Putin declared a victory-obsessed ceasefire. Canada voted against Trump in the parliamentary elections. Trump’s first 100 days were the worst result in the past 80 years.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is April 29, in Kyiv. It is now 07:41, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Parade Ceasefire Link to heading
Yesterday, Putin ordered Russian troops to halt military operations in Ukraine from 00:08 on May 8 to 00:11 on May 11, that is, for three days. The idea is to avoid combat during the Victory Day celebrations on May 9, so that nothing would threaten the parade, to which, according to some reports, 18 or 19 heads of state have been invited—mainly from CIS countries, plus Xi Jinping. Putin’s announcement, or rather the message I read on the Kremlin’s official site, looks rather amusing. It states that the ceasefire is being declared for humanitarian reasons. One wonders why these humanitarian considerations are so brief, why they are so small. Why, based on humanitarian reasons, not just end the war altogether? Of course, waiting for an explanation from the Kremlin is futile. At least, I did not find one on the Kremlin’s website. Moreover, the announcement naturally included a threat of an “adequate and effective response” if the Ukrainian side does not follow Russia’s example.
Previously, there was an Easter ceasefire for 30 hours; now there is this “victory” ceasefire for three days. Ukraine’s reaction is understandable: it responds symmetrically. Actually, this statement by Putin—this second ceasefire after the Easter one—is very telling. The whole situation surrounding these sudden, spontaneous, unilateral ceasefires essentially reveals the true nature of this war. Some might be under the illusion that two countries are fighting, but the reality is entirely different: one country attacked, and the other is defending itself. Putin’s ceasefires are a mathematically precise proof of this. Look, like in grammar, there is a control question: can Zelensky declare a ceasefire without agreeing with Putin? The obvious answer is no. If he did, Putin would exploit it and continue fighting, causing Ukraine to lose territory. But can Putin declare one? Yes, because he is the aggressor—the side that attacked and continues attacking.
Putin is the only person who can stop this war in the same unilateral way he declares ceasefires—just by stopping the shooting. And that would end the war. This simple, obvious truth, illustrated by these two so-called ceasefires, remains inaccessible to people like Trump, who somehow believe pressure must be applied to both sides. Pressure must be applied to one side—the one that started and continues the war. This is proof: the only person holding the keys to ending the war is Putin. He is the only one who can stop it, and he must be pressured. Such a simple truth turned out to be inaccessible to Trump. We’ll talk a bit more about how Trump’s mind works later.
The reaction is well known: Ukraine, through Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, stated that Moscow should truly cease fire. Why wait until May 8? The fire can be stopped right now, and the ceasefire could be extended for at least 30 days. That would be real, not just for the parade. White House press secretary Caroline Lipsitz also said that Washington is very skeptical and unhappy with Putin’s actions. For balance, she also mentioned dissatisfaction with Zelensky’s actions, though she did not specify what Zelensky had done wrong this time.
Yesterday, on several Ukrainian channels, I was asked about the goals of this ceasefire. They are obvious: first, parade security. It’s well known that Ukrainian drones, not to mention Western missiles, can easily reach Moscow. Without a ceasefire, the parade participants—North Korean troops and Russian troops marching on Red Square—would be legitimate targets. So the aim is to secure the parade.
The second goal is also clear: it’s part of Putin’s ongoing flirtation with Trump, trying to keep him involved in the negotiation process. It’s a mutual interest, and Trump is in no hurry to exit these talks, stretching his so-called “flexible deadline,” which he talks about but never reveals. Putin’s task is to keep Trump from getting too upset: see, Putin has declared a second ceasefire.
So there are two fairly obvious goals. It’s important to note them before we move on to the main topic of our discussion.
Parliamentary Elections in Canada Link to heading
Sorry, yesterday parliamentary elections were held in Canada, and, as expected, the main figure in these elections was Donald Trump. Naturally, there is a mathematically precise proof of this, which I will now try to provide. The main topics of the elections were, first, Trump’s tariff policy, which suddenly struck all countries of the world, including Canada, essentially making trade with its closest neighbor impossible. Secondly, his constant remarks about how Canada should become the 51st state of the United States. This also did not go unnoticed and caused an incredible wave of patriotism in Canada—boycotts of American goods, protest statements, and so on.
In fact, Trump truly became the main actor in these elections because he even managed to issue a statement during the voting. According to my notes, he wrote: “Good luck to the great people of Canada, and choose the person who will cut your taxes in half, double your military strength for free to the highest level in the world, and ensure fourfold growth of your auto industry, steel, aluminum, forestry, energy, and other sectors without tariffs and taxes, if Canada becomes the beloved 51st state of the United States of America. No more artificial borders established many years ago.” I understand that Trump was referring to himself. We were apparently supposed to vote for Trump, somehow write him into the ballot, and elect him governor of Canada.
