Elon Musk opposed Trump on tariffs, Marco Rubio opposed Putin on the ceasefire, Scott Bessent opposed Zelensky on the mineral deal.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 7th, in Kyiv. It’s 07:42 now, and we continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
A Week Has Passed Since Trump Promised to Call Putin Link to heading
Yesterday marked a week since Trump promised to call Putin. It’s hard to say exactly what got in the way. Maybe he lost the phone number, maybe the phone itself got misplaced somewhere. Maybe it was something else. Maybe he just forgot. After all, it’s not easy to wage war against the entire world, even if it’s just a trade war. Because the main thing Trump has produced during his still relatively short time in the White House is chaos. And it is within this chaos that everything, essentially, is taking place. Negotiations are happening, various regroupings are happening.
Statements Against Tariffs Link to heading
And now even his most loyal ally and sponsor, Elon Musk, suddenly delivered a stab in the back. He came out in favor of eliminating tariffs between the United States and the European Union. Just three days after the U.S. announced 20% tariffs on all imports from the EU, Elon Musk called for reducing them to zero. He made this appeal at a congress of the Italian League party. That is, he advocated for zero tariffs. But this is clearly a stab in the back to Trump, because, after all, the EU is one of the main targets of Trump’s attacks. So Musk said some rather outrageous things. He said he supports a free trade zone with the EU. So what does that mean? If the EU drops out of Trump’s trade war, what’s left? China? Well, sorry, China is a zone of confrontation. So clearly, Musk’s entire speech at that congress was in direct opposition to Trump’s main idea, his core ideology. He said, “I hope the U.S. and Europe can establish very close cooperation.” So now—well, I don’t know. By the way, it’ll be very interesting to see how Trump reacts to Musk’s demarche. Frankly, he may not need to react at all, since he can simply stop inviting Musk to his meetings. After all, Elon Musk doesn’t hold any official position. He’s just a regular pedestrian, so to speak. His political influence—sure, his billions aren’t going anywhere—but still, his political weight depends largely on Trump continually inviting him and following his advice. So, as we can see, even Trump’s most loyal allies, not just within the White House but globally, are starting to oppose this trade war. This global Trumpist coalition is visibly falling apart. One of the first to criticize the new tariffs was Trump’s faithful supporter, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. She called Trump’s tariffs wrong and unsatisfactory for either side. The attempt by European countries to avoid a trade war is still rather delicate in its tone toward Trump—well, with the possible exception of Macron, who firmly stated that all of Europe would respond with counter-tariffs. The others are trying to negotiate, but still, it’s clear that—with the possible exception of a lone Orbán—everyone else is basically against this trade war.
Accusations and Pressure Link to heading
Amid the chaos created by Trump, certain regroupings and local verbal wars are taking place. In particular, within the triangle of the United States, Russia, and Ukraine, there are verbal attacks against representatives of the U.S. by the two other supposed participants in the negotiations. Although, of course, there are no actual negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, they are nonetheless considered to be the parties to the agreement Trump is allegedly trying to achieve. Verbal pressure is being applied. In recent days, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, has been applying verbal pressure on the President of Ukraine. He gave a lengthy interview—what’s his name again?—to Thomas Carlson. And during this interview, Bessent and Carlson were practically commiserating with each other about Zelensky. So, the Secretary of the Treasury complained to Carlson that Zelensky undermined the most useful and simple thing in the world, namely the mineral resources deal. And Carlson added that Zelensky used to be an entertainer, something like a vaudeville performer, who rose to great heights, became a hero, and got stuck there. A very odd statement—it’s unclear where exactly Carlson thinks Zelensky got stuck. Bessent also complained that during his trip to Kyiv, Zelensky refused to sign the agreement and promised to do it in Munich, but didn’t do it there either. So, in short, yes. Afterward, Bessent praised the mineral deal, claiming it would solve all of Ukraine’s problems by making the United States and Ukraine partners—and supposedly creating a situation in which Russia would be unable to attack Ukraine. Where he got that idea from is unclear, but there you have it. Naturally, Carlson responded with full agreement, claiming Zelensky wasn’t even a legitimately elected president, just the leader of a client state. He lied—as usual. Carlson always lies when he opens his mouth. Well, as do most of Trump’s allies. He lied about Ukraine having the lowest retirement age in Europe. And basically, these two so-called negotiators—or rather, interlocutors—agreed that the delayed deal with Ukraine would be signed early this week, meaning today or tomorrow. Naturally, nothing of the sort will happen, since Ukraine clearly isn’t ready to sign this agreement in its current form. So it seems that confrontation along this fault line, within the broader chaos, is inevitable—a confrontation between Trump’s team and Zelensky’s team.
The American View on Dmitriev’s Visit Link to heading
On the other hand, Marco Rubio made a very harsh statement regarding Putin. This was connected, in particular, to Dmitriev’s mission. Dmitriev arrived in Washington, and for the sake of his visit, all sanctions against this international war criminal were lifted. Standing in front of the White House, Kirill Dmitriev spoke at length about how wonderfully he had communicated with American representatives, and what grand prospects were in store for U.S.-Russia economic cooperation. But this did not impress Marco Rubio, who stated that the President of the United States cannot engage in endless negotiations. And that if Russia—Putin—continues to drag out these talks, the U.S. will reconsider its stance. So, Rubio praised Ukraine for already demonstrating its readiness for a ceasefire and negotiations. And he expressed a measure of restrained outrage toward Putin, who continues to stall and bide his time. Ultimately, regarding Dmitriev’s mission, he said that no clarity had emerged, and concluded that Dmitriev must take Washington’s frustration back to Moscow. In the end, this means that if, in the coming weeks, there is no response—as Rubio put it—then the bill proposing 500% sanctions and tariffs will be put into action. So, in short, that’s the situation. All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of the general chaos caused by the tariff war. Ultimately, it is within this chaos that all these negotiations, regroupings, and so on are taking place. Whether Trump will be able, amid a trade war with the entire world, to impose 500% tariffs against countries that continue trading oil with Russia remains a big question, especially considering everything that’s going on.
Escalation of Attacks on Ukraine and Kryvyi Rih Link to heading
So, in short, it must be emphasized once again that during this entire time, from the moment the negotiations began, Putin has increased the intensity of shelling of Ukrainian cities by one and a half times. The number of assault attacks on the front has risen by about 20%. As a result, over this past weekend, the only and main topic of our conversations was the nightmare that Russian occupiers unleashed in Kryvyi Rih. A complete, utter nightmare—19 people killed, nine of them children. This is a full demonstration that Putin is not ready for any negotiations, not for any ceasefire, and clearly, a cessation of hostilities is not part of his plans. And yet, against this backdrop, discussions of a future ceasefire are taking place. I think that in the atmosphere of chaos that Trump has created, it will be quite difficult for him to establish a firm stance toward Putin. So, the chaos continues. That is the main product Trump has generated. And within this chaos, he feels perfectly at ease. Having stirred up chaos in the world, he goes off to play golf. And for now, nothing seems to trouble him.
Trump’s Reaction to Protests in the U.S. Link to heading
And those protests that were organized against his policies within the United States don’t bother him either. They’ll be quoting that completely nonsensical statement he made about the protests. But it really sounded like something out of Sharikov’s mouth—pure gibberish. In reality, the man didn’t say anything coherent. And that, truly, is the main problem.
Chaos Plus Killings Link to heading
While Putin is committing murders, Trump is sowing chaos. What can come from this collision—of the chaos Trump creates and the mass killings carried out by Putin? We’ll see very soon, in any case. For now, there’s no sign of a ceasefire or truce on the horizon. In the near future, it will become clear whether Marco Rubio is truly right and whether Trump is ready to take any decisive action. However, those very decisive actions—namely, attempts to pressure Putin through economic means—are unlikely to yield results. The only thing that might actually work is a radical increase in the quantity and quality of weapons Trump provides to Ukraine. So far, no one is even talking about that. Those are the updates as of now.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I want to say that today, as usual, on Monday at 8:00 PM, we’ll have Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy. I think that a conversation about what’s happening on the front lines today is probably the most relevant topic—the most pressing developments that are truly worth discussing. And who better to discuss them with than Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy? So now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.
