderstanding about women. In the Sumerian world, the god Enki had a sore rib. In the Sumerian language, the word for “rib” is “ti.” The goddess who heals ribs is called Ninti, which means “woman of the rib.” “Ninti” also means “she who gives life.” Ancient tribes replaced “Ninti” with Eve, since Eve was the mother of all, the life-giver. However, in folklore, “woman from the rib” was preserved as a link between Eve and the rib and entered theology as a way of belittling and discriminating against women. This, so to speak, is a text that belongs to Zenon Kosovsky.
So, at Elena’s request, I’m reading out this interesting analysis by Zenon, because in my view, it’s not just a continuation of theological discussion, but something useful to prevent claims about the second-rate nature of women. I think it’s a helpful quote. From Zenon.
About the “MEDIAphrenia” and “Trumpophrenia” Projects Link to heading
Lyudmila Syomina Igor, you’ve shut down the MEDIAphrenia project. It’s been three weeks without any new episodes.
Yes, I agree with the criticism. It’s disgraceful. I haven’t shut down the MEDIAphrenia project, nor have I shut down the Trumpophrenia project—due to a number of circumstances. We’re currently limited in our capabilities. I believe that the Trumpophrenia and MEDIAphrenia projects are just as important components of our channel as the morning 7:40. So we will definitely continue. We just need to sort out some internal issues. We will definitely continue these projects with you.
On the Disintegration of Iran as a State Link to heading
So, a question from KGB: So what do you think about Iran, after this war, being organized as a centralized state? After all, Iran doesn’t have a clearly dominant ethnicity. Persians make up just over half of the population, yet Persian imperialist chauvinism dictates everything in the country. The disintegration of Iran would be welcome news for the entire Middle East. Not only Israel, but also Arabs, Turks, Kurds, and other oppressed people—oppressed by the Shiite democratic obscurantists of Iran—would be freed from the greatness of the Persian obscurantist oppressors. And the whole world would rejoice. In the initial stage of Iran’s disintegration, the creation of a confederate state of peoples on the territory of present-day Iran could be allowed. Significant ethnic groups in Iran—like Azerbaijanis, who make up almost 20% of the population, the Kurds, Baloch, and so on, various Turkmen tribes and Arabs, and others—have a full right to self-determination under the UN Convention. So the international community should support the creation of at least a confederation of peoples on the territory of present-day Iran. But ideally, we should achieve the complete collapse of this cancerous tumor in the Middle East. Your opinion?
You know, dear colleague, I think—well, let me express three points. First and foremost: this is a matter for the people of Iran. Dictating to them—“you’re going to have a confederation,” or “you’ll be ruled by Azerbaijanis,” and so on—that’s not our place. But most importantly right now is weakening this regime. I think that the removal of Ali Khamenei would be an important step toward weakening the regime and thereby creating conditions for a change in power. And then perhaps a confederation, or anything else, could indeed become possible. But that must be decided by the people. The people of Iran.
Now separately, regarding the idea of Persian oppression of other peoples in Iran—I just want to clarify a few things you may not be aware of. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is ethnically Azerbaijani. Just so you know—and to counter this impression that Persians are oppressing non-majority ethnic groups. The Azerbaijanis, although a minority, are not an oppressed people. A significant number of the top generals who were recently killed were ethnic Azerbaijanis. And again, Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is ethnically Azerbaijani. So, in reality, the situation is complex. And I’m not at all certain that the Azerbaijanis are so eager to break away. That’s a big question.
So that’s the first point. Now, second point: I think this conversation needs to be had with a specialist, someone who knows the internal dynamics of the Middle East and Iran in particular. I definitely am not that person. So this is a serious discussion. But in any case, there should be no external imposition. This must be decided by the people of Iran.
What Would You Write a Book About if Not for the War? Link to heading
Artem Shevchenko poses a thought experiment: I’m sure that if it weren’t for the war in Ukraine, you’d have much more time for other kinds of work. So, for some reason, I feel that whatever else you’d be doing, you’d also be writing some kind of book. Maybe I’m wrong. So if my thinking is right—what would you write about? What else would you like to share with us?