But the Trump effect worked. I promised to provide mathematically precise proof, and it is as follows: in January, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation—Trudeau representing the Liberal Party—Conservatives were ahead of the Liberals by more than 20 points. Their leader was a strong contender for the prime minister’s chair. But after Trump started spouting nonsense about the 51st state, the main focus of the elections shifted to who could better stand up to Trump. Public opinion leaned toward Mark Carney, the Liberal Party representative, being better suited to oppose Trump. As a result, today the Liberals are winning. Preliminary poll results show the Liberals with about 43% and the Conservatives with 38%.
So, in fact, Trump achieved his goal: the voting was against Trump. Naturally, Carney will most likely become—or rather remain—the prime minister. Currently acting prime minister, he will stay in office. What one might call the magical effect of Trump’s presence, even where he physically could not be.
100 Days of Trump Link to heading
And now to the main topic of our discussion today: the 100 days of Trump. Truly, these were 100 days that shook the world. There is a tradition, starting with Roosevelt, of summarizing the first 100 days—at least, as far as I know; I’m not an Americanist, so I apologize if I am mistaken. As a result of Trump’s first 100 days in the White House, he set a record for the lowest approval rating in the past 80 years: 39% of U.S. citizens approved of Trump’s performance as president, while 55% viewed it negatively. This is the most recent figure, and the rating continues to fall: it had been 44%, then 43%, then 41%, and now polls show 39%, the lowest result in 80 years. This survey was a joint effort, interviewing 2,500 American voters, conducted during the last week of the campaign by ABC News and The Washington Post. Trump already responded to the poll by calling American media “enemies of the people”—a familiar term well known in Russia.
As for the results of the first 100 days, Trump truly achieved a lot. Besides setting a record for the lowest approval rating, he managed to practically destroy the postwar world order in which the United States had been the undisputed guarantor of security for its allies and the leader of NATO. That world order no longer exists. He achieved a lot. We have already discussed his demand for Canada to become the 51st state of the U.S., his promise to take Greenland from Denmark, and his insistence that part of Ukraine be handed over to Putin—all within just 100 days of his second term. Trump broke or declared void so many of America’s international commitments that he essentially called into question the United States’ reputation as a trustworthy partner.
Thus, the first major result: he undermined trust in America. A president who constantly lies and cancels his own international agreements cannot inspire trust. Certainly, the U.S. still maintains extraordinary economic, political, and military power, and the American internal market remains highly attractive to many people and countries. But Trump did everything he could to diminish that attraction. Of course, it would be an exaggeration to say the United States has collapsed—it has not. But Trump undermined trust as much as he could. His strategy of flooding the world daily with insane announcements about extreme measures, aimed at undermining economic cooperation and the democratic essence of the United States, is a deliberate tactic designed to paralyze political opponents.
Typically, Americans avoid criticizing a new president during the first 100 days, giving them a chance to prove themselves. But protests have already begun, though they are scattered and confused because people don’t even know exactly what to protest against: the ignoring of international obligations, the undermining of the separation of powers (such as deporting migrants against direct rulings by federal judges), the illegal deportation of people lawfully residing in the U.S., or the violations of the First Amendment through restrictions on press freedom and the defunding of research universities.
Thus, the first outcome of Trump’s 100 days is the erosion of trust.
The second is that America has never been as divided as it is under Trump.
And, of course, there is the breach of virtually all promises he made, especially the one that interests us most: his pledge to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. We see what’s happening: the war is still raging, and Ukraine is no closer to peace than when Trump made that promise.
To say it was a joke only makes Trump look worse. One could list many other Trump failures—his inability to solve Middle East problems, his ludicrous promises about Gaza, his failures with Iran. The list goes on. He effectively destroyed NATO—not officially withdrawing the U.S., but bringing it close to that point. European countries can no longer rely on America, which has broken the transatlantic alliance; the West as a single entity no longer exists.
This is far from a complete list of what Trump managed to do in his first 100 days. But he is full of energy and intends to continue destroying the system of international security, destabilizing global peace, and escalating threats to humanity. Thus, Trump’s activities are far from over.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to answering your questions, I would like to mention that today we have a very interesting guest: Polish statesman Piotr Kulpa. At 20:00, this politician, a very interesting person, will join us. This is his first time here, and I believe it will be a fascinating conversation.