What is “Doublethink” Link to heading
Yelena Jim.
What is doublethink? How does it manifest? I’ve heard many times that it’s a trait of Russians. Do other nations have this tendency too?
Well, of course, this is not a uniquely Russian national trait, since, in fact, the term itself originated and was developed in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. And it was based on European material. That is, in Orwell’s depiction, it’s an ongoing process of victory over one’s own memory and domination of reality. So this is definitely not something exclusive to Russians or Russia, although in Russia it has become very widespread—I would say it has reached mass prevalence.
In general, doublethink is a mental state in which a person simultaneously holds two contradictory beliefs. Often, these beliefs contradict their own memories or sense of reality. In a way, doublethink is a form of compartmentalized thinking, a psychological defense mechanism, where the contradictions between opposing ideas and behaviors are deliberately not acknowledged. The person blocks out the contradiction.
For example, classic cases from the Soviet Union include situations like the infamous anti-alcohol campaign, where at meetings drinking was condemned, and then people went home and drank. Another very telling example is what’s happening now with viewers of Russian state television: this is where I observe doublethink constantly. They denounce Nazism while simultaneously chanting Nazi slogans. That’s when a person holds clearly opposing views and blocks out the contradiction—doesn’t even notice it. Certain parts of reality are just mentally blocked.
Doublethink is a phenomenon particularly characteristic of totalitarian regimes, as a result of pervasive propaganda. And today we see manifestations of doublethink not just in Russia—though clearly, in Russia it’s present and often serves as a survival mechanism. In a totalitarian regime, expressing views that oppose the regime can be dangerous—hence, doublethink. But we’re also now seeing doublethink appear in the United States as well, because Trumpism as a phenomenon produces doublethink, just like Putinism, like Stalinism—like everything described in 1984. So this is a broad phenomenon. Yes, it may be more prevalent in Russia than elsewhere, but doublethink is certainly a global phenomenon. It’s a feature of consciousness under totalitarianism.
How to Persuade a Conspiracy Theorist Link to heading
Ruslan Ivanov.
Explain, if you can, how to convince someone that not everything happening in the world is a conspiracy—COVID was created on purpose, the war was planned, and so on. The claim is that there’s one goal: to destroy us all, that there’s a world government, that it’s all a conspiracy, that all presidents are installed from above by unknown forces. Of course, they say that the people don’t choose leaders in democratic countries—the world government rules us.
This is a diagnosis—conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy theories are a response to fear, to panic in conditions of uncertainty, when a person senses danger but doesn’t understand where it’s coming from. It’s essentially a lack of knowledge. It stems from undeveloped or archaic thinking. That’s where conspiracy theories come from. The cure is simple: education. Education. There’s no other remedy. Nothing but good, quality education can counter conspiracy thinking.
If You Can’t Influence Anything, Why Listen to the News Link to heading
A question from a subscriber with the callsign UN.
Some people believe: why listen to the news? I can’t influence what’s happening anyway. I think this is the wrong attitude. In some ways, it’s similar to the mindset of most Russians, who led their country to where it is now. I’m from Ukraine and really look forward to your response.
Well, if I understand the question correctly—why listen to the news if I can’t influence what’s happening? You know, first of all, simply declaring and adopting the stance that “I can’t influence anything” is itself a position of subjectlessness. At one point, there were still some ways to influence events—like elections, if they existed or when they did. That’s one side of the question.
The other side is that knowing what’s happening is extremely useful. I’ll give a concrete example of when awareness of actual events—not mythological or propagandistic narratives, but real news—could have saved people’s lives. 1986, Chernobyl. This is a vivid illustration of how propaganda kills. When the Soviet authorities decided to suppress information about what had happened at Chernobyl, thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people went out to May Day celebrations and were exposed to radiation. Objective information could have saved lives. This is an obvious fact. The falsification of news led to people being harmed, to people being exposed to radiation. That means we shouldn’t just listen to the news—we need real news. News must be honest, truthful, unblocked, and not distorted.
