Can lies become the foundation of the world in Ukraine? This is not a rhetorical question in light of the recent statements by the U.S. State Department.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 25, and we continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls.
News of the Peacekeeping Process Link to heading
First, I would say: news of the peace process, or the peacekeeping, or negotiation process. Yesterday afternoon, Russian occupiers launched a missile strike on the city of Sumy. A school and several apartment buildings were damaged. According to preliminary data, 88 people were injured, including 17 children. This is, so to speak, what is happening in parallel with this peace process. And I would perhaps venture to say that it is to some extent a consequence of it, because this negotiation process is quite obviously a cover operation for Putin, intended to, let’s say, mask, to carry out actions under the guise of this negotiation process, under this pile of papers in Saudi Arabia, under the numerous statements that Russia and Ukraine have never been closer to peace than they are now. This is a statement that keeps coming from the White House. Meanwhile, strikes like the one on the city of Sumy are happening. Well, in fact, perhaps nothing speaks more vividly about the negotiation process than this strike on the city, on civilians, the destruction of a school. Nothing more vivid can be said about the negotiation process.
So that means the negotiations are over. Today they’ll tell us. That is, the parties—I mean the Russian-American negotiations—were unable to agree on any coherent joint communiqué in 12 hours. But apparently, today they will finally produce and present that little piece of paper to the public. Well, at least they promised to deliver this document, the result of the 12-hour negotiations, today, March 25.
The U.S. Tries to Lull the Truth with Lies Link to heading
So, yesterday during a briefing, U.S. State Department Press Secretary Tommy Bruce, responding to a journalist’s question about whether the White House considers Russia’s claims to the annexed Ukrainian regions legitimate, said that the details of a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine can only be discussed after a full ceasefire. That is, the answer to the question “what is two plus two?” can only be given by the White House after the fire has ceased. As long as the exchange of strikes continues, as long as clashes occur, the White House cannot say whose Crimea it is. It cannot say whether Putin was right in annexing Ukrainian territories, and so on. That is, essentially, such is their position. In other words, the truth cannot be spoken during negotiations because the truth would get in the way.
According to the New York Times, the Trump administration has already clearly indicated that Russia can retain control over about 25% of Ukraine’s territory. Frankly, it’s hard to say how that’s calculated—whether this includes Crimea, or if that’s in addition to it, or if they’ve already separated Crimea in their minds. Because again, according to sources—I’ve already discussed this with you, dear friends—an American outlet reported that Washington is considering recognizing Crimea, annexed by Russia, as Russian territory. Moreover, the White House is also discussing the possibility of urging the United Nations to do the same. So once again, international law, along with the truth, is being flushed down the toilet. All of this, of course, in the name of reaching some kind of peace.
You know, I vividly remember a play that, if I’m not mistaken, was staged in Russia in the late 2000s, based on J.B. Priestley’s work. Priestley wrote a play called Dangerous Corner, and in Russian theaters it was performed under the title Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. The plot was about a businessman who accidentally heard a melody that led him to an investigation. This investigation spiraled into a realization that his entire life was built on lies, and in the end, it all collapsed: he found out that his brother was a criminal, his partners and wife deceived him, and the woman he idolized turned out not to be who he thought she was. In the end, he realized that everything he had relied on in life was destroyed, and he committed suicide. But in fact, at the end of the play, there was an alternative version—where the melody was never heard, and thus no investigation took place, and his whole life continued as it had been: a life built on lies.
The point of the title was that the “sleeping dog” was the truth, which must not be awakened, because it might bite everyone. In this case, the policy of the White House of the United States is to secure peace with lies—to hide the truth beneath a mountain of lies so that it won’t damage the peace. That’s the policy. Right now, I’m, so to speak, playing the role of devil’s advocate.
