Breakdown of negotiations in London and the remote exchange between Trump and Zelensky. Putin’s bloody arguments. On the discussion between Kasparov and Podrabinek.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 24th, in Kyiv. It’s now 7:42 AM, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
“Peaceful” Arguments of Putin Link to heading
Although Putin is not directly participating in negotiations on Ukraine, he constantly contributes new arguments. The latest came as a result of a Russian missile and drone strike on Kyiv last night. According to the latest reports, nine people were killed. Ukraine’s rescue service is constantly updating these numbers, and it’s likely not the final count. Around 70 people were injured, including six children. Rescuers report that search efforts continue for people trapped under the rubble of residential buildings. Many Kyiv residents spent the night in the metro. This is what it looked like. This is life now. Nightlife in Kyiv. In reality, it’s fortunate that the metro exists as a place where people can hide. But not everyone manages to make it there.
In addition, there is a huge amount—I won’t overload our conversation with a flood of photos and videos showing in graphic detail who was affected. There’s not a single soldier among them. These are exclusively civilians. For example, the aftermath of the attack on Kyiv’s Sviatoshynskyi District. A rescue operation is underway there now. And once again, rescuers emphasize that people may still be under the rubble. Reports say that phone calls are being received from under the debris of buildings, so clearly people are there—possibly alive. The number of casualties will continue to be updated.
These are Putin’s arguments in the negotiation process. This is how he is currently prepared to move toward peace. This is what it looks like today. This is Kyiv, today, and this is the Sviatoshynskyi District. These are Putin’s peaceful negotiations. What more needs to be shown to Trump for him to understand that Putin is truly filled with a desire for peace? These are all residential areas, they have nothing to do with military targets or objectives. This is simply terrorism, because it targets residential neighborhoods and civilians. It has no relation to military necessity.
As far as I could tell, based on the photos I chose not to show—because that kind of morning horror is just too much—there wasn’t a single soldier, only civilians, including women, elderly women, and injured children. It’s all clear.
And not just Kyiv—several Ukrainian cities were affected by the overnight attack. Kharkiv, for example, came under a massive missile strike followed by a large-scale drone attack. There were explosions in the city. Preliminary information from Katz suggests two people were injured, but again, that’s data as of around 5:00 AM. We’ll only know tomorrow what actually happened. In any case, the strikes on Kharkiv are continuing.
According to the latest reports, there were also strikes on the town of Marhanets in the Dnipropetrovsk region. Nine people were killed, and more than 40 were injured. These were mainly victims of a drone strike on a bus carrying workers from one of the local enterprises, mostly women. Not a single military personnel—again, over 40 injured and nine dead, mostly women. No military presence. After this, Putin will, of course, lie and claim they were mostly NATO officers.
So these are Putin’s “arguments” in the negotiation process.
The U.S. Derails Negotiations in London Link to heading
Against this backdrop, the commotion surrounding the London negotiations, which were effectively derailed by the United States, looks especially grotesque—as we already discussed in yesterday evening’s conversation with Roman Tsymbaliuk. Due to the absence of Rubio and Whitcoff, the Europeans also downgraded their level of participation to that of advisors. In the end, everything boiled down to a meeting with a figure who is clearly distancing himself from decision-making and is quite far removed from Trump.
Essentially, these negotiations—despite all claims that they went very well—clearly did not happen in any meaningful way. This is standard diplomatic rhetoric. But it can be said outright: they didn’t take place—they were disrupted. Afterward, Trump accused Zelensky of obstructing negotiations with Russia. I’ll quote him exactly here, for the sake of accuracy. Trump is quoted as saying:
“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that Ukraine will never recognize the occupation of Crimea. There is nothing to discuss. This statement,” writes Trump, “hinders peace negotiations with Russia, since Crimea was lost many years ago under President Obama, and it is no longer up for discussion. No one is asking Zelensky to recognize Crimea as Russian. But if he wants it back so badly, why didn’t Ukraine fight for it 11 years ago when Russia took it without a single shot? Besides, important Russian military bases have long been in Crimea, even before Obama handed it over.”
End of quote. In Trump’s opinion, a peace agreement is close at hand. But we’ve just seen Putin’s arguments—which make it quite clear how close that agreement really is. Trump writes that Zelensky, who has no aces up his sleeve, needs to understand this, or else he risks losing the entire country. Zelensky’s statement, according to Trump, only prolongs the bloodshed in Ukraine.