You know, dear colleague, I must say that—writing, well, I don’t have that writer’s itch. I mean, there’s not a trace of graphomania in me. What matters more to me is this kind of structure: I dream and hope that, still, over the rest of my life I’ll be able to conduct a number of studies that would result in books. Just like I carried out a large-scale, comprehensive study on the Jewish people in Russia. By the way, I keep forgetting to upload that book. I’ll ask the people I work with to suggest a way to publish it so that it doesn’t get lost. It exists in electronic form thanks to a wonderful colleague from Moldova. I will definitely post it again with an extensive cover letter.
But I’d like to carry out a series of studies. First of all, research in the field of media. I still believe media is an independent form of public consciousness. And it seems to me that, in terms of the sociological theory of modern media—well, there are brilliant sociological theories by Nicholas Garnham, Pierre Bourdieu, and others—but I think media has changed since those great sociologists passed away. The current situation calls for updated methods and new approaches in sociological description. I think this is something I could work on.
Of course, there’s also what I call religia animal—animal rights. That, too, is a research project that I believe could eventually become a book. And that’s far from a complete list of what I’d call dreams for now. Because as long as the war is ongoing, there’s no chance of realizing them. Everything else is just dreaming. But what I’ve just mentioned—these are things I can realistically do with my own resources. Any more complex projects would require funding. I don’t know how to seek funding, so I’ll most likely stick to what I can do on my own dime.
On Trump’s Lackeys Link to heading
Elena Kaplan Will the lackeys surrounding the American president manage to push him to openly side with Russia and Iran and begin supplying them with weapons? And will these lackeys succeed in creating chaos in their own country? Are there enough independent governors in America to bring Trump down? That’s a puzzle worthy of a Nobel Prize.
You know, dear Elena, as far as I know, the mechanism for governors removing a president isn’t provided for in the U.S. Constitution. I think the point is—of course, governors are a very important part. The states, in general, are a crucial part of the resistance to Trump. But I think—for now, I don’t see the conditions for impeachment, because ultimately the main say lies with Congress. And Congress is currently leaning toward Trump. Let’s wait for the 2026 elections—then things might become clearer, and we’ll be able to discuss it based on real grounds. For now—for now, everything’s still in a fog.
Trump Is a Given. What Do We Do With That? Link to heading
A question from Max. Max writes: This is probably the first time I’m asking a question. I agree with the assessment of Trump, but he’s a given. I have a blunt question—what do we do with that given? What should Zelensky, Netanyahu, and the leaders of democratic countries do? I’m not worried about Putin—he knows what to do. I ask because almost every mention of Trump boils down to yet another list of his words and actions that confirm the worst predictions. But they’ve already come true. The more I observe, the more convinced I am that this is a medical issue. Criticism is important, but conclusions are more important. My question is: how do we deal with this? All I can think of is to communicate in a kind of disgusting way, like with a child—trying to influence him as you would a child, and meanwhile building up your own capabilities. I’m curious about your opinion.
Dear Max, well, my opinion, as often happens with yours, largely coincides, but I would just add one thing. You know, forgive me, I really liked it. First of all, of course, I’m completely thrilled with the kind of psychotherapy session that Merz conducted with Trump. It was beautiful. I agree with you—that was an excellent example. But there’s also a very good example in Netanyahu.
Notice what happened. Trump—this ties into the topic of our discussion today—for a full week before the Friday strike on Israel and Iran, he kept moaning about how absolutely no strike should be carried out because it would ruin everything, it would blow up his deal. And yet Netanyahu, who always demonstrates extreme loyalty to Trump—really extreme loyalty—listened to all of it, and then went ahead and struck anyway. And then nothing terrible happened. Trump initially distanced himself from it, but later didn’t particularly object, because the strike had already taken place. So, in a sense, he was faced with a fait accompli.