The Uniqueness of Trump’s Lies Link to heading
So, uniqueness. Let’s start with uniqueness, because, you see, we’ve developed a kind of habitual way of labeling things, calling them clichés, but here we’re dealing with a completely new phenomenon. Trump is an absolutely new phenomenon in global politics, in the history of humankind—it’s something unprecedented. Because, you see, the scale of lies that Trump uses, and the consequences of those lies, are absolutely without precedent. Researchers, American observers, tracked and were stunned when they counted the number of false claims Trump made during the first months of his activities—even during his first presidential campaign. By some counts, it was 30,000 false statements. According to The Washington Post’s fact-checking team, it was 29,508. Another organization counted 30,573 false statements. So, in fact, Trump made several significantly false claims almost daily. This, you understand, is a completely different quality.
As we’ve already discussed, by every measure, Trump represents a form of fascism. Here, we can draw a classification—a sort of fascism chart—dividing fascist regimes based on the ratio of lies to violence. Remember Solzhenitsyn once said that violence inevitably seeks to ally itself with lies, because violence has nothing to cover itself with except lies, and lies can only survive through violence. This pair of phenomena, which form the foundation of any fascist regime, exists in different proportions. You can construct a scale based on the balance between lies and violence.
Hitlerism represents maximum violence—and compared to all other forms of fascism, it had a relatively average level of lying, though still high. In contrast, Putinism—especially modern Putinism—represents a moderate level of internal violence (I’m referring primarily to within the country; of course, the extreme violence he now uses in Ukraine is a historical fact). Internally, it’s moderate violence and very high levels of lying. And finally, Trumpism, based on this ratio of the two phenomena, is minimal in terms of violence—frankly, no significant internal violence—but extremely high levels of lies, unprecedented in human history.
And it’s precisely thanks to this massive scale of lies that Trump has managed to create a completely fictional reality in which his voters now live. Among Trump’s voters, there are many people who, in essence, vote against their own interests. Not even Putin had this. All fascist regimes, historically, bought off their voters. Trump doesn’t buy them—he simply deceives them outright. Hitler, for instance, did buy off his voters—he eliminated unemployment, provided people with a decent standard of living before dragging them into that suicidal war. I’m not even talking now about genocide or the Holocaust. But before that, he tried to earn his people’s loyalty. Putin, too, for many years provided a relatively high standard of living.
Trump, on the other hand, practically destroyed the standard of living as soon as he came to power through his tariff policies. So how does he maintain voter support? Pure lies. Trump is, essentially, sheer unadorned falsehood.
Returning to the main topic today: Can the peace Trump is promising be based solely on lies? Some Trotskyists hope that Trump will manage to deceive everyone—that he’ll pull the wool over Putin’s eyes, and do the same to Ukraine. And that this deception will somehow lead to peace. But I get the feeling that while Trump does manage to deceive his voters—and he calls this “the art of the deal”—there’s a clear understanding that the attempt to find, as they say, a mutually acceptable peace for both Russia and Ukraine, without forcing either side to seriously compromise, is impossible. It’s obvious that Putin isn’t interested in concessions, nor in moving toward Ukraine in any way. And it’s also clear that to establish peace, one side must be broken. Can Putin be broken? Clearly not. Can Ukraine be broken? Also clearly not.
So, most likely, this attempt by Trump’s team to hypnotize reality—to become reality’s hypnotist—is doomed to complete failure, just like all of Trump’s previous ventures: from trying to make Canada the 51st state, to annexing Greenland, to relocating Palestinians to another planet. All of these ideas ended in a puff of smoke. Because while you can deceive your voters all you want, no one has yet succeeded in hypnotizing reality itself.
So most likely, the outcome will be the same as in all his previous cases. In his business career, Trump repeatedly resorted to bankruptcy. Six times he declared bankruptcy when his attempts to bend reality ended in fiasco. He would simply walk away, saying, “That’s it, I failed, I’m bankrupt.” That’s pretty much how he acts in politics as well—at least until now.
In this case, we’re dealing with a major war, one started by Putin in the heart of Europe. Will Trump be able to end it through his usual lies and reality-bending tricks? I believe the probability of that is zero.
About Radio Liberty Link to heading
And now, on top of everything else, Trump is trying—by all means available to him—to eliminate sources of truth in the media. Specifically, right now—just yesterday—hearings took place in Washington regarding a lawsuit filed by Radio Liberty against the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which had cut off Radio Liberty’s funding. The outcome is still unknown. The hearings are ongoing. In any case, there are initiatives from European countries that will attempt in some way to take over the funding of Radio Liberty. Most likely, this will be a slow, difficult process with no guaranteed result. I believe that, in the end, Radio Liberty will manage to survive in some form, at least as a journalistic team, possibly under a different brand. Because, realistically, continuing to fund Radio Liberty as it currently exists is unlikely to succeed. This is, of course, tragic—it strikes a blow at its main enemy: the truth. And that, essentially, is what we’re witnessing before our very eyes.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to say that today we have two very interesting guests. At 8:00 PM we’ll have a conversation with Vitaly Portnikov, and at 9:00 PM—with Mark Feygin. I think both discussions are worth listening to. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
About Akhmat. Is it Possible That He Is Ideologically Supportive of Ukraine? Link to heading
A question from Irina:
How do you view the theory that Akhmat is not just running and hiding from the Ukrainian Armed Forces, but actually does not want to fight Ukrainians for ideological reasons? That they have a secret goal to break away from Russia when the opportunity arises, and that Ukrainians are their potential allies.
Well, dear Irina, you know—I’m sure you know—that I am extremely negative toward any kind of conspiracy theory, especially one like this. I think this version has zero chance of being realistic. Akhmat is clearly an enemy of Ukraine. The fact that they do everything they can to avoid clashes and constantly run away from the Armed Forces of Ukraine is not a sign that they want to break away or become allies of Ukrainian forces. It’s simply evidence of the pathological cowardice of these people.
In fact, this is, to some extent, a degeneration of the Chechen people, because nothing remains of the national values and traditions of the Chechen people—a warrior nation—in these individuals. They value their lives greatly and do not want to risk them, because they are no longer warriors; they are, so to speak, troops with golden pistols. They’re all dollar millionaires, and they value their lives dearly.
So the reasons here are banal, you see? There’s no need to look for some hidden meaning in the actions of people that are simply explained by basic human cowardice and plain human baseness. Everything is right there on the surface. I think Occam’s Razor is very helpful here.
On the Expansion of Russian Influence Westward Link to heading
Elena Krasikova:
There is constant discussion about the expansion of Russian influence westward. But how is that possible if there are simultaneous reports of shortages in armored vehicles, army personnel—including officers—while the war in Ukraine is in its fourth year? With what forces would they do anything else?
Dear Elena, you are absolutely right. As long as Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, there will be no expansion westward. But if, hypothetically, Russia somehow exits Ukraine—a somewhat theoretical scenario—then yes, the resources Russia has would be sufficient to carry out expansion into certain Western countries. But as long as Russia is stuck in Ukraine, I don’t think any expansion will happen.
What Is the Author’s Solution to the Paradox of Tolerance? Link to heading
A question from Vlad:
What is your solution to the paradox of tolerance? It seems quite relevant right now.
Well, let me remind you that the paradox of tolerance was formulated by Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies. The essence of it is that unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance itself, because tolerance toward intolerance—in short, tolerance toward fascists and terrorists—results in the spread of fascists and terrorists. And as a result, the situation develops such that either the world is threatened with destruction, or tolerant people are forced to act in intolerant ways. This is a well-known paradox. In my view, the solution lies—as always—the solution to any paradox lies in stepping outside the system in which the paradox arose. It’s the usual story: when a paradox arises within a system, the only way out is to go beyond that system.
And going beyond that system means eliminating total, indiscriminate tolerance—distinguishing between intolerance of those who reject tolerance as a norm of behavior, and intolerance of those who reject tolerance in some specific cases but still recognize it as generally necessary. That is, to break this idea of total tolerance into parts. Because tolerance toward fascism and terrorism, for example, is harmful, right? Now, of course, this raises the question: who decides what counts as fascism or terrorism? In this case, we’re talking about the creation of institutions capable of making such determinations. That is, we need institutions of reputation, institutions of analysis and verification, and so on.
So yes, I absolutely believe that total tolerance leads to self-destruction. But in principle, breaking down this total tolerance and creating a system where tolerance toward fascism and terrorism is itself seen as a contradiction of tolerance is a feasible and solvable task. At the very least, a practical solution to this problem exists.
On Germany Selling Weapons to Russia Link to heading
Vera asks:
What do you think, or how does it work, or how can this be verified? The German company Rheinmetall supplies weapons to many countries—Argentina, Algeria, Brazil, Egypt, Greece, and so on. Among them are countries unfriendly to Ukraine, or, as in Georgia, governments that are unfriendly. If they end up selling these weapons to Russia, this could launch a perpetual motion machine of war. The German government has adopted a defense package, and Rheinmetall produces weapons to defend Germany, to sell to Ukraine, and at the same time to other countries that may later sell those weapons to Russia. This company is private and primarily interested in its profits. Is a perpetual motion machine of war possible?
Dear Vera, yes, indeed—this is a private company. But that does not mean the German government has no leverage over it. Just to remind you—I don’t recall the details off the top of my head—but at one point Rheinmetall had direct business relations with Russia, up until 2014, directly with the Russian Ministry of Defense. I clearly remember the situation: after the occupation of Crimea, the German Minister of the Economy, if I’m not mistaken, issued a direct ban on the company having any dealings with Russia. This is the largest military company in Germany—and likely the largest in Europe.
So the German government, specifically the Ministry of the Economy, simply prohibited this company from doing business with Russia. Therefore, I don’t think there will be a perpetual motion machine of war—at least not involving this company. I believe the German government is capable of identifying unfriendly countries or regimes that could resell weapons to Russia and simply banning the company from doing business with those countries.
The thing is, of course, there are economic interests involved. Currently, Ukraine is the largest importer of weapons, and for Rheinmetall, having Ukraine as a partner is extremely important. As for the political dimension, I believe it aligns completely with the economic one. So yes, a ban on trade with unfriendly countries is entirely possible. German legislation fully provides for that.
About Sevastyanov. A Suggestion to Include Him in “Trumpophrenia” Link to heading
The gloomy donkey is very upset that I didn’t answer previous questions. And continuing the topic of Whitcoff and his openly pro-Putin stance:
Yesterday on Kiselyov’s show, the guest Sevastyanov, when asked about Whitcoff’s statements, replied, quote: “Whitcoff is a simple-minded person. And in general, he’s not subordinate to Trump, and Trump is not his boss—just a golf partner. Why are you clinging to him? Don’t pay attention to what he says.” This is one of many examples of idiotic justifications of Trump’s actions, writes the gloomy donkey about Sevastyanov. And, as far as I recall, not a single critical remark from him about Trump. My question—I’ve already tried asking: why is the outright, rabid Trump supporter Mr. Sevastyanov not featured in Trumpophrenia? You either haven’t noticed the question several times or are avoiding it. What is your view on the Trumpist Sevastyanov?
You know, I can say right away—perhaps I really didn’t see your earlier questions—but off the cuff, I can’t comment because I haven’t seen that segment. Thank you for the information, I will definitely watch that video, and if I find it necessary, Mr. Sevastyanov will be included in the next Trumpophrenia episode. If there is indeed a vivid endorsement of Trump’s actions, then absolutely—there are no limits on my part in that regard. There’s no malicious intent here. I just can’t keep up with everything, including the things you consider important. Thank you for the tip.
About the Russian Empire and Its Borders Link to heading
Elena Zelinskaya:
Before 1919, what state controlled these disputed territories? I assume we’re talking about the territories of present-day Ukraine and Russia.