Now, moving on to answering your questions. I must warn you right away that my time for the morning broadcast is very limited today, so I apologize in advance—I won’t be able to answer all questions, including some from the Telegram channel chat. However, I have noted all of them down and will definitely answer them tomorrow. So please don’t be upset. I will do my best to make up for all the missed answers.
Does the author believe that if Harris had become U.S. President, it would have changed the course of the war? Link to heading
Boris from Kharkiv
Do you believe that if Harris had become president, it would have improved the situation in the Ukraine–Russia war? I’ll note right away that I view today’s Democratic Party representatives and the Trumpist wing of the Republicans equally negatively.
I can immediately say that it is obvious Harris would most likely have continued the policy pursued by Biden. Of course, we cannot be absolutely certain, but most likely, Harris would have maintained the support that Biden provided to Ukraine. Looking at the situation today: Ukraine continues to receive the assistance initiated under Biden, whereas Trump has not allocated a single cent to Ukraine so far.
Thus, I believe the situation would have been better—much better. It would have been more predictable, not radically good, but certainly better. These “rollercoaster rides” we are seeing under Trump would not have occurred. Instead, the situation would have been more stable, more reliable, and more strategically calculated. And that, of course, would have been a significant improvement.
About Kirill Nabutov Link to heading
Now, the second question.
Are you familiar with the journalist Kirill Nabutov? What is your opinion of him as a person and as a journalist?
I have not had any personal interaction with him, but overall, it seems to me that he holds fairly correct, reasonable positions similar to ours. That’s about all I can say. He is a sports commentator, and the field of sports journalism is not particularly close to me. Of course, I have my own priorities and there are figures I admire in that area of journalism, but Kirill Nabutov is not among them.
As for his political stance, it is quite clear: from the very beginning, he has been strongly opposed to the occupation of Crimea and generally stands on the same side as we do. That’s it, briefly speaking.
Why “Religion of Animal”? Link to heading
Kosta Katsuba
Please explain why you call it a religion? Religion usually implies belief in the supernatural, rituals, sacred texts.
Indeed, this is a philosophical stance on the ethics of animal rights. I named this project, this area of my work devoted to animals, their rights, and their place in human life, “religion” not because of supernatural aspects, but after much reflection on the phenomenal process that began on Earth about 150 years ago—the radical change in humans’ relationship to animals.
For tens of thousands of years, animals were viewed purely from a utilitarian perspective: as a food source or as service animals integrated into human society to perform practical functions. However, over the past 150 years, there has been a mass phenomenon of animals becoming companions—family members, not just resources. From a purely practical standpoint, the mass presence of cats, dogs, rats, lemurs, and others in homes is entirely useless: cats are no longer there just to catch mice, dogs no longer just to guard flocks—they are kept purely for love.
This shift cannot be rationally explained. Of course, each pet owner can say it’s for love, for warmth, as a way to express accumulated affection. But then why not direct that affection toward children, spouses, or friends—why choose non-human beings?
Thus, I explain this as a kind of religion—a metaphor, of course. “Religion of Animal” is a metaphor. I see it as a further development of humanism: historically, humanism expanded from free, wealthy men to include slaves, women, children, and people of other races. There was even a canonical debate within Catholicism on whether indigenous peoples should be considered human and thus entitled to humane treatment.
Now, humanism continues to expand, recognizing that living beings—animals—exist alongside us, beings capable of suffering, pain, and even thought, though differently from humans. This explosion of humanism toward animals has been ongoing for the last 150 years. Yes, there were isolated cases before, but only from the late 19th century onward has there been a steady growth in non-utilitarian attitudes toward animals.
Forgive me, this is a subject that deeply interests me and one I have studied extensively and intend to continue exploring. It’s an important topic with both activist and research significance. It is vital to understand at which stages of the evolutionary tree animals begin to feel, sympathize, and think. This is the essence of the “Religion of Animal” project. Unfortunately, the war prevents me from fully pursuing it at the moment.
What is the author’s opinion of Pyatigorsky? Why shouldn’t Germany leave the EU? Link to heading
Masha Ivanova
What is your opinion of Pyatigorsky? And I have another big request: could you expand on why Germany should not leave the EU? Many of our listeners in Germany do not understand this.
Dear Maria, regarding Pyatigorsky: I feel respect and sympathy for him. Unfortunately, somewhere in the mid-2000s, he came to Moscow, and I—caught up in constant work—missed the chance to attend his lectures and meet him personally. I deeply regret it to this day. Back then, I was the General Secretary of the Union of Journalists of Russia, overwhelmed with tasks. I knew he was in Moscow, I knew he was giving lectures, but I considered myself too busy. I regret this now: that cursed bustle often prevents one from focusing on what matters most.
As for his philosophical legacy, the most important thing for me is his textual model of communication. This idea—that semiotics, communication itself, arises only in the presence of an observer—greatly enriched my understanding. Pyatigorsky emphasized that thinking is only possible together, with an internal interlocutor, even when thinking alone. This auto-communication process, where the “other” is always incomplete and inexhaustible, is crucial.
For me, Pyatigorsky stands alongside thinkers like Bourdieu and Mamardashvili—one of my constant, albeit distant, intellectual companions. It’s a shame he passed away—there will be no more conversations.
As for why Germany should not leave the EU: I’m probably not the best expert for an in-depth answer since this is an economic question and I am not a specialist in EU or German economics. But at a general level, sufficient for dialogue with supporters of Alternative for Germany, two points seem obvious to me.
First, Brexit serves as a powerful warning: Britain’s exit from the EU found no imitators, and it’s unlikely there will be any soon. The experience proved extremely negative—today, a majority of Britons regret it and would like to reverse it, although it’s difficult now. Brexit reaffirmed the benefits of EU membership.
Second, Germany greatly benefits from being in the EU. I’ll cite one figure I recall: about 52% of Germany’s imports come from the EU, and most of Germany’s trade is conducted within the EU. Thanks to the absence of tariffs within this massive internal market, Germany enjoys huge advantages. As the strongest economy in Europe, Germany maximizes these benefits.
So I believe the argument is fairly clear. If deeper professional expertise is needed, though, that’s beyond my qualifications.
Question About WWII Lend-Lease Link to heading
Alexey Alekseev
Question about Lend-Lease during World War II: what were the U.S. interests—economic, humanitarian (if that’s even the right word regarding arms supplies)—or was it a desire to delay German and Japanese attacks on the U.S. until the development of nuclear weapons was complete, active work on which began in the summer of 1939?
Dear Alexey, I believe there is a misunderstanding here. Lend-Lease itself began in March 1941. The Japanese attack occurred later, so this seems to be a clear mix-up.
As for the motives, everything is quite clear. There was absolutely no humanitarian aspect involved. The law—the Lend-Lease Act passed in March 1941—was officially titled the “An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States.” That was the sole, overwhelming motive: the defense of U.S. national security.
The Act’s purpose was precisely to strengthen America’s own safety, as both Japan and Germany posed a threat to U.S. national security. So there’s no real ambiguity here.
Why Did the Russian Authorities Suddenly Acknowledge North Korea’s Involvement in the War? Link to heading
Question from Gloomy Donkey
Why do you think the Russian authorities suddenly decided to acknowledge information about North Korean troops, backing it up with lots of videos and photo evidence? At first glance, this seems more compromising. What and to whom are they trying to signal?
It seems quite obvious, dear colleague. This is a demonstration, a kind of warning, an attempt to intimidate the West. Look: two nuclear powers—Russia and North Korea—have formed a military bloc, a military axis. Fear us, tremble, West. That, I believe, is the clear message.
North Korea has joined in as well: “Fear us, we are with Russia, we are brothers, and we will tear everyone apart.” It’s an intimidation campaign. Everything seems pretty transparent.
How Did Lenin Manage to Overthrow the Regime in Russia Without the Internet? Link to heading
Unfortunately, I did not record the author’s name. I’ll read the question in full, and I hope you recognize yourself by the text.
Pan Igor, how did Lenin manage to overthrow the regime in Russia without the Internet and a billion dollars, while today’s Russian opposition—with money and social networks—cannot or does not want to?
Dear colleague, there is clearly a misunderstanding here. If you are referring to the Russian Empire, it was certainly not Lenin who overthrew that regime. We know well that the Russian Empire collapsed due to internal contradictions.
The Empire was destroyed by representatives of its own ruling class—the governing elite. In fact, it was an internal coup. Lenin had nothing to do with it. At that time, he was in Switzerland. In January 1917, Lenin famously wrote and said (quoting from memory): “We old ones”—he was in his 40s but already considered himself a veteran of the revolutionary movement—“may not live to see the decisive battles of the coming revolution.”
Thus, even in January, just a month before the February Revolution, Lenin believed the Russian Empire stood firmly.
Later, overthrowing the Provisional Government posed little difficulty, as it was internally contradictory and unstable. So, Lenin did not overthrow the regime; the Russian Empire collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions—at the very top.
About the Author’s Teaching Practice Link to heading
Here’s a question from Alex Anderson
Regarding your teaching practice: did you focus on the best and brightest or on the lagging students? Was your priority to help slackers catch up or to help talented students progress? Abstractly, