A day before the negotiations in Istanbul, the official list of participants, the agenda, the start time, and most importantly, the purpose remain unknown. Meanwhile, Putin is busy creating a patriotic theater.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is May 14th. It’s 7:43 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Delegation composition unknown Link to heading

Well, a day before the negotiations, 24 hours before the talks in Istanbul, as of this morning, May 14, the official composition of the delegation, the official list of participants, the negotiation agenda, and the start time remain unknown. And most importantly, the goal is unknown. Well, we’re living quite normally in such a fog. I’ll now try to give my opinion in more detail regarding this very strange event. And I’ll also tell you what Vladimir Putin is currently occupied with. The only thing that’s clear is that Putin won’t be attending.

So. Yesterday, as always, Donald Trump made some upbeat statements while visiting Saudi Arabia. He said that the talks between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey might yield quite a good result. Well, great. It turns out he has sent there—actually, the only thing that’s known, by the way, despite the fog I described, there’s one clear bright spot. It is clear that Marco Rubio will be there. He will somehow participate, though it’s unclear how or in what capacity. Also, Trump sent his special envoy for Ukraine, China, and his special envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, to participate in these negotiations.

But again, it’s unclear in what capacity—they do not plan to participate in the negotiation process but will somehow observe, probably to break up any fight that might break out. Regarding the Russian side, Peskov stated that the Russian delegation would be waiting for the Ukrainian representatives in Istanbul. But who exactly will go is unclear. The Washington Post, citing a source in the Kremlin, reported that the Russian delegation would be represented by Lavrov and Ushakov. Again, I saw a brief mention of this in Komsomolskaya Pravda, but they quickly deleted it. I was already pleased that I would have something to discuss, but it turned out that no, at least there’s no official position yet. And Peskov said the delegation’s composition would be announced when Putin deems it necessary. Maybe that will happen after the meeting is over. It’s such a secret—secret delegation.

So, the bottom line. As of today, what’s more or less obvious is that Putin is not going anywhere. Well, there are some conspiracy theories that if they have a phone call with Trump and agree to pressure Zelensky together, then Putin might quickly hop on a plane and fly to Istanbul. I consider the probability of this scenario to be zero. But at least some observers, some political analysts, talk about such a version. To me, it seems absolutely unbelievable.

This Lavrov-Ushakov composition seems quite realistic. And this immediately renders the whole negotiation meaningless, because neither of these people is independent. They’re just extras, merely acting as Putin’s mouthpiece. And negotiations, after all, imply feedback. Therefore, all this makes the negotiations meaningless.

Most likely, President of Ukraine Zelensky will play some role in all this since, as far as I know, he has already flown to Istanbul, and he will hold talks with Erdogan. He has things to do. That is, Putin’s absence makes it absolutely guaranteed that Zelensky will not take part in the negotiations. This was already stated by Mykhailo Podolyak, advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine. Well, it’s just obvious that there’s no point if two people are participating in negotiations—one is a decision-maker, the other has no specific powers—then the conversation is meaningless. For example, a conversation between Zelensky and Ushakov or Lavrov looks strange not because of the level, but simply because these are people with different authorities.

The composition of the Ukrainian delegation is also unknown. In fact, it’s unclear who will be meeting with whom. Again, there are rumors, but there’s no point in voicing them. The only thing I want to emphasize again is that the only thing known for sure is the composition of the American delegation. Well, in fact, this shows—I want to make a small interim conclusion here—that, in fact, these negotiations are of no interest to anyone except the Americans. The Americans want these negotiations, so they have clearly defined who is going, and for what purpose. Once again, it’s Witkoff and Marco Rubio, who will head this delegation, meaning the Americans know what they want.

As for Russia and Ukraine, they also know what they want. But it’s quite obvious that this issue will not be resolved at the negotiations. The agenda is unclear. So what are we talking about? A conversation about a ceasefire, which the Ukrainian delegation wants? Or a conversation about the de facto capitulation of Ukraine, which the Russian delegation wants? It’s clear that these are different topics. So, once again, all the talk that Trump is ready to fly in as soon as Putin wants to show up in Istanbul boils down to the fact that Putin is not going there. Therefore, Trump most likely won’t either.

One more important thing.

Europeans backed down Link to heading

Another important detail, in my opinion. On May 10, in Kyiv, the leaders of four leading European countries—Britain, France, Germany, and Poland—stated that if by the 12th, no proposal for a 30-day ceasefire was accepted, there would be very serious sanctions, and Ukraine would immediately receive a large amount of weapons. Today is the 14th, and it has become clear that, by the way, yesterday the Europeans announced that they were postponing the implementation of the 17th package of sanctions because they would wait for some progress in the negotiations in Istanbul. So, to put it plainly, they backed down. Let’s say it straight—they backed down.

You see, on the one hand, there’s Trump’s position, who advocated for a 30-day ceasefire, and after Putin said there would be no ceasefire, let’s hold negotiations in Istanbul, Trump said, “Oh, let’s do that.” That is, just yesterday he was talking about a ceasefire, and now he’s for negotiations. There’s a war going on, and let’s have negotiations during the war. Completely different position, changed 180 degrees. The same with the Europeans. On the 10th, they were saying that if Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire, there would be very serious sanctions. And immediately, when Putin said there would be no ceasefire, our people will meet in Istanbul, the Europeans immediately backpedaled, saying, “No, let’s see what happens in Istanbul.” Well, what will happen in Istanbul and how long it will last is unknown.