Well, I assume you’re referring to the Russian Empire, which did control those territories. That’s true. I get the sense this question carries a kind of implication—like, “Well, there you have it!” You know, I’ve said many times that historical arguments in politics are dangerous. Yes, before 1919, the Russian Empire did include what is now Ukraine and Russia. That’s true.
But you know, in the 13th century, all of that territory—Russia, Ukraine, and even China—was part of the Mongol Empire. So what does that mean? What’s the point of that? And before the American War of Independence in 1775, all of North America was British territory—there were 20 different British colonies. So what? Huge swaths of land were once part of the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire. And? What now? Does that mean they should all, so to speak, return to their “mother countries”?
Let me emphasize once again: historical arguments in politics are a very risky thing—and extremely unconvincing in today’s context. Who owned what territory in the last century, the century before that, a thousand years ago—none of that has anything to do with the matter at hand, with present-day politics.
On the Works of Vadim Zeland Link to heading
Sergey:
Are you familiar with the works of Vadim Zeland, and what is your opinion of them? If possible, please give a detailed answer.
Dear Sergey, with your permission, I’ll refrain from giving a detailed response and instead try to answer to the point. Here’s why: overall, this “Reality Transurfing” concept that Vadim describes in his books is what can be classified as mysticism or esotericism. I would even say it borders on shamanism—a kind of attempt to change reality or destiny purely by the power of thought or contemplation. I have a negative view of that.
If we look at it from a literary perspective, I’d rather not act as a literary critic because that’s a matter of taste. I personally don’t like it. Some people do. For example, I don’t like Castaneda, although many consider him a great writer. If we try to place Zeland within some kind of framework, he’s perhaps comparable to Castaneda—but without Castaneda’s literary talent.
Evaluating Zeland’s work in terms of its alignment with reality, or trying to fit it into a scientific context, is impossible. It simply doesn’t meet the standards of the scientific worldview. It lacks the clear, strict exposition, the defined conceptual apparatus, and the verifiable elements that are essential in science. You can’t insert Castaneda into a scientific paradigm—and it’s the same with Zeland.
So, if his work helps someone as a form of psychotherapy—fine. This whole idea of changing your fate with the power of thought, sliding through parallel worlds—it’s exciting, imaginative, and could make for good science fiction. But if you’re asking for a characterization of Zeland as someone trying to build a scientific worldview, I can’t agree with that.
Yes, he has many followers. But so did other figures—like Blinovskaya, who was recently imprisoned, yet had a huge following while selling nonsense to women. Or Mavrodi with his pyramid scheme. Even Donald Trump operates in the same genre—feeding illusions to people. So did Hitler, and so does Putin. To me, these are all manipulators who deceive their followers. That’s the issue.
Of course, I apologize to those who follow Zeland—he’s certainly not as dangerous as Hitler, Trump, or Putin. He’s relatively harmless. But he feeds people illusions. Some people enjoy that, and feel comfortable with those illusions—fine, no big deal. But if you take his “Reality Transurfing” seriously as a life guide, it could lead you into trouble.
Will the Turks Succeed in Overthrowing Erdoğan? Link to heading
Boris Ivanov:
Do you think the Turks will succeed in overthrowing Erdoğan? Maybe among your guests there’s a Turkey expert who could assess the chances of such an outcome and the possible consequences for both theaters of World War III—Ukraine and the Middle East.
As for an expert—I’ll have to think about that. I do have people interested in Turkish issues, but I don’t currently see any guest who could provide an objective analysis. As for my own view—I’m definitely not a Turkey specialist—but from what I see and observe, the answer is probably no. Erdoğan seems to be standing (or sitting) quite firmly, as it were. At any rate, the current impression is that he’s managing this challenge.
The preemptive purges he began well before the 2028 presidential elections indicate that he’s keeping the situation under control. Whether he’ll manage to suppress the capital, Istanbul, remains to be seen—but so far, it seems he is. Unfortunately.
On Whitcoff’s Logic Link to heading
Yulia:
If we follow the logic that since the overwhelming majority of Americans speak English, this indicates the United States’ desire to join the United Kingdom.
Well yes, everything those two—Whitcoff and Carlson—said is so easily refuted, so easily debunked. You’ve just provided one of the arguments that completely exposes the absurdity of what they were saying.
About Bots in Streams Link to heading
Alexander, a question about chat moderation during streams:
When will there finally be proper moderation? How long do we have to endure these rude people in the chats? It’s not even just debates—there’s a constant stream of insults. They insult you and your guests, insult Ukraine, its president, and its people. Trying to respond politely in a civil or Christian tone just gets your comments blocked—my old account was shadow-banned in the chat. I had to create a new one. The admin doesn’t want to deal with the bot problem and claims banning them is useless. Many decent people have left the channel or rarely visit anymore—all because of the troll infestation in chat. Something needs to be done. Give moderator rights to someone—one of your regular subscribers. Something must be done.
Dear Alexander, I completely agree with you. The problem of bots and trolls is very real, and I’m trying to find ways to address it. I’ve recently started working on the issue in Telegram, and I think we’ve found a good solution there by involving the community. I delegated moderator rights to two people—this was easier in Telegram because I’ve had years to get to know the members of that chat. There are around 200 regulars there, so it’s easier to understand who’s who. I realized that at least two people there could be trusted to handle moderation properly—and so far, knock on wood, it’s working. The troll and bot problem in the Telegram channel chat has been solved. Huge thanks to the two volunteers who agreed to take on the moderator role.
As for comments under the stream itself, I handle those personally. I review all comments and remove what I can. Of course, bots are now powered by AI and can generate thousands of copies, so banning them is often a losing battle—but I still try.
As for the issue you mentioned specifically—we haven’t fully addressed it yet. I think we can adopt a similar approach to the one you’re suggesting: delegate moderator powers to a trusted regular in the stream chat. But I need some time to figure that out—I need to personally decide whom to delegate that role to. That’s just how it works. So please give me a little time, and I’ll try to resolve this. It’s an important issue, I agree.
Why Does a Person Need the Truth? Link to heading
Oleg Orlov:
Please tell me, why does a person need the truth? The thing is, when a patriot is cornered and has no arguments left, they’ll often say, “Why do you even need this? The truth—what are you going to do with it? You just want to know it because you’re supposed to.” So, in short, Oleg Orlov sums up his question like this: why is the truth necessary?
You know, this question is very simple on the surface, but I wouldn’t answer it lightly. In fact, the entire substantive part of today’s stream was essentially dedicated to this very question. Why do you need the truth? That depends on how you position yourself in the world. Not everyone needs the truth. There are people for whom the truth is that very sleeping dog—let it lie. Because when it wakes up, it bites. The truth can lead you out of your comfort zone. That’s true—pardon the unintentional pun.
It all depends on what you want in life. If you want comfort at any cost, to sit with your eyes closed in a warm bath, undisturbed—then no, you don’t need the truth. The truth is for those who want, to some degree, to be a subject—someone who controls their own destiny. For those who don’t like being manipulated. If you’re fine with being manipulated, then yes, you definitely don’t need the truth. If not, then you do.
That doesn’t mean that as soon as you learn the truth, you have to destroy everything around you. No. But there are people who want, at least to some extent, to steer their own lives. If you are one of those people, then you need the truth simply so you’re not manipulated—so no one else controls you from the outside. That’s all. That’s the only reason. If a person wants to go with the flow—that’s a choice. In that case, the truth is definitely unnecessary.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, that’s it. We’re wrapping up our conversation for today. Let me remind you once again that at 8:00 PM we’ll have Vitaly Portnikov, and at 9:00 PM—Mark Feygin. I think both guests will be of interest to you. That concludes today’s discussion. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Yakob, to Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs. All the best! See you at 8:00 PM!
Source: https://youtu.be/hqXUZv3QCbs