So I think I don’t need to list hundreds of examples—one is enough. A specific situation where lies kill, or the absence of news kills. I think we can point to many more cases—like the current war. People who remove themselves from the real news flow could be subject to conscription or see their loved ones drafted, and the result could be their burial in Ukrainian soil. Access to information and good media literacy can literally save a life.
Those are, frankly, simple and fairly obvious reflections on the importance and usefulness of the news.
Documents on the Kennedy Assassination Link to heading
A question from Ilya
Trump, as promised—and surprisingly—published declassified documents on the Kennedy assassination. Have you looked into this release? Is there anything in it that deserves your or our attention?
Dear Ilya! Of course I was interested in this release, but given the sheer volume of information I need to work through, I’ve put it aside for now. I haven’t yet had the chance to figure out how interesting or important it really is. It’s certainly a significant event, and there may well be something noteworthy in there—but honestly, I just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
Is Crime the Foundation of All Capital? Link to heading
Sokol, Kruzhkin, and so on. He quotes Rockefeller with the following:
“I can account for every cent I’ve earned in my life—except the first million.” Doesn’t this phrase, in your view, reflect the very foundation of Marxist ideology? Of course, Marx formulated his ideas independently of this quote. It was likely spoken even after Capital was published—definitely later. But how well it fits his philosophy. Do you agree that every fortune has a crime at its root? Most likely, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates didn’t amass their fortunes thanks to the shady dealings of their ancestors—though who knows? But certainly not. As far as we know, none of those three benefited from criminal family wealth. That just wasn’t the case. Still, you can’t erase words from history. And this opinion does exist—quite a widespread one. What’s your view of this claim? With our comrades, everything’s clear. But how do you think this holds up in the so-called civilized world? Don’t think I hold leftist views—I don’t. I’m neither left nor right. Still, I’m curious about your opinion."
Dear Sokol Kruzhkin, I have to tell you that, first of all, this saying about Rockefeller and the widespread belief that every great fortune is rooted in crime—that’s not actually characteristic of Marxism. The famous phrase “property is theft” comes from the French socialist-anarchist Proudhon. It’s a view Marx actually argued against.
A similar sentiment was voiced in the Middle Ages by the German theologian Caesarius of Heisterbach, who famously said that every rich man is a thief or the heir of a thief. But again, that was a monk’s position—not Marxist.
As for me, I’m not inclined to believe that all fortunes are the result of crime. Yes, many fortunes in Russia were built through criminal means. But I don’t think that’s true even for all Russian billionaires. I don’t see any crime, for example, behind the fortune of the late Zimin and his son. That was clearly created through personal effort and intellect. So no, not every great fortune is criminal—not even in Russia.
And again, this position, as expressed, has nothing to do directly with Marxism. As I said, it’s more aligned with anarchist thought—Proudhon’s, in particular.
Is There an Alternative to the UN Link to heading
A question from Mikhail.
I’d like to hear your opinion on the fate of the UN. In my view, it’s a completely useless, ineffective organization that can only issue meaningless resolutions of condemnation and other empty talk, without having the slightest influence on real-world events, such as wars, etc. In general, my position is clear. This organization, in my opinion—writes Mikhail—is an exact replica of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which eventually passed into oblivion. Do you see a similar future for the UN?
I don’t think so, at least not in the foreseeable future. What’s happening now is clearly a breakdown of the structure created after World War II. That much is obvious. But I don’t think the UN will collapse anytime soon, simply because it still functions as a kind of platform—a global guide club for international politics. And in that sense, precisely as such a platform, I believe the United Nations will survive, at least for now. I do see a loss of effectiveness in the UN, but I don’t see any immediate signs of its collapse. For now, I think it will remain.