Negotiations in Istanbul are a mistake Link to heading

That’s why I think I want to draw some interim conclusions and say that Istanbul is actually a big mistake, a big mistake for everyone—except Russia, of course. In fact, Putin has managed to impose his own agenda. Obviously, this is his agenda. The meeting in Istanbul will allow Putin to determine the level of these negotiations, and it’s clear that he will also set the agenda. And here, it seems to me, Ukraine’s position is very important. Will the Ukrainian delegation, first of all, be able to make these negotiations open? Because if it’s behind closed doors, it’s all completely pointless. Lavrov and Ushakov will just start mocking, ridiculing, and so on. And then, coming out to the press, they will blame Ukraine for everything.

Can these negotiations be made the only meaningful thing—made open, with Ukraine clearly and explicitly stating its position? And basically, to end them as soon as possible, because in this configuration, the negotiations make no sense.

Putin is focusing on culture Link to heading

Here’s another very telling detail about what Putin was doing at this time. He held some sort of cultural council. Then he made a very important, even fateful decision, quite symbolic. He ordered the creation of a theater in Moscow that is focused—I quote the document, which already exists—on promoting contemporary drama with a patriotic focus. This is currently posted on the Kremlin, ROC, and the official website of the President of Russia. This is Putin’s order following the meeting of the Council for Culture and Art. What negotiations? What Ukraine, what America? Putin is dealing with culture and art, you see?

The person responsible for creating this theater will be Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin, a very important theater expert, as well as the Minister of Culture Olga Lyubimova and the President’s aide, Vladimir Medinsky. Well, the big plus here is that Medinsky this time won’t be going to the negotiations with Ukraine but will instead be involved in creating a patriotic theater. The deadline for implementation is November 30, 2025. The idea for creating such a theater was proposed by the patriotic writer Zakhar Prilepin. He stated that it is necessary to create a link between theater and contemporary literature, you see? Mainly literature dedicated to the war.

Let me quote—and I’ll explain why I’m quoting this, because there are some very interesting historical parallels here. A quote from Prilepin’s statement: “Today things are not so simple for us. And the theater devotes the lion’s share of its time to reflecting on the past. I would like the Russian Union of Writers and our playwrights to have at least one theater where we can stage plays that address today’s issues and that are written by our colleagues in real-time.” We only have 90 theaters in Moscow. If the writers had at least one of their own theaters, it would certainly make our lives easier. The theater would be a place where servicemen with an interest in culture returning from the war could meet.

What can I say to comrades Prilepin and Putin? A very serious oversight. Because, in principle, for this idea to truly come to life, to be built on blood and flesh, as they say, it needs to be the only theater. All other 90 theaters should be liquidated. Then the people will have nowhere else to go—well, at least to the theater buffet—if all other theaters along with the buffets are closed, then there will be a full house. That’s the oversight.

There’s another option. Historical experience shows that there is another option. Our country tested it in the 1930s and 1940s. Very effective experience. All other theaters simply need to be pressured. Since I’ve studied our country’s history, I want to draw attention to a very advanced practice. There was a decree on August 26, 1946, from the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) on the repertoire of dramatic theaters and measures to improve it. I’ll just quote it. You see, it’s a living school for comrades Putin and Prilepin. Look at what was said: “Having discussed the issue of the repertoire of dramatic theaters and measures to improve it, the Central Committee of the VKP(b) recognizes the state of the theaters’ repertoire as unsatisfactory.” That’s it. So, it’s necessary to recognize the repertoire of all 90 Moscow theaters as unsatisfactory.

Continuing the quote: “The main drawback of the current state of the repertoire of dramatic theaters is that plays by Soviet authors on contemporary topics have been practically pushed out of the repertoire of the country’s major dramatic theaters.” Well, that’s exactly the thought Prilepin voiced—too much about history. What’s needed here is—look, at the Moscow Art Theater, out of 20 performances, only three are dedicated to contemporary Soviet life. At the Maly Theater, out of 23—three plays. At the Mossovet Theater—two out of nine. At the Vakhtangov Theater—two out of ten. In general, it’s a mess. Well, that’s how you need to work, you see? And not this half-measure of creating just one theater. It’s obvious that no one will go there. Putin knows that, and so does Prilepin. It’s just a money grab. Well, comrades Putin and Prilepin, you need to work more thoroughly. That’s my advice to you as a senior comrade.

Complete absurdity of the situation Link to heading

So, basically, I will now move on to answering your questions. I just want to say that I don’t know how it will end, what tomorrow will show. How will it end? Will this fog clear? Will there be at least some minimal result? We’ll see. It’s possible that the delegation’s composition will only be announced after the negotiations take place. And that would be appropriate. The absurdity must be complete. Otherwise, once again, it’s an oversight.

Answers to questions Link to heading

I am moving on to answering your questions.

Question from Yura. I will read it as you wrote in Avatar, including the author’s name. Question from Yura: Please share your opinion on classical Russian human rights defenders—Sergei Adamovich Kovalev, Svetlana Alekseevna Gannushkina, Lev Alexandrovich Ponomarev, and so on. How did people without higher legal education build a career in the legal field?

You know, the field of human rights is not exactly, not purely legal; it is precisely about human rights. That is, it’s about helping people. The main thing, the main thing in what human rights defenders represent, including those you listed, is humanism, the desire to help people, the desire to help people. And then, of course, if there is a lack of legal knowledge, lawyers are invited, but mainly the core, the fundamental essence of these people is humanism, the desire to help people.