And what I think, as an addition to what you, dear Max, said—yes, you need to communicate with him like with a child, try to influence him, and build your own capabilities. And you know, maybe even act in a way that just… doesn’t hear. For example, say Ukraine is under constant bombardment—so Zelensky could, in effect, just not hear what Trump is saying. Keep nodding, saying “yes, yes, absolutely right, Mr. President, we’re always with you, always listening,” but do your own thing. That’s basically Netanyahu’s method. He just didn’t hear, you see? It’s very loud—shells exploding, Iranian bombs flying—so you can’t really hear, you know? So to a certain extent, that kind of selective deafness actually helps in dealing with Trump. Because if you really listen and do everything he says, that’s suicide.
If There Were No Putin, Would There Be No Trump? Link to heading
So, Simon Ryaboy writes: Trump is an amoeba and nothing more. You often talk about the 77 million Americans who voted for him. But what about the 140 million Russians who voted for Putin? Were you present there too? Then Simon Ryaboy continues: I live in America. I won’t claim it as fact, but I believe: if there were no Putin, there would be no Trump. Populists help bring similar types to power in many countries. Today we Americans are fighting for our rights—unlike Russians. And we shouldn’t even talk about fear. Fifty million people could overthrow a regime. I could be wrong. What do you think?
You know, dear colleague, dear Simon—I’m not sure where the correct stress in your name falls—you’re literally wrong. You’re right in your general feeling, but literally wrong in every sentence.
First, let’s start with the numbers. Putin wasn’t elected by 140 million, but initially by 39 million. That matters. It’s not an order of magnitude, but it’s a big difference—several times over. That’s important, because it wasn’t all 149 million. He was elected by those who showed up at the polls—52% in the beginning. Now, I was in Russia at the time—not only did I not vote for Putin, I did everything I possibly could to prevent people from voting for him. Short of physically killing Putin (which, frankly, I don’t have the technical know-how for), I did everything I could. I organized protests, rallies, and publicly wrote and spoke out against it. So as for my personal involvement in this process—it was in the opposite direction.
Now, to your main point: “If there were no Putin, there would be no Trump.” That’s a very strange claim, because the United States votes for a president based primarily on internal issues. So of course, Putin’s existence had nothing to do with Trump’s election.
As for your assertion that Americans fight for their rights, and Russians don’t—well, the United States is a democratic country. Russia is a totalitarian Reich. And I doubt you’ll find a single example in history where people overthrew a regime in a totalitarian fascist Reich. That didn’t happen in Germany, it didn’t happen in Japan, it didn’t happen in Stalin’s Soviet Union. In totalitarian fascist states, populations have never overthrown the government. So let’s not get carried away.
And as for your fight—well, great, good for you. But I don’t think Americans would’ve managed to resist had they been in the Soviet Union.
So this is one of those rare cases where you’re wrong in every single sentence. Literally every one.
Kasparov and Kara-Murza Debate Link to heading
So, Mr. Stepan, it’s not a question of the suggestion. I dare say that few people have more opportunities than you to bring Kasparov and Kara-Murza together for a debate. Personally, I would be extremely interested in seeing such a debate, as these are very respected individuals, each with some grounds for their positions, but all their arguments could appear in a new light if they looked each other in the eye while defending those positions — 99% of the criticism happens behind their backs. That’s normal, of course. It’s just a pity when the last 1% is missing — and I’m not talking about Solovyov. That case is clear, but with these two it’s not quite so clear. And they may also have different paths. A public discussion of those paths would still be useful.
Dear Mr. Stepan! I have not the slightest objection. I’m in favor. I’m just not sure I have any exclusive means to organize this process. I’ll try. I’ll put forward a hypothesis. Maybe it will be of interest, but I very much doubt it will be supported — by either side, in fact.
On Iran’s Right to Develop Nuclear Weapons Link to heading
Natalya, I don’t understand your attitude toward the bombing of Iran or Israel. People died. Why do you deny Iran the right to develop nuclear weapons? The threat from Iran? Well, Ukrainians were singing and dancing to “Moskalyaku na gilyaku” even before the war. Does that mean we were planning to attack Russia? Of course not. And our unpreparedness for war is proof of that. Why do you believe that if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, it will definitely use it against Israel? As is well known, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. It seems to me that it’s actually Israel that acted like Putler with Ukraine. Why is it that when some do it, they’re called fascists, but when others do it — it’s a “no-no” and they’re called peace fighters?
You know, dear Natalya, you’re comparing Iran to Ukraine. Well, let’s try, let’s really try to compare. So, Ukrainians were singing “Moskalyaku na gilyaku.” Well, that’s some kind of… it’s a private little song by private individuals. Can you name even one example when, at the level of state policy — and I emphasize again, these are different things — one thing is the sentiment of certain individuals or even mass sentiment, and another is government policy. Can you name an example of a Ukrainian state official, say the president, saying before the war that Russia must be destroyed? There’s a war now — it’s a different situation. But before the war, before Russia attacked Ukraine — can you name a Ukrainian president, a head of state, who said officially or in a document, in the Constitution, that Russia must be destroyed? You probably can’t. But in Iran, that is official policy.
Can you name an instance when the Ukrainian Armed Forces — before the war, I mean — attacked Russia, carried out terrorist acts on Russian territory, killed Russians, launched missile and bomb strikes? Iran has done this constantly. Take, for example, the events of October 7, 2023, when crowds of TASS — representatives of Iranian proxies — because Iran acts not just directly but also through proxies it created, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Yemeni Houthis. On October 7, 2023, Iranian proxies came out of the Gaza Strip and attacked Israel, killed over 1,000 people, tortured, abused, murdered, and kidnapped them. Have you seen anything remotely like that from Ukrainians? I mean before the war — and even during the war, nothing of the sort has occurred.
So how can you compare them? I just don’t understand. Iran’s official state goal is the destruction of Israel. Did Ukraine have such a goal regarding Russia before the war? Even now, while the war is ongoing, Ukraine has never expressed that Russia should be eliminated as a state. Never. Iran denies Israel the right to exist — do you understand that? Ukraine, even in wartime, doesn’t deny Russia’s right to exist, doesn’t state that Russia must be eliminated — even though Russia attacked Ukraine.
So your comparison, dear Natalya, simply shows that you are completely out of touch. Completely.
On the Goals of Iran, Israel, and Trump Link to heading
So, Kosta Katsa asks the question: Why and for what purpose would Iran want to destroy Israel?
Well, I thought I had already answered that question. But once again: Iran views Israel as the “little Satan,” a stronghold of the colonialist empire, the embodiment of which is the United States of America. The U.S. is the “great Satan,” and Israel is seen as the representative of that same colonialism, against which the 1979 revolution was waged — the revolution that brought about the current theocratic regime. So, the destruction of Israel is essentially a continuation of that revolution — anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Shah — through which the theocratic regime came to power in 1979. Therefore, Israel is, so to speak, a target that was effectively defined by that very revolution.
Soldier Vasily asks: What is the goal of Iran and Israel in this war? What are they trying to achieve?
Regarding Iran’s goal — as I’ve already said — it is the elimination of Israel. Israel’s goal is the removal of that threat. Israel does not aim to eliminate Iran. Israel’s goal is to ensure that there is no threat to Israel coming from Iranian territory. Period.
As for Trump — well, he’s seeking fame and recognition. He wants everyone to love him. He wants a Nobel Peace Prize, wants portraits of himself hung up in every country where people bow to them. Well, if I may put it a bit humorously — that’s how I’d say it.
Why North Korea Has Nuclear Weapons and No One Bombs It Link to heading
Agar, agar. But why is North Korea allowed to have nuclear weapons? No one bombs them. You know, no one gave North Korea permission to have nuclear weapons — they developed them on their own. So why isn’t anyone bombing them?
First of all — well, first of all, North Korea uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent to keep others from interfering in its internal affairs. That’s the first reason. And the second — why is no one bombing them? That’s simple. Because from the very beginning of its existence, North Korea has had China at its back. Well, excuse me — go ahead and try bombing North Korea when China and Russia are standing behind it. With allies like that, especially China, there aren’t many who would want to carry out a strike on North Korea.