If Trump Is So Rich, Then Maybe He’s Not an Idiot? Link to heading
Well, as always, here comes a sharp and provocative question from Ubludok Jones. Ubludok Jones writes:
I only ask you tough questions when you forget—well, when I forget and float too high in my information bubble. Then some compliments follow. So the question is this: Why do you treat Trump’s plans to seize power in the U.S., with or without the use of weapons by American citizens as in the movie The Fall of the Empire, as foolishness? Do you dismiss the possibility that this is due to your lack of knowledge—and that of your experts and the rest of us—about the inner workings of U.S. politics, something the American people may understand better than we or your experts do? Earlier I asked whether you think Trump truly didn’t understand who Putin was before claiming he could end the war in 24 hours and promising imminent negotiations. So let me rephrase: do you really think that someone who was president of the U.S. for four years, who has open ties to the Russian president through oligarchs, through his own oligarchs, through media bought and paid for by another country’s dictator—do you really believe he’s not involved in resolving his own problems? And so on. And Trump—he’s supposedly so stupid and naive he didn’t understand any of this? While every random expert on the internet—like us and other talking heads—saw it all coming, saw it so clearly it hurts the jaw? Really? You think everyone else is so smart and important, and Trump’s the only idiot? I’m not defending him, but it seems awfully frivolous to think you’re smarter than someone who’s actually achieved something in life. And so on.
You know, I’m very familiar with this kind of position. If we were to boil it down to one line, it would be: If you’re so smart, why are you poor? That’s the idea here. Like: “Well, he’s the President of the United States, he’s a billionaire—so he can’t be dumb.” I came across this attitude back in the early ’90s, as did many of us, when the newly rich—those who had made money through racketeering, speculation, and breaking laws—looked down on everyone else who might be more educated or intelligent, all because of the very same position you, Ubludok Jones, are now expressing.
“How can someone who’s been so successful possibly be stupid?” “How can the President of the United States be an idiot?” “He’s achieved something, and you haven’t—so what gives?”
Well, here’s my take: If you’re so smart, why are you poor? doesn’t hold up. Success in life and intelligence are things that don’t always go hand in hand. There are plenty of fools in power. That’s just how the world works. Intelligence, education, and knowledge aren’t always the ticket to the top—they aren’t the button that activates the social elevator.
The reality is that political decisions are often made by people who are unqualified—sometimes outright foolish. That’s a historical fact. What can you say? A person’s high status in society doesn’t guarantee intelligence. It’s a sad but very banal truth.
Will Mirror Atrocities Bring Results for Ukraine? Link to heading
Chandler Bing asks:
In light of another war crime by Russian fascism in Kryvyi Rih—earlier, Ukraine simply didn’t have the means to give a mirrored response to such crimes. But some time ago, Zelensky announced successful missile tests. We also saw a creative response by the AFU when Belgorod was hit in retaliation for Kharkiv—and the result, as we can see, was effective: no more missile attacks on Kharkiv. I’m absolutely convinced that Ukraine should respond in kind to crimes committed against its cities. Otherwise, there’s no reason for the Kremlin to even hesitate. I believe that for a high-rise, there should be a high-rise; for a market, a market; for a café, a café. That’s the only way to get results for Ukraine. Of course, there are risks—the likely reactions of the West and the Kremlin are clear. The reason for not responding is political—Zelensky’s mistaken attempt to pose as a warrior of light where it no longer makes sense. Again, we have a positive example: Belgorod. And at the UN session called by Putin, everyone just told him to get lost, saying Ukraine is defending itself. So here’s the question: do you believe that mirrored responses to such crimes by Putin would bring a positive result for Ukraine?
The short answer is no, it won’t. And I’ll explain why. This isn’t about trying to, as you put it, “pose as a warrior of light.” It’s a very simple thing. First, let’s understand what a mirrored response really is. Putin’s forces struck Kryvyi Rih—hit a playground, killing 19 people, including nine children. So, from your point of view, the mirrored response would be for Ukraine to strike a Russian playground somewhere, killing 19 people, including nine children.
Let’s take it further: Russian war criminals are beheading Ukrainian POWs. So should Ukraine respond by finding Russian POWs and beheading them? That’s the logic you’re presenting. Now let’s look at why this logic is deeply flawed and why it would have the opposite effect.
How does Putin treat human life? The answer is obvious: he doesn’t care at all about the lives of his own citizens. So if Ukraine responds by, say, killing civilians in Voronezh or the Moscow region, do you really believe that will make Putin stop? Of course not. It’s laughable. If he doesn’t care that hundreds of thousands of his own people are buried in Ukrainian soil, do you really think he’ll respond to Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilians the way you expect? No—he won’t care.
On the contrary, you’d be doing Putin a huge favor. He could then easily flip the narrative. And as for the UN—right now the UN doesn’t react harshly precisely because Ukraine isn’t responding in kind. That’s obvious. If Ukraine suddenly lost its moral high ground and followed your advice, then we’d start hearing things like “they’re just as bad as each other.”
So, point one: Putin is immune to human suffering. He couldn’t care less how many Russian civilians die. It won’t stop him.
Point two: the global community currently sees things in black and white—Russia as the aggressor, Ukraine as the victim. Most of the world stands with Ukraine. That includes public opinion in the U.S., which is why support continues. Biden is still providing aid. Europe is helping. If Ukraine starts retaliating “symmetrically,” that perception could change.
But most importantly, mirrored atrocities won’t have any real impact on Putin. They’ll be meaningless, ineffective—and most likely, they’ll have the opposite effect.
On Portnikov’s Opinion That Putin’s Death Won’t Stop the War Link to heading
Vladimir Viktorovich writes:
In a recent interview with Insider, Portnikov said—surprisingly to me, at least—that the current regime in Russia is not personalist and that Putin’s departure from power will not lead to an end to the war. I believe that, with all due respect, Portnikov is mistaken in this case. I’m curious about your opinion, including arguments that might support Portnikov’s view.
Well, you know, I haven’t seen that particular interview with Vitaliy Portnikov, but I do know—yes, indeed, he has expressed similar views in our conversations. I don’t agree with him on this. In our discussions, I’ve expressed a different opinion. I believe the Russian regime is undoubtedly personalist. I’m convinced that if the dictator dies, the war will end.
I base this on very simple logic. Yes, it’s true that right now Russia is waging war. And it’s a mistake to say this is just Putin’s war, not Russia’s. That’s wrong. It’s definitely Russia’s war. But it was started by Putin. And there’s evidence of that. We all saw that infamous Security Council meeting where Putin bent all his security officials to his will. We know that the General Staff was against this war—even if they voiced their opposition through retired figures like General Ivashov and Colonel Khodarenok, their position was clearly stated.
The fear that Putin’s inner circle—especially those in the security services—feels toward him is obvious. That’s why no one opposed him; he simply made the decision unilaterally. Today, a significant portion of that circle is undoubtedly facing serious difficulties because of the war. Many would like to return to the pre-war status quo, but in the current environment, they can’t speak out.
There’s also a deeply ingrained tradition in Russian politics: every successor tramples the legacy of their predecessor. Stalin destroyed Lenin’s guard (and beyond killing Lenin, wiped out his inner circle). Khrushchev denounced Stalin. Brezhnev sidelined Khrushchev. Gorbachev disavowed Brezhnev. Yeltsin rejected Gorbachev. And Putin still blames everything on the cursed ’90s. This tradition of blaming one’s predecessor is very strong.
So when—if—Putin finally goes to hell, that tradition won’t end. Any successor will inherit a country in catastrophic condition. The temptation to blame Putin for everything will be enormous. And therefore, the main source of Russia’s misery—the war—will naturally be ended. Whoever takes over, even a hawk, even a war criminal, will have an excellent opportunity to exit the disaster by saying: “It was all Putin’s fault, and now we’re stopping the war.”
So yes, I believe the simplest way to end the war is the end of Vladimir Putin’s life. It really is the most straightforward and realistic path to peace. So I think Vitaliy Portnikov is wrong here. I’ve always said so—even in our own discussions. It’s one of our points of disagreement. That said, I always enjoy talking with him, and we’ll continue our conversations, including debating this issue.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Well, those are all the questions I saw for today, dear friends. With that, I’ll wrap up our morning conversation. A reminder that at 8:00 PM, as usual, we’ll be meeting with Serhiy Rashkin-Hrabskiy. Don’t miss it! Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov! By the way, we’ve just published another installment of Aleksandr’s Prison Notebooks on our Telegram channel. He continues to think and share his reflections from prison, which is incredibly important. Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov! To Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian POWs! Take care! See you at 8:00 PM. Goodbye!