And, actually, these three people you mentioned are very, very different, very different. But all three of them, all the time, really—I had and have the honor of being acquainted with all three—and I can say that these are people who truly dedicated their entire lives to the defense of human rights. And they all had and have legal competence. So for those who are still alive, it’s something that can always be acquired. But the main, fundamental essence is the commitment to and understanding of human rights as the highest value, and serving human rights.

How did the crash of the Azerbaijani airplane end Link to heading

Massage. UN is asking: Please tell us how the crash of the Azerbaijani civilian airplane near the airport of Aktau city ended? For your information, an Azerbaijani businessman bought apartments for the Kazakh victims’ families.

I was not aware of that fact. Thank you for mentioning it. As for how it ended—nothing so far. The investigation has not reached a conclusion, no apologies have been made, no definitive point has been put on it. There were some attempts to smooth things over with certain gestures toward Aliyev. But, by the way, the fact that Aliyev did not come to Moscow for the May 9 Victory Day parade is rather an indication that he is still dissatisfied. I think he is still unhappy with the situation surrounding this crash. So, for now, it has ended with nothing.

Is a conversation with Tomas Venclova planned Link to heading

Vitaly: Igor Alexandrovich, are you acquainted with Tomas Venclova, a friend of Joseph Brodsky? He is a Lithuanian anti-Soviet dissident, human rights activist, translator, essayist, philosopher, and poet, known for his works in Russian culture. Would you agree to have a conversation with him?

It is planned. I have actually outlined an entire series of conversations with people living in Lithuania, so that it would not just be my talking head or two talking heads, but rather a live interaction. For now, I simply lack the strength and time. But without a doubt, Tomas Venclova is one of those with whom I would like to have a conversation, because he is indeed a very important, very significant interlocutor for me. I am planning it, Viktor.

What does the author mean by “obscene peace” Link to heading

Evening. Question: Are you even in favor of an obscene peace? Igor Alexandrovich, is this something new, a change in position? What do you mean by obscene peace? Please formulate it. I recall when we were still discussing the conditions of the Istanbul agreements of 2022, you said that since they implied demilitarization, denazification, a ban on Ukraine having a real army, and a ban on joining NATO, it was essentially the capitulation of Ukraine and the loss of its independence. Therefore, agreeing to these conditions was impossible. But now it turns out it’s possible. Or again, what do you mean by peace?

Dear Viktor, I just want to tell you that you’re attributing something to me under the word “peace.” But the term “obscene peace” was the name given to the Brest-Litovsk Peace of 1918. And the main point of that peace—well, the “obscene” scale, excuse the expression, in this case, is somewhat different. Under the Brest-Litovsk Peace, Soviet Russia lost—that was the peace with Germany—huge territories, and it was done because Soviet Russia couldn’t fight. In this situation, the conditions are different. Here the analogies aren’t very precise, because Ukraine can fight, while Soviet Russia at the time couldn’t and didn’t want to. Well, I won’t go into details now, into the discussions that were within the Soviet leadership then—the famous Trotsky formula “no war, no peace,” disband the army, and so on. There are many nuances.

But the main thing, where the similarity lies—the Brest-Litovsk Peace involved territorial losses but did not involve changes in the political system or internal order. And here is some analogy with an obscene peace—very distant, very conditional. It lies in the fact that, of course, those Istanbul negotiations of 2022 contained absolutely unacceptable conditions—absolutely unacceptable. Everything related to demilitarization, denazification, practically the elimination of the army, and so on—it was indeed the loss of Ukraine’s independence.

What do I mean by obscene peace today? It’s the recognition of the obvious fact that Ukraine, today and in the foreseeable future, cannot return its territories. That’s an obvious fact. And, of course, this means peace on the borders of ‘90 or ‘91 is impossible—at least if you don’t consider some fantastic scenarios with black swans flying in, and so on. For now, peace means that some part of the occupied territory will remain with Russia—unrecognized, not legally confirmed, not recognized by anyone, but nonetheless.

To lay down another million lives to liberate Donbas, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions—I think that’s wrong. So, obscene peace means the temporary loss of some territory in exchange for Ukraine retaining its sovereignty, its independence, its army, its political system, its direction, and so on. That’s what I mean by it for now. That’s how it is.

Do the Chinese have more empathy than Russians Link to heading

Question from AI: I watched several recent videos where in China they blocked a road for two marmots—RODENTS—sorting things out between themselves. And a video from Nevzorov showing Russian soldiers eating each other in pits to survive, and being devoured by their tormentors—fellow soldiers. A thought experiment that Yakovenko avoids—could China’s absorption of the Asian part of the Russian Federation be a blessing? Do the Chinese have more empathy, more humanity? Today’s Putinist Russia is not even a beast; it’s predatory reptiles with only one instinct—to kill and devour.

Dear colleague! You watched a video where in China they blocked a road for two marmots. Wonderful. I haven’t seen that video. I’d be happy—if you could share it, I’d love to watch it, maybe even post it on my Telegram channel or somewhere else. I really enjoy that kind of thing. But could you also take a look at the hundreds of videos showing what they do with the Uyghurs, for example? Also very telling for understanding the level of Chinese empathy and humanity. And also check out those videos showing public executions. That is—again—what is done to human rights defenders. So, you see, I’m very, very against oversimplification.