A Question About Courage Link to heading
A question from Yulia: So, on Friday you were asked questions about courage. Perhaps courage also has its shades, gradations, stages. But don’t you think that true courage is impulsive and doesn’t need any support at all? It’s the courage of a bird in defense, in potential, the courage of a mother defending her child against a vastly superior force. I think to truly become brave, one must learn to love. Is that a science or an art? Those who jump with a parachute are breaking themselves in a different way. Yes, they may become braver, but that alone won’t make them truly courageous. What do you think?
Dear Yulia, this isn’t the first time I’ve noticed that you tend to romanticize reality quite a bit. So, let’s try to break it down. There are quite a few types of courage and bravery. For example, physical courage — that’s easier to analyze, because speaking about everything and nothing is difficult. Physical courage is the willingness to face physical danger. This type of courage can be developed, but not very easily, because it has physiological foundations.
You know, the famous “fight or flight or freeze” response during stress — courage is essentially choosing “fight.” In ancient times, during selection for the Roman legions or Alexander the Great’s army, they would look at a person’s reaction to stress: if someone’s face flushed, they were selected, because that signified the “fight” response. If the person turned pale, that indicated “flight” or “freeze” — and those people were not recruited. So that’s physiological, physical courage — the readiness to face danger directly.
Then there’s intellectual courage — often the ability to go against public opinion or the views of one’s superiors. Intellectual courage doesn’t always go hand-in-hand with physical courage in the same person. These are different things. As for the idea that courage must necessarily be preceded by love — you know, I’m not so sure. You see, you’re strongly romanticizing the concept of courage, overloading it with extra attributes. What you end up with is a kind of stew, where love and courage are all mixed together — but these are different things.
As for the willingness to defend one’s child — like a bird protecting its chick — yes, that’s undoubtedly a distinct kind of courage. I’d call it self-sacrifice. That’s a separate category, for sure. But to reduce all courage to that version alone — I think that’s not quite right.
About Taras Berezovets’ comment Link to heading
And the second one is from Yulia. Today Taras Berezovets said that, according to American sources, Israel was given a directive/request not to personally target Khamenei. That’s exactly why he’s still alive. I think that sounds plausible.
You know, I’ve probably said this about ten times already — that the source of this version is Reuters, and this version was refuted by Israeli sources, by Israeli authorities. But I trust it. I think that’s how it is. So what? So in this case, I agree with Reuters, and with Taras Berezovets too, if he repeated what Reuters had claimed.
About Roman Svitan and antisemitism Link to heading
Alright. A question from an author who calls themselves BIK. The question is: Roman Svitan, a retired colonel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, blames Israel and all Jews for the war between Ukraine and Russia. He is a major antisemite and hates Jews. How can he be removed from Ukrainian TV broadcasts? The people of Israel are helping us, Ukrainians, and he’s such a scumbag, ruining all our friendly bridges between Ukraine and Israel.
You know, dear colleague, I haven’t listened to Roman Hryhorovych for several years now. After we parted ways precisely on this topic — after I heard some of his statements, not on my channel, not on our platform, but he made several antisemitic and anti-Israel remarks that seemed strange to me. I asked him what was going on with that. Roman Hryhorovych reiterated, so to speak, his belief that Jews there were doing this and that. After that, we parted ways without scandals or mutual accusations — we simply decided we were not on the same path. I haven’t listened to him since.
As for the fact that he continues to be invited — well, listen, it’s up to journalists whom they invite. Everyone is the master of their own fate, the master of their own reputation. Some invite Svitan, some invite Solovey, some invite Arestovych. Well, let everyone do as they see fit. I’m not planning to. Especially, I’m not going to impose my own rules on Ukrainian media. If they think it’s appropriate to invite him — be my guest.
About Shokhin and Mitvol Link to heading
A question from Sokol Pushkin. There are two figures in Russian politics about whom I just can’t form a clear opinion. The first is Alexander Shokhin, the second is Oleg Mitvol. Perhaps you’ve crossed paths with them at some point. What can you say about each of them?