Then came yesterday’s statement from White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt, who told reporters that Trump is disappointed by the slow pace of the Ukraine negotiations. His patience is wearing thin. She added that both sides must demonstrate a will for peace. Leavitt went on to say that Zelensky is heading in the wrong direction, and that no one is demanding Ukraine recognize Crimea as Russian—President Trump simply believes that negotiations should be conducted behind closed doors, and that both sides must recognize they will have to compromise to reach a good agreement.
Zelensky naturally responded and entered into a remote polemic with Trump. In his response, he included a reference to the Crimea Declaration. I emphasize: this is a declaration adopted by the United States in 2018—during the Trump administration. It was signed by Mike Pompeo, who served as U.S. Secretary of State under Trump. The declaration explicitly states the illegality of Crimea’s occupation. This is the Crimea Declaration, where the United States declared the occupation of Crimea illegal. So this document clearly reflects the official U.S. position at the time—this was the U.S. with a healthy approach.
Now, however, Trump seems intent on completely overturning this declaration and recognizing Crimea as Russian. That’s fairly obvious. Even under Trump, the United States did not recognize Crimea’s annexation—they condemned it. Now, for some reason, he wants to hand Putin a gift by recognizing it. Meanwhile, Ukraine is trying to maintain some sort of relationship with the U.S.
Yesterday’s statement by the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Andriy Yermak, is very telling. I’ll quote it in full:
“We emphasized our commitment to the peaceful initiatives of U.S. President Donald Trump. We are grateful to our partners for their steadfast support and shared desire to end the war as soon as possible.”
Clearly, this statement is meant to be conciliatory. But it’s also clear that Trump is not responding to Yermak’s conciliatory tone—he’s responding to Zelensky’s principled statements. So everything is, well, quite clear and transparent.
Appeasing the Aggressor Link to heading
A very telling statement came from Peskov in an interview with a French publication, in which he said that the war would end if Ukraine withdrew its troops from the four regions enshrined in the Russian Constitution. That alone is notable. Even more striking is his phrasing—Peskov claimed that within these regions, there are still territories “occupied by the Kyiv regime.” By that, he apparently means places like Zaporizhzhia, the Ukrainian city of Kherson, and a number of other areas that are part of Ukraine.
According to Peskov, Ukraine has “occupied” its own territory. Meanwhile, whatever Putin and his gang have written into their Constitution—that, supposedly, is Russia.
Key Issues of the Situation Link to heading
So, the confrontation with the United States today revolves around the issue of officially recognizing Crimea and other occupied territories as Russian. Here, Europe’s position is especially important. Notably, the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, stated that it would be a mistake for Washington to consider recognizing annexed Crimea as Russian territory as part of a peace deal. And indeed, this raises a huge question: what is the point of including U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian in this so-called deal? If there’s such a strong desire, it could have been done at any time.
Here’s the thing—one of the biggest problems with this so-called Trump Plan (which, by the way, we still don’t actually know exists). What’s being discussed— is it really Trump’s plan, or is it some journalist’s interpretation? Because so far, there are differences in how various media outlets—especially American ones—describe the plan. For example, some say the plan requires Russia to withdraw from parts of Kharkiv Oblast, but most sources don’t mention that at all. So the plan hasn’t been published, and it’s unclear what’s really being discussed.
That said, the vast majority of outlets seem to agree on certain points. And Zelensky’s reaction to the idea of recognizing Crimea as Russian suggests he’s not just responding to media reports—he likely saw that seven-point memo himself.
So, what are the main issues as I see them?
First, it’s completely unclear why U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian needs to be part of this deal. If the United States is desperate to give Putin a gift, they can do that separately—outside the negotiation process. Nobody is stopping them from making foolish decisions. If they want to recognize Crimea as Russian, let them do it. Let them run full-speed into a brick wall. Let them recognize Alaska as Russian. Let them recognize California as Russian. They have plenty of resources for making bad decisions.
But what does this have to do with a deal that Ukraine is supposed to sign? That’s where Trump’s position becomes completely idiotic. He says no one is asking Ukraine to recognize Crimea as Russian. But if this is a deal or agreement, presumably it needs both Ukraine and Russia’s signatures. And if the deal includes U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian, then somehow Ukraine must also be party to that. Otherwise, why are we even calling it a peace negotiation? Again, there’s a clear contradiction here—a glaring absurdity.
In that case, just leave Ukraine alone and go make your dumb decisions on your own.
That’s the first point. Second, and very important—Trump criticizes Zelensky for allegedly breaking confidentiality by making public statements instead of discussing the future of his country behind closed doors. But the irony is that it was Trump who started this pattern. Remember that infamous meeting in the Oval Office? Instead of holding a standard press opportunity where no substantive statements are made and talks happen privately, Trump seated Zelensky across from Pence and staged a brawl—conducting a long, nearly 40-minute public debate in front of the cameras.
So, Trump’s style has never been about discreet diplomacy. Yes, it’s true—many diplomatic negotiations should happen behind closed doors to avoid politicians grandstanding for the press and trying to look like heroes to their voters. That kind of behavior can really harm the negotiation process. But Trump himself does exactly that all the time.
Also, this whole Trump plan remains a mystery. It hasn’t been published, yet everyone’s discussing it. Meanwhile, Trump always has the option of later saying that certain provisions “weren’t actually in the plan.”
And the most fundamental problem is that all of this—all of it—is based on the claim that Putin, according to Trump, is ready for peace. Ready for peace? We began today’s discussion with horrifying reports of missile and drone strikes on multiple Ukrainian cities, especially Kyiv. Where is this supposed willingness for peace?
Trump keeps saying his patience is running out, and that if he doesn’t see quick results, he’ll withdraw from the negotiation process. Well, we’ll see. Honestly, from my point of view—it would be better if he did. The sooner the better. Stop misleading people. Stop creating the illusion of a peace process that clearly does not exist on the horizon.
At the end of our discussion—well, at the end of this first part before we get to questions—I’ll publish the results of the poll I asked you today, dear friends, about how realistic you think Trump’s threats to pull out of negotiations really are.
Anti-War Resistance in Russia Link to heading
Just a few words about anti-war resistance in Russia. Here I’d like to briefly comment on a recent, in my view very significant, debate—albeit a remote one—between Garry Kasparov and Alexander Podrabinek regarding anti-war resistance in Russia. Garry Kasparov published an article—or rather a short but powerful text—in which he argued that what’s happening is not just Putin’s war, but Russia’s war, and that we are all responsible for it. Kasparov said he feels personally responsible for this war and claimed that there is no anti-war movement in Russia.
Alexander Podrabinek, a well-known human rights advocate, Soviet-era dissident, and former political prisoner, responded with an article in which he reproached Kasparov for “cowardly fleeing Russia” and asserted that there is, in fact, an anti-war movement, and that there are heroes who are resisting. We must not devalue their efforts—that was essentially his point.
When I began preparing to speak on this topic, I intended to present arguments both for and against. But first, I want to share a story involving a group of activists from Voronezh who are currently facing severe pressure from the security services. There are six individuals, as far as I understand, activists from Voronezh who run an anti-war Telegram channel called “Free People of Voronezh.” Recently, there was a raid on them. One of them is now in the hospital with multiple fractures. This is Voronezh activist Alexander Zheltukhin, who was brutally beaten by the security forces. He’s currently in the hospital with broken ribs and vertebrae.
What was done to him—the beatings, the consequences—is a separate, harrowing story. Suffice it to say, it’s not suitable for a morning broadcast. He was strangled, had a plastic bag put over his head, was shocked with a taser. His ribs and spine were broken. In short, the usual brutality. Besides him, several others were also beaten. The stories are horrific. You can read all the details on OVD-Info. This is textbook repression.
So yes, there is indeed anti-war resistance. Where is Kasparov absolutely right? First, that this is not just Putin’s war. Putin started it, but it is, without a doubt, Russia’s war. And second, that there is no nationwide anti-war movement. There are isolated pockets. This group of six in Voronezh with their Telegram channel is one such pocket. I don’t know what word best fits here—maybe “one of a few”—but it’s one of the pockets of resistance. There is no widespread, organized anti-war movement in Russia. There are heroes—like Aleksandr Skobov, Daria Kozyreva—and there are these local pockets of resistance, like the one in Voronezh.
So yes, Kasparov is right, and there’s no reason to take offense. A diagnosis—even the harshest one—is important, because the majority of Russians either actively support the war or are indifferent. And indifference is, in fact, a passive form of support. That’s the reality.
Poll: “Will Trump Withdraw from the Negotiation Process?” Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I’d first like to share the results of the poll I posted on our channel. The question was: “Will Trump follow through on his threat to withdraw from the peace negotiation process regarding Ukraine?” And here are the results. There are now over 2,000 votes—more than 2,000 participants—and the results have remained roughly the same.
58% believe that the U.S. will withdraw from the negotiation process in the near future.
30% believe the U.S. will not withdraw in the near future.
12% are unsure.