As for Russia, of course, now, given that we all to some extent know what’s happening on the front, what Russian sadists are doing in Ukraine, talking about any manifestations of empathy in the Russian population seems almost indecent. But at the same time, you see, you shouldn’t contrast Russians as predatory reptiles and Chinese as great humanists. Well, that’s nonsense, you see? Just nonsense. Yes, without a doubt, China’s policy today is not aggressive, but that does not make China a democratic country with humanistic values. Well, let’s not go to such extremes.

As for China’s absorption of the Asian part of Russia, well, that’s a historical fact, it’s inevitable. Whether it’s a blessing, I don’t know, I’m not sure. But it’s simply a historical inevitability. But to say that it’s great—that now we say the Chinese are great humanists, very humane people—well, of course not.

Will there be a Zelensky-Putin-Trump meeting and will the two humiliate Zelensky Link to heading

Anna is asking: Don’t you think that at a meeting between Zelensky, Trump, and Putin, the latter two will publicly humiliate Zelensky? Doesn’t it seem to you that Trump and Putin have already made all the deals and are just dragging things out to make it look less obvious?

Well, first of all, I don’t think there will be such a three-way meeting. That’s the first thing. You know, if Trump and Putin were—let’s put it this way—I’ve repeatedly emphasized that there is a gulf between them, a gulf. It’s not just the beautiful ocean between them, but also that Putin is a fascist leader in a fascist Reich, while Trump is a fascist leader in a democratic country. And so, of course, Trump would have agreed on everything with Putin. Of course, Trump would have divided everything with him, preferably even among three, including Xi Jinping. But Trump is still limited by Congress, limited by public opinion in the United States of America.

Therefore, I think this won’t happen. And to agree with Putin—yes, they constantly have some kind of negotiations, without a doubt. But to agree with Putin to reenact that Oval Office scene, only this time, instead of Rubio, it would be Putin and Trump together attacking Zelensky—no, I think this scene is, in my view, pure fantasy. We’ll see, actually, but I think this won’t happen.

The scale of Putin and Trump Link to heading

Olga: Speaking about the role of personality in history—like Genghis Khan or Vladimir Lenin—I’d like to hear your opinion on whether figures like Putin or Trump can globally and lastingly change the course of historical events, or whether their personal scale is insufficient and the historical preconditions aren’t there.

Well, dear Olga, I think that, of course, the scale of personality is different. But the main thing is something else. What Lenin had, for example—he had an ideology, he had an idea in his head, he had a theory. It was Marxism, which, as was commonly said in Soviet times, he “creatively reworked.” That is, he took Marxism and tried to apply it in practice. When it didn’t work, he invented adjustments. The classic example: according to Marxist theory, Lenin first introduced war communism in Soviet Russia. It quickly became clear that this Marxist dogma didn’t work. Initially, the plan was for world revolution to triumph. But when that didn’t happen, Lenin proposed the concept of building socialism in a single country. In short, he had an idea. He had an ideology.

And that is the key difference from both Trump and Putin. Putin has no ideology at all. As for Trump, there are people behind him who preach that insane “Dark Enlightenment” idea, but Trump himself doesn’t have it in his head. What he has is chaos. And he reproduces that chaos globally. Neither Lenin nor Genghis Khan had anything like that.

What was in Genghis Khan’s mind we don’t know exactly, but we see his practice. It was the idea of building a massive empire, based on specific rules. He, too, had an idea, and it was documented. We can debate how it was structured, but nonetheless, he was a figure with a guiding idea.

That’s the difference from Putin, who has no idea at all. The so-called “Russian world” is vague at best. As for Trump, he just has chaos in his head. There’s a slogan—“Make America Great Again”—but it’s not backed by anything. Again, “great again”—what does that even mean? Why isn’t it great now?

So once again, yes, the scale of personality matters. And second, there’s a lack of a roadmap to reshape the world according to one’s idea. Genghis Khan and Lenin had such a roadmap. Genghis Khan’s idea was to eliminate cities because they weren’t needed—they got in the way of turning the Earth into pasture for Mongol horses. That’s it. And he creatively reworked this idea. He borrowed various things from the Chinese and used them. He used the potential of conquered peoples. He had an idea. Lenin did too. These two—Putin and Trump—have only power and money.

What experience did the Third Reich adopt from the USSR Link to heading

Marina: Before this war, there was a story circulating on the internet that before the start of World War II, the Nazis came to the USSR to exchange experience in building and using concentration camps, allegedly taking a lot from the GULAG system, almost reproducing their concentration camps based on the GULAG. There was even information that Stalin almost taught Hitler this. Now, no matter how much I search, I can’t find this information. What do you know about it?

You know, it’s not just about the GULAG. As early as August 1922, the Soviets and Germany signed a temporary cooperation agreement that included, first of all, some kind of interaction between army commands through joint maneuvers, field exercises, and joint academic courses. There was, in fact, such military training cooperation. Later, there were also joint chemical experiments, plus the organization of tank and aviation schools. The fact is that under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was prohibited from having tank troops and military aviation. Therefore, as early as 1924, an aviation school for the Reichswehr was established in Lipetsk, through which a significant portion of the future aces of the Third Reich passed. In 1926, a tank school appeared in Kazan. And a chemical warfare school was established in Samara.

So, in fact, this cooperation was very close and mutually beneficial. Essentially, the military potential of the Third Reich was built with the most active participation of Stalin’s USSR, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles—that is, with the active participation of the Soviet Union, bypassing the Versailles restrictions.

As for concentration camps, yes, the same story. Of course, the first concentration camps—well, I don’t mean the first in human history, there were predecessors—but certainly here the Soviet Union was ahead and shared its advanced experience. That’s true.

About official documents on the extermination of Jews and Roma Link to heading

A question from a subscriber under the name Flame of Victory: Please tell us what official documents Stalin had regarding the extermination of Jews and Roma.

This is some kind of misunderstanding. When I said—if I’m not mistaken, what you are asking about is inspired by an attempt to clarify the issue—when one of the subscribers mentioned that Kazakhs suffered greatly from Stalin’s repressions. And I responded by saying why single out the Jews, when Kazakhs suffered even more. I added that only Jews and Roma were exterminated specifically for being Jews and Roma; all others were also killed, but not for that reason. There were no official documents ordering the extermination of Jews, say, Kazakhs, specifically.

As for Ukrainians, despite the Holodomor, there were no official documents on their targeted extermination either. So, apparently, you concluded that Stalin purposefully exterminated Jews and Roma. There were no official documents from Stalin on the extermination of Jews and Roma. Such documents did exist in Hitler’s Third Reich. I won’t list all the documents that formalized the Holocaust, but I will mention the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which stripped Jews of their civil rights—marriage bans, bans on cohabitation, and so on.

In addition to the Nuremberg Laws, there were specific documents that formalized the Holocaust. It was an officially adopted program aimed at exterminating people based on their belonging to a certain nationality or race. There was nothing similar regarding nationalities under Stalin. He issued decisions on deportations, which led to mass deaths, but these were not targeted decisions to exterminate a people. So there is a difference here.

Regarding Jews, the anti-Semitic campaign of the late 1940s and early 1950s involved resolutions connected to the fight against cosmopolitanism, where the word “cosmopolitan” was essentially a code for Jew. These were party documents that indeed essentially declared the persecution of Jews. But there was no equivalent to the documents that formalized the Holocaust in Stalin’s USSR.

So, essentially, Stalin indeed intended to finish what Hitler started, but it was not formalized in documents. Yes, there were resolutions on cosmopolitanism, but they were not as explicit. Stalin was not as overt an anti-Semite as Hitler. There is a gulf between them in this regard—this is a significant difference. What the Stalinist anti-Semitic campaign would have turned into if he had not died is a big question. Some believe that Stalin would have essentially completed, at least on the territory of the Soviet Union, the work Hitler started. But again, that is speculation.

Why do xenophobes vent aggression on migrants instead of their government Link to heading

Nadya Volgina: Those migrants whom Russia’s patriots constantly complain about—where do they come from, are they illegal or brought in by someone for work? They say Agalarov Sr. likes to bring workers from Central Asia for his construction projects. In any case, why do fans of “Russia for Russians” demand answers not from the authorities, who don’t fight illegal immigration, nor from employers who hire foreigners, but instead harass the newcomers? I’m not from Russia and don’t know all the internal intricacies.

Dear Nadezhda! I don’t really know how to answer when you ask why xenophobes are xenophobes? Because that’s how they are. Why do they direct their actions against illegal migrants instead of the authorities? Because illegal migrants are defenseless. All these homegrown fascists—what, will they go storm the authorities? That’s scary, dangerous. But illegal migrants are defenseless. They are without rights, without protection. It’s very easy to go to some dormitory where they are housed, set it on fire, or beat them up one by one in a mob attack.

This is the nature—this is the psychology of these xenophobes, who, of course, look for the weak. That’s how they assert themselves. So here, I think, everything is quite clear.

On how to properly answer the question about the coup in Canada Link to heading

Alexander—Alexander is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. Alexander: Did you really, when answering a certain comrade’s question about a coup in Canada and the U.S. reaction, not catch the hint about Ukraine and Russia? I don’t believe it. Now your answer that the U.S. would be concerned and would try to reverse the situation follows? Well then, what do you expect from Russia in a similar situation? In my opinion, you should have just pointed out to the comrade that you understand where he’s going with this, that there was no coup in Ukraine—it existed only in the Kremlin’s imagination. And that in Canada, an anti-American coup is impossible even theoretically—at least until Trump kills the dollar as the world’s currency. Just as NATO is an anti-Russian military alliance only in Russian imagination, any allegedly anti-American alliance cannot truly be one. The authorities in Russia, Iran, and North Korea don’t keep their loot in rubles—but in dollars. Respectfully, Alexander.

Dear Alexander! Well, I agree. Yes, I tried to answer that question literally. You’re right. In the flow of answering questions, I didn’t delve into it. You’re right. Yes, indeed, I remember that question. It was definitely a hint at Ukraine. You’re right—I didn’t catch on.

On Trump’s position regarding the ceasefire Link to heading

So, Pyotr: European leaders are taking a clear position regarding negotiations—first to stop the war, at least for 30 days, and then to negotiate. Trump’s position differs from that of the European leaders—he wants to start negotiations without a temporary ceasefire. What game is Trump playing?

Well, first of all, dear Pyotr, that’s not entirely accurate, because initially the idea of a 30-day ceasefire was a joint proposal from Trump and Zelensky. So, in fact, Trump initially was—for that matter, that’s the problem—you see, it was Trump’s idea of a 30-day ceasefire, which was supported by Ukraine. Or, vice versa, the Ukrainian idea was supported by Trump.