I did cross paths with Shokhin in the State Duma. As for Mitvol, I’ve never met him personally, only indirectly. Let me explain. Well, both figures, in my opinion, are utterly compromised. Shokhin is the president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP), which makes him part of the top leadership of United Russia. In other words, there’s really no room for doubt — he’s a clear servant of Putin’s fascist regime.
SHOKHIN — no questions there. He’s in the same category as Volodin, or, I don’t know… Matviyenko, or someone like that. Shokhin belongs to that same group. He doesn’t call, like Solovyov, to bomb everyone and kill everyone, but he’s just the same — a servant of Putin’s regime. He just doesn’t clown around like, say, Medvedev or Medinsky. He doesn’t drip with hatred like those types. He’s more like the backbone of the fascist Reich. So there’s no question about him.
As for Mitvol, I encountered him indirectly when, in 2003, he dismissed the editor-in-chief of Novye Izvestia, Igor Golembiovsky. That was because Golembiovsky allowed an article to be published about the revival of the cult of personality around Putin — in a paper that at the time was under Mitvol’s control. That incident made it clear to me what kind of person he was. A fairly pro-Putin figure.
The last thing I heard about him was a criminal case — he allegedly embezzled around 1 billion rubles during the planning of the Krasnoyarsk metro. The last I heard, I believe the year before last, he was sentenced to 4.5 years in a general-regime penal colony. Where he is now — whether he’s still in prison or has been released — I don’t know. I haven’t followed him; I find Mitvol of little interest.
About Parkhomenko Link to heading
Alright. A question from Frukt Frukt? I was struck by Parkhomenko’s remark. What about Venediktov’s reputation? Interesting.
But that’s not a question for me — that’s a question for Parkhomenko. However, judging by everything, he thinks Venediktov’s reputation is just fine.
On Sociological Methods of Studying Collective Responsibility Link to heading
So. A question from Lemeshev: Igor, is it possible to measure the level of collective responsibility using any sociological methods? Let’s say, in such an experiment, we consider Soviet citizens under Stalin, Germans under Hitler, Iranians under the ayatollahs, Palestinians under Hamas, Russians under Putin, Americans under Trump, and so on. If 1 is the lowest level of collective responsibility and 10 is the highest, then which of the above regimes should bear the greatest collective responsibility?
Now, I don’t want to fill in this entire scale just yet. I just want to talk about the principles and give two examples. So, look, collective responsibility manifests in two forms. There is passive collective responsibility — whether you like it or not. You know, like Putin likes to say, “Like it or not, hang in there, beauty.” That is, regardless of whether you want to bear collective responsibility or not, it still comes to pass. Bombs fall on people’s heads — that’s collective responsibility of the aggressor. Sanctions that make life worse — that’s also collective responsibility.
And there is active collective responsibility, which is guided by conscience. That is, a person personally feels this responsibility because they understand that they are part of a community that has brought harm to others. That’s this active form of collective responsibility.
So, based on that, in both cases, Germans under Hitler have the highest level of collective responsibility, because they, of course, suffered more than all the others mentioned in your examples. That’s passive collective responsibility. They suffered because Germany, after its defeat, was in ruins. And it really was a serious defeat. And, so to speak, they paid a great price. So they experienced full-scale collective responsibility.
They also had active collective responsibility. So, by both measures, I would rate them a 10 — the maximum score.
As for Russians under Putin, in terms of passive responsibility — that is, the extent to which people’s lives have worsened as a result of Russia’s aggression — well, I don’t know, maybe around level three or four. So, not a one, clearly, but definitely not a ten. It’s certainly nothing like the Germans.
As for active responsibility — since zero isn’t an option here — I would rate it as a one. There’s no active responsibility, no awakening of conscience in the overwhelming majority of the Russian population.
Well, that’s more or less how I see it.
On the Depth of Iranian “Shafts” Link to heading
So, several people very enthusiastically pointed out that I made a mistake. The depth of the Iranian — Iranian facility is not 800 but 80 meters. I agree. Yes, I messed up. I, so to speak, trusted the IAEA. Well, I won’t be trusting them anymore.