So, the votes are split. We can see that almost two-thirds believe that the United States will exit the negotiation process. We’ll see. In fact, there are arguments both for and against.
Clearly, for Trump, the goal is to distance the United States from this war, to stop spending money on it, to avoid damaging relations with Russia because of it. That’s Trump’s objective—those are the arguments in favor of leaving the negotiation process.
But there are also reasons to stay in the process. After all, a clear admission that all his rather bold promises to bring peace to Ukrainian soil have failed would be a serious blow. That would essentially mean admitting defeat and acknowledging the collapse of his credibility and influence on the global stage.
Of course, it wouldn’t be the first time. Whether it was North Korea, Iran, Greenland, Panama, Canada, or Gaza—Trump has repeatedly found himself in similar situations. So exiting the negotiations wouldn’t be a new experience. Losing face isn’t really a problem for Trump, because, frankly, he never had much of one to begin with.
In any case, you can see the breakdown: 58% believe he’ll withdraw from the talks, 30% think he’ll stay, and 12% are undecided.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
And before I begin answering your questions, I want to let you know that at 7:30 PM we have a very interesting guest—journalist, columnist, and expert on the United States, Alexandra Filippenko. I think this conversation will be very engaging and informative. At the very least, I’m personally looking forward to it with great interest. Now, moving on to your questions. So.
On World Atlases from Different Years Link to heading
Ildar asks:
As an observant person, I wanted to ask you something. I currently own four world atlases—1982, 2013, 2018, and 2023. In the first three, there is a note stating that the territory of Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco. In the 2023 atlas, however, there is no such note. But all four Ukrainian regions are marked as part of the Russian Federation within administrative borders. Do you think these two points are connected?
Dear Ildar! I have a problem answering your question—I don’t know who the publisher is. What language are these atlases in? Who do they belong to? Are they Russian, not Ukrainian? Who published them? You see, regarding the territory of Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, there has been some transformation in terms of recognition. Just as Trump is now preparing to recognize Crimea as Russian, some time ago the Bush administration—actually, if I recall correctly, it was during Trump’s first term—the U.S. recognized Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara as legitimate.
So, this really needs clarification. Whose maps are these? If they are Russian-made, then everything becomes clear. I highly doubt that Ukrainian atlases would print such nonsense.
So—I can’t fully answer your question until I know more. If possible, please clarify. We can follow up through our Telegram channel. Therefore, dear Ildar, I’m awaiting your clarification, and after that, I’ll be happy to give a detailed response to your question.
On Shchedrovitsky’s Methodology Link to heading
A question from Natalia, a chat participant from Lviv:
I’d like to ask you—how did Shchedrovitsky’s methodology influence political development in Russia? What is your opinion on this school of philosophy?
Dear Natalia! I’ve answered in detail several times about this so-called school of philosophy, as you call it. I refer to it a bit differently—it’s a sect. The methodology is a very peculiar intellectual movement that originated in the Soviet Union and continued to exist in post-Soviet Russia. This movement has had an extremely negative impact on political development in Russia because it really is a sect of “metallurgists,” as I’ve described them in the past.
I don’t want to spend too much time now explaining in detail why I take a negative view, but this movement promotes the idea that PR, political technologists, and such methodologies can essentially replace democratic institutions. In other words, it’s about substituting democratic processes with clever political manipulation. Its roots go back, in many ways, to Machiavelli.
In fact, it’s quite similar to what’s currently happening in the United States—the technofascism, whose leading proponents are people like Vince and Elon Musk. The idea is that democratic institutions are unnecessary—or rather, they may remain as a facade, but real decisions should be made by programmers who can build artificial intelligence and control the world, or by political technologists and “methodologists” embedded in the presidential administration who can shape world affairs.
My attitude toward this is extremely negative. This really is a sect—you see, it’s closed to external arguments. They have a well-developed internal axiomatic system that’s impervious to outside critique. That’s the danger. And the appeal of this sect lies in its pseudo-scientific appearance.
Is There a Chance to Return Crimea? Link to heading
Andreas asks:
You claim that Ukraine will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia. But doesn’t that mean the war could continue until the last Ukrainian?
Dear Andreas, this is not the first, second, tenth, or even hundredth time I’ve encountered opponents using what’s called the “straw man” method. That is, they take something I’ve said, distort it or add something I never said, and then gleefully tear apart this fictional version of my position. I have never said I support a war “until the last Ukrainian.” What you’ve done here is take my actual position—that Ukraine will never recognize Crimea as Russian—and then draw your own unfounded conclusion that this implies the war will continue endlessly. I never said that. I don’t believe that refusing to recognize Crimea as Russian necessarily leads to endless war. There are other possible scenarios for how events might unfold. That’s the “straw man” at work.
Then you continue: But in fact Crimea hasn’t belonged to Ukraine since 2014, and there’s no sign it will be retaken militarily unless tens of thousands of Ukrainians die for it. Wouldn’t it be better to give up Crimea and accept Trump’s terms to end this senseless bloodshed? If Putin agrees, Crimea would be recognized as Russian by the U.S., Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO, and there’d be a ceasefire along the front line with peacekeepers from neutral countries like Saudi Arabia or India as security guarantees for Ukraine.
Dear Andryusha, nearly every phrase here is built on assumptions that are, at best, baseless. Who told you Putin would agree to these terms? That he would accept the presence of any kind of peacekeeping force? It’s been stated countless times that Putin will not tolerate any foreign military presence on Ukrainian territory. Especially not something as far-fetched as troops from Saudi Arabia or India. Let’s be serious—Putin has made it crystal clear: no foreign armed forces on Ukrainian soil.
And where, exactly, do you see any sign in Putin’s actions that he is moving toward peace? What logic is there in Ukraine agreeing to reward an aggressor by recognizing its own occupied land as legally part of Russia? If you go down that road, why stop at Crimea? Why not recognize other territories Putin has taken as Russian too? That kind of appeasement only encourages further aggression.
If that logic continues, what happens when he invades Latvia, Estonia, or Lithuania? Will we say, “Well, de facto he controls it, let’s recognize it too”? This is textbook appeasement—this is the Munich Agreement all over again. It already happened, and it’s etched in our collective historical memory.
Are There Any Examples of NATO Troops Defending a NATO Country Under Attack? Link to heading
Nail Vakhitov asks:
Are there any examples of NATO troops defending a member country after it was attacked?
Dear Nail, you know, I’m not a big fan of answering a question with another question, but in this case it’s hard to resist: Are there any examples of a NATO country being attacked? You see, the very existence of NATO has, as history has shown, served as a deterrent. NATO has existed since 1949—since the mid-20th century. And now it’s 2025. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single instance of a NATO country being attacked.
What more proof do you need that NATO troops defend member states simply by existing?
Does the Author Have Religious Relatives? Link to heading
A subscriber named “Golubya Novaya” asks:
Do you have any religious relatives? Do they greet you with the traditional Easter phrase expecting a response? And how should one reply without violating the law?
You know, I’m far more concerned about not being insincere than I am about violating any statute. What matters to me is how to, on one hand, stay true to myself, and on the other, not offend someone who is sincerely addressing me with the traditional Easter greeting: “Christ is risen!” That’s the customary “password.” And the customary response: “Truly He is risen!”
I never say that response. When someone greets me with “Christ is risen”—and there are many who do, because it’s the main Christian holiday and people sincerely consider me a friend or someone close—they greet me with those words. I never reply “Truly He is risen.” Why should I? I don’t believe that a man who lived long ago actually rose from the dead after execution. So what’s the point of pretending, even in a personal exchange?
I usually respond very simply: “Happy holiday to you too.” Because, after all, it is a holiday, right? It makes sense to reply in a polite, warm, and respectful way. It’s not a holiday for me, but it is for them. So why not respond kindly? Starting a long conversation about how I don’t believe in the resurrection of Christ—that would be silly. That would be pedantic, right? And I try to avoid being pedantic.
So here’s my simple response: They say “Christ is risen,” and I say, “Happy holiday to you too.” That’s it. And the law has nothing to do with it. It’s about being polite, humane, and honest at the same time.
Suggestion to Invite Nikolai Osichenko Link to heading
Anna VINTER asks:
I have a question—would you consider inviting Nikolai Osichenko to your channel? He’s the former president of Mariupol Television.
Dear Anna! To my shame, I’m not familiar with his public stance, but judging by what you’ve written, it seems he may hold views similar to ours. I’ll definitely take a look at what he says and writes. And of course, I’m grateful to you for suggesting another potential guest for our channel. So—thank you!
Closing Remarks Link to heading
That’s all the questions I managed to find for now. Thank you for these questions and for your patience. Glory to Ukraine! Take care of yourselves! Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov! To all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian prisoners held by Russia! Once again, a reminder: today at 19:30 we’ll be meeting with Alexandra Filippenko. All the best to you. See you at 19:30. Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/zDxtvQU2OdA