So in this case, Trump simply demonstrated the chaos in his head. He writes with one hand and crosses out with the other. Today he says one thing, tomorrow another. It’s like that in everything—with tariffs, today 50%, tomorrow 30%. These are the American swings, or rollercoaster, if you will—that’s the chaos that Trump creates.

What game is Trump playing? The game of sowing chaos. The creation of chaos.

On criticizing Biden Link to heading

Viktor Katz: I 100% agree with Kasparov. Moreover, Obama’s neutrality during the invasion of Georgia, Biden’s during the 2014 invasion of Ukraine, led to the events of 2022. The inaction of the U.S. and the EU for three years led to a global world crisis. Trump’s presidency simply worsened this crisis. The U.S. became a society of degradation, and the EU still can’t wake up. By the way, Biden met with Putin twice before the 2022 invasion. Do you know anything about the outcomes of these meetings?

No, I can’t quite recall those meetings or their outcomes right now. As for your agreement with Kasparov, who speaks very disparagingly about Maidan, I think everything is understood by comparison. Look at the help Biden provided and what Trump is doing now, and you’ll see. You see, American presidents act within the given circumstances, and in those circumstances, Trump completely blocked assistance—and blocked it even when he was still a candidate. President Biden provided help. And you know, we’re talking about tens of billions of dollars. Yes, we called it insufficient, but still, this help allowed Ukraine to hold on.

And today, the situation is completely different. We see what’s happening now. So once again, well, fine, you adhere to Garry Kimovich’s dismissive position—in this matter, I do not support him. I suggest simply not judging political leaders so sweepingly.

Is a ceasefire a good thing if genocide continues in the occupied territories Link to heading

Like Mata Hari: You say you support an “obscene peace” to save Ukrainian lives. But what about those dying in the occupied lands and who will continue to die after the peace comes?

Well, again, I’m simply suggesting we look at the situation realistically. If you believe that Ukraine has the chance to liberate Donetsk, Luhansk, and the occupied territories—if that’s your assessment of the situation—then, of course. As you know, I believe such a peace would be desirable but impossible. That’s where our difference lies. The difference is that you consider war until the 1991 borders the goal. I think that goal is hardly achievable today.

The war will continue not because Ukraine wants it to, but because Putin will continue it. Therefore, when I speak of such a peace, I mean that I would want this peace to be concluded, but it will not be, because Putin will continue the war. But if we imagine what we would want from a realistic standpoint, then, of course, I would want the war to stop, for Ukrainian citizens—both civilians and soldiers—to stop dying en masse. And yes, indeed, the price for this could be stopping the war along the current line of contact.

In other words, a Korean scenario—North and South. Yes, it’s a bad option. But, as it seems to me, it’s better than losing another few million lives. The war until the last Ukrainian doesn’t impress or suit me at all. Again, these are wishes. The reality is that only Putin can stop the war. And he’s not doing it. That’s it.

As for what’s happening in the occupied territories—I can imagine that. Again, setting unrealistic goals doesn’t seem healthy to me either.

About Jeffrey Sachs and Western experts Link to heading

Miley Long: Please tell us about Jeffrey Sachs’ speech in the European Parliament. It took place in February. To me, this speech sounded like pure conspiracy theory. At first, I just couldn’t believe that it was actually said in the European Parliament, and by a respected person at that. I thought that if all this is in Putin’s head, then he won’t stop until he gets Ukraine and destroys it.

Well, indeed, the speech was astonishing—it shocked me as well. Because what is Jeffrey Sachs? Well, I remember him from the ’90s when he was an advisor to Gaidar’s team. First, I’ll just say what the speech was, and then share my thoughts about it. Jeffrey Sachs essentially repeated everything that’s said—that is, in fact, this speech could have been broadcast on Russian state TV channels, because he said that NATO expansion to the east was the main cause of tensions between Russia and the West, that Russia’s interests were ignored, that the United States controls the world, and—most astonishing to me—that Russia had no interests or intentions toward Ukraine at all. The main thing they supposedly needed was the lease of the Sevastopol naval base—and that’s it.

Well, that’s just utter nonsense. He repeats propaganda narratives. There was also an astonishing phrase in his speech—I still remember it—where he claimed that Washington disrupted the peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in 2022 because Ukraine withdrew unilaterally, supposedly on the orders of the United States. Where Jeffrey Sachs was sitting under what table and heard that the U.S. ordered the Ukrainian delegation to leave—well, that should be asked of AI, for example. The Russian version is that it wasn’t the U.S., but Boris Johnson who gave the order. So here, Sachs’ position differs even from Russian TV.

In short, the man completely reproduces Russian propaganda. And in this sense, when I listened to him, I had this thought that I’d like to share with you. In the ’90s, I remember the attitude toward American advisors and Western experts in general—it was such an admiring, breathless gaze upward. Their speeches were received with awe—after all, they’re Americans, they built such a wonderful country, the air there is saturated with freedom. Even Yeltsin, when visiting America, said he flew around the Statue of Liberty three times and became three times freer. That was pure Western worship, as Soviet propaganda would have put it.

Later, as we communicated with American experts, political scientists, analysts, I realized that they are just people—there are smart ones, fools, honest people, scoundrels, and corrupt ones. That’s a truth that was learned through direct communication. And Jeffrey Sachs taught Russia, taught Poland. And it turned out that all this time he had this in his head. So I think this is an important lesson. And in this sense, Jeffrey Sachs is very important and useful.