Comments on Reactions to the Parade in the USA and North Korea Link to heading
So, oh. Here are two wonderful comments about my post yesterday — my reaction to the parades, when I was feeling sad together with Trump while watching the American parade, and feeling happy together with Kim Jong-un while watching the North Korean parade. Wonderful! Here’s what Rimma Rimma says: American soldiers have been marching like that for a long time. Even in our parade, Americans march like that. They call it a democratic, non-aggressive step. You’re just used to, says Rimma, watching how the Nazis marched. Boot tips up to their beards.
Luna wrote a brilliant piece: Do all of you Russian bloggers watch parades through Putin’s eyes? No, I like the American parade much better. The Russian and North Korean ones make me sick. No one else in the world marches like that. I checked long ago — that straight-leg step like a Moulin Rouge dancer was only done by Nazi SS. It makes me nauseous when I see that stiff outstretched leg. Not even the USSR marched like that. Well, actually, they did in the USSR. Okay, but when I see that leg lifted almost over someone’s head in the Kremlin, in front of Putin’s doors, I feel like I’m going to throw up. Where did you get the idea that the Russian step is a model for the world, that the Russian parade is supposed to terrify everyone? The American one looks friendly. Like it should be.
Dear friends, well, you know, I feel like we’re forming a group here that’s stylistically and aesthetically on the same page. But look, come on, you’ve got to work on your sense of humor, you know? Because clearly, you’re all probably subscribers to our channel, you’ve watched me before. And to imagine that I’m genuinely admiring the North Korean parade and criticizing the Americans for not goose-stepping like the Nazis — well, that would really require completely wiping out your sense of humor.
On Luck and Misfortune with Trump for Israel Link to heading
So, a question from a lady: You’re wrong. The world, and especially Israel, was lucky to have such a businessman as president. He has no strategic thinking; he’s actually the one being led. He’s easy to deceive, and many take advantage of that — unlike the people who were behind the ailing Biden. Trump has a lot of idiots around him who don’t care, and Trump won’t help Ukraine. But relying on U.S. support forever won’t be necessary. There are pros and cons to this president, and the biggest pro is that he’s an idiot. That’s better than Biden, who had his arms twisted and was afraid of everything.
Well, listen — it’s actually Trump who twists arms, openly takes Putin’s side, and is helping Iran. So I don’t quite understand you.
On Trump, Biden, and Harris Link to heading
A question from You hate him deservedly — Trump. But the problem is that Biden has caused exponentially more harm to Israel. Can you imagine that? And then, what would it be like if Kamala Harris were in charge?
Yes, I agree. I agree, yes. What? I don’t know what Harris would be like. I’m not sure Harris would be worse than Trump. I don’t think so.
On Disagreements Between Trump and Netanyahu Link to heading
So. A question from Alexander: Igor Alexandrovich, how could you suggest that there are any contradictions between Trump and Netanyahu? Quarreling sweethearts, nothing more. Trump pulled out of the Iran deal — which was working — either at Bibi’s direct request or at least to his delight. Trump’s supposed veto on eliminating Khamenei was nothing but a smokescreen. The goal is to set back Iran’s nuclear program, not to change the regime. The ayatollah regime is truly an existential threat to Israel, but its fall would be like the joke about the father and son lawyers: “Dad, I won the case!” — “What? Son, that case fed us for 30 years.” Netanyahu has had no program other than fighting the Iranian threat since he came to power in 2009. In the one year he wasn’t in office, we were far less frightened by Iran. And your response to the audience, excuse me, makes no sense. Quote: ‘Bibi took the criticism upon himself.’ I’m sorry, I don’t know, but I’m sure I could hardly have said that, because the criticism was aimed at Netanyahu.
But the fact that he accepted that criticism — that’s not from me, that’s just what happened. I’m not usually the one saying that. And in general, I agree with you — I don’t see any major contradictions here. But the fact is, Trump was persuading, urging, and demanding that Israel not strike before the 15th. Right up until the 15th, Trump kept chanting that Israel must not strike. And yet Netanyahu did strike. So the contradictions are clearly there.
Navalny, FBK, and Dotting the I’s Link to heading
So? Gennady Konovalov — Well, this just keeps going in circles. I probably won’t answer these kinds of questions or comments anymore, because it’s all repeating. Igor Alexandrovich, let’s dot the i’s. Navalny founded FBK with the goal of informing the public about a corrupt regime through his investigations, not helping that regime. And it’s not his fault that most of society turned a deaf ear. By the way, Navalny, even during the war and already in prison, actively supported FBK and its investigations.
Dear colleagues! The war changed everything. The war changed the situation. The war fundamentally altered everything, and FBK continued to operate as if there were no war, while Navalny was sitting in prison. You understand, he had other priorities at that moment — survival — which didn’t work out.
So to say that Navalny had some specific intent — the war changed everything. And unfortunately, FBK didn’t react to those changes at all. In this war, you had to be either on Russia’s side or on Ukraine’s. FBK was on Russia’s side, campaigning for some kind of elections that don’t actually exist in Russia. They kept promoting “smart voting.”
Basically, the pool has long been empty, and they’re still urging people to dive in headfirst. Absolute nonsense. Same with anti-corruption investigations during wartime — I mean, come on, it’s clearly absurd. What’s the point? No one knows.
On Counterfeit Rubles as a Means of Warfare Link to heading
So, Denis Lipsits is still advocating for counterfeit rubles. A question about war crimes: Can Ukraine threaten to inject 1,000,000,000 in fake rubles into circulation in response to Russia’s war crimes? This could be Ukraine’s answer to poison gas, to a targeted attack on a maternity hospital — another ten trillion ₽. A response to a crime could become a deterrent when decisions are made. It might even be a bargaining chip in discussions about aid from the U.S. Maybe it’s the last card in Ukraine’s fight for survival?
Dear Denis, I… well, I won’t repeat the answer I’ve already given you. Try to hear it. You see, a state is not the same as non-state actors. Counterfeiting is an international crime — it’s a war crime of such magnitude that it would be an enormous gift to Putin. And I believe that the Ukrainian military and political leadership fully understands that if they start printing counterfeit rubles, they will, essentially, place themselves outside the civilized world. No one engages with counterfeiters — no one will deal with a counterfeiting state.
No one does this, you understand? It’s about the same as using a nuclear bomb, for example. Or using biological weapons. Like, shall we start infecting each other with the plague? No one does that, you see?
I think I’ve explained everything already. These things are absolutely unacceptable. Just attempting to do this — and I’m very glad, as far as I know, that this thought hasn’t even crossed Ukraine’s mind — just attempting it would be crossing a red line. Yes, you can — and must — kill the enemy, but engaging in state-level counterfeiting is completely unacceptable. No one would deal with them after that. It would be the perfect gift to Putin if they ever did it.
On Cleaning Up the YouTube Channel Chat Link to heading
So. A question from Anna Galant: And from you too, Igor Alexandrovich, in comes Sheitelman — beauty, cleanliness. You need a moderator? Absolutely essential.
I agree 100%. Not everything happens at once. Look, take the Telegram channel chat, for example — you go in there, and it’s clean and beautiful. The discussions are serious, everything’s great. And why? Because the Telegram channel chat has two absolutely wonderful moderators. It’s a joy to see.
As for — I understand you mean the YouTube channel chat during the livestream, right? Well, we haven’t gotten around to it yet, but we will. We’ll bring order, do a deep clean.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, this brings our morning conversation to a close. A reminder: at 20:00 we’ll be meeting with Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman. Just a moment, hold on. Right — 20:00, Mikhail Pavlovich Sheitelman. I think it’s going to be an interesting conversation, especially since he received such a wonderful recommendation as the organizer of a truly impressive, clean, and beautiful chat.
With that, I conclude our discussion. See you at 20:00. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov! To all Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian prisoners of war! See you at 20:00!
Source: https://youtu.be/iBHSpMkncJU