Why Trumpophrenia is not coming out Link to heading

Question from Dr. Bobby AI: What is the reason for the pause in the release of new episodes of Trumpophrenia? Is it a topic that transforms faster than you can prepare episodes, or is it a topic that no longer interests you?

The reason is very simple. I will definitely continue this project. But these are more labor-intensive episodes because I have to listen to several one-and-a-half or even two-hour streams to select fragments from them. So technically, it’s a more complex task than, say, Media-phrenia. That’s why there’s been a pause—just a lack of energy, that’s all. But the topic is very relevant. It is, of course, more relevant, I think, than even many of the things we do. So we will continue.

Why do Europe and Ukraine need negotiations in Istanbul Link to heading

Pan Stepan: I don’t understand the goals of Europe and Ukraine in trying to push Putin into negotiations. Let’s imagine they somehow miraculously achieve this, and he comes to Istanbul, even stopping the war for a month. And what will that give? Both sides will come with known demands—one needs Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, the other wants Donetsk and Crimea. There are no points of convergence. They can hardly even agree on a joint hockey game, like with Trump. The 30 days will pass quickly, the war will continue. Both countries will replenish ammunition. And so on. Why does Europe and Ukraine need this? Just to appease Trump?

Dear Pan Stepan! First of all, let’s start with the fact that Ukraine was not, and neither Ukraine nor Europe was, trying to push Putin into negotiations. That’s a mistake. The position of Ukraine and Europe, just like Trump’s initial position, was for a 30-day ceasefire. I am absolutely convinced that this is a good thing. Because every day when it’s in effect, far fewer drones, missiles, shells, drones, missiles, and air bombs fly toward Ukraine. Fewer. Every day when fewer Ukrainians are killed, when there are fewer meat grinder assaults that kill not only Russians but also Ukrainians—I believe every such day saves dozens, maybe hundreds of lives. And that’s why a 30-day ceasefire is a good thing. For me, that’s absolutely obvious.

You see, we live in the here and now, and people are dying here and now. And that’s why a 30-day ceasefire is a good thing. And that was the position of Ukraine and Europe—by the way, initially of Trump as well.

Now the second point. No one was planning to organize these negotiations—these negotiations were proposed by Putin. I think that if it weren’t for Trump’s position, neither Ukraine nor Europe would have supported this. In fact, Trump broke the entire team game of Ukraine, Europe, and the United States with his completely idiotic demand that Ukraine must immediately agree to Putin’s proposal. So what can be done in this situation?

So, the initial premise, dear Pan Stepan, is mistaken. No one was trying to push Putin into negotiations.

Therefore, when you ask why Europe and Ukraine need this—just to appease Trump—well, fine, I’m ready to agree with your somewhat sharp wording of a simple idea. You say “to appease Trump,” and I say I agree with you, I’m just putting it differently. It’s just that neither Ukraine nor Europe wants a confrontation with Trump, because Trump, despite my deep conviction that he is a producer of chaos and an extremely harmful and dangerous person for planet Earth, is nevertheless the president of the most influential country in the world. And he is the president of the country that is a natural ally of Europe and Ukraine.

And the fact that Trump is conducting an unnatural operation on his own country—well, there’s no need to help him with that, no need to provoke him by quarreling with him. Yes, you can call it by that term—appease? Yes, he needs to be appeased, because Trump is a given, and there’s no getting around it. It’s the stupidity committed by a significant portion of American voters. Well, what can be done in this situation? We have to live with it.

Why Zelensky’s bold gesture has no further consequences Link to heading

User named “I’m against”: You said that Zelensky struck a fatal blow to Putin by agreeing to Istanbul without preconditions. And now? Again, the same thing.

Well, first of all, the phrase “fatal blow”—those are your words, not mine. I believe that Zelensky acted very correctly when, after Trump said that an agreement was necessary, Zelensky personally said “I agree.” Yes, of course—it was, let’s say, a verbal duel with Putin, and he won it. Does it have any significant political consequence? I don’t think so. But nevertheless, it was an image duel, and Zelensky won it.

What now? The same again? Well, yes, these negotiations are essentially imposed by Putin. They were imposed by Putin, yes—Putin managed to push this agenda thanks to Trump. So here we have two friendly hands extended from both sides of the ocean. In the end, they created the absolute idiocy of these negotiations. Well, what can you do now?

Comparison of Oreshkin and Sotnik Link to heading

User RPC: I want to ask you about Oreshkin. If you are so categorical toward Sotnik, with which I completely agree, why such a friendly and respectful attitude toward Oreshkin? Opposition figures can be no less harmful and dangerous in the sense that many believe them and don’t feel the vagueness and inconsistency of their positions. This is dangerous for people who have not yet developed as individuals.

I apologize, but the question is signed by Tatyana. Dear Tatyana, you know, it’s actually quite difficult for me to compare these two people—Oreshkin and Sotnik. You see, with Sotnik, as I’ve explained, the main problem is that he very sharply stepped beyond his area of competence. He was fine, even good, when he was just an interviewer, someone who asked questions and listened to answers, when he conducted street talks in Moscow—that was fine. He certainly has a good speaking ability, and he definitely has some acting talent as an interviewer, with sharpness. As a professional in his craft—as an interviewer—he was good.

But when he stepped beyond those boundaries, it became clear that he is an extremely incompetent person who doesn’t understand much, knows very little, and suffers from a severe form of conspiracy thinking. Again, a person who literally declares everyone—Kasparov, Navalny, me, and many others—agents of the KGB or FSB. He declared them all. And that’s far from the only case of his idiocy. This is a completely inadequate person—that’s the problem. So my position toward him is that he doesn’t interest me. When people ask why I don’t talk to Sotnik—about what? That I’m a KGB agent? Fine, let’s talk. What’s the point? The person is foolish, absolutely inadequate, knows very little—so he’s just not interesting.

As for Dmitry Borisovich Oreshkin, I find him interesting because, first of all, he’s a professional, he is truly a political scientist of quite a high level, a person who knows a lot about Russian regions, someone with an enormous knowledge base in statistics. He is indeed a very competent person. And if we talk about personality, Dmitry Borisovich is the typical Russian intellectual, with a very serious internal backbone. I saw how he behaved during street protests—I remember his confrontation with some police colonel who shouted at him and said, “I’ll make you piss yourself right now, I’ll show you”—I quote. Dmitry Borisovich calmly and politely replied that he does not have such a habit. That’s who he is. He is someone who knows how to defend his beliefs.

Yes, my beliefs differ from his. He has a much more loyal attitude toward the authorities, he is strongly opposed to any revolutions—that’s his approach, more classical right-liberal. That is, the position similar to what was once the Union of Right Forces—Hakamada, Koch, and to some extent Nemtsov, and also Kiriyenko. That’s his scale.

But I believe there is something to talk about and to argue about with Dmitry Borisovich. But with Sotnik—there is nothing to talk about, nothing to argue about. So that’s my answer to your question, dear Tatyana.

On the new European security system Link to heading

Artem Mishin: At the meeting with Alena Kurbanova and earlier, you expressed confidence that in the case of the U.S. de facto and de jure withdrawal from NATO, Ukraine will definitely find its place and be included in the European security system. I’m interested in your thoughts on this. What kind of structure do you see for this likely military alliance, and can Ukraine count on an equivalent of Article 5 in it?

You know, it’s very difficult to talk about something that doesn’t yet exist. This military alliance is only taking shape, and Europe is not quite ready for it yet. But the political will, intentions, and declarations are there. And, well, first there was the word—first there must be a desire, and that desire exists.

As for whether there will be an equivalent of Article 5—I have no idea, because that military alliance does not yet exist. But the objective conditions for its formation—they simply exist, as a fact. And Trump, with his rejection and rupture of the Euro-Atlantic alliance, has in fact accelerated the creation of such a European military alliance. This is inevitable. Another question is how it will be formalized, whether there will be an Article 5 equivalent, and so on. But I think there will be. I think there will be.

On justice and the soul Link to heading

Yulia: That there is no justice on Earth is obvious even to a hedgehog. Dr. Mengele, who experimented on children, peacefully drowned at an old age somewhere in South America. NKVD executioners lived to deep old age with personal pensions. But do you believe in this or not? Do you allow for the possibility of reincarnation? Even if it’s one chance out of an infinite number, it could be possible. Personally, I am sure that reincarnation exists. And second question. At the beginning of your program, you say what is happening in Russia, in Ukraine, and in our souls. But from the point of view of an atheist or agnostic, the term soul is not very honest. It can’t be systematized, studied, or provided with evidence. So wouldn’t you rather start the morning by saying what is happening in Ukraine, in the world, and in our evaluative emotional judgments? What about the embarrassing term soul?

Well, there are two questions here, and I’ll answer each of them. As for reincarnation—it’s not part of my worldview, let’s put it that way.

As for the soul—it’s simple. The soul is the inner world of a person, the sum of experiences, values, judgments, and so on. The soul is a concept that doesn’t necessarily mean something immaterial that continues to live after death. No, that’s a religious interpretation. In my understanding, the soul is just a short substitute for the phrase “inner world.” That’s all. It’s simply shorter, more familiar, and clearer. There is nothing religious about this term for me. When someone asks, “What’s on your soul?” it doesn’t have to be a believer asking another believer, “What’s in that immaterial essence that will live after death?” Of course not. It’s about what’s inside you, what’s in your inner world.

About Nevzorov Link to heading

So, Alex Ivanov: Thank you for the answer. The part about Sotnik is clear, no more questions. You read the second part about Nevzorov, but you didn’t answer about the zoo, about the zoo park. What is your opinion on Nevzorov? Is a conversation with him possible?

Well, dear Alex, I’ve answered the question about my assessment of Nevzorov many times, almost in every stream. Let me not multiply entities and answer briefly. Yes, he is currently a very effective fighter on the information front, on the right side. But for many reasons, I would prefer our trenches to be farther apart.

As for a conversation with him—I see no point in it. First of all, it’s impossible. I think he doesn’t need it, and frankly, I’m not interested either. Nevzorov is clear to me. May he have health and success in his struggle on his section of the information front. But he doesn’t interest me. I don’t think such a conversation would produce any new meanings.

I’ve already given many specific answers to these questions about Nevzorov. So, once again—yes, he is interesting, he possesses the highest journalistic skills, but there are a whole series of shortcomings that make a conversation with him uninteresting to me. In detail—I have this description of my opinions about various people posted. You can look it up.

Closing words Link to heading

Dear friends, we are concluding our morning livestream. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Skobov, Darya Kozyreva, all Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives! See you. All the best, goodbye.

Source: https://youtu.be/_fdxtG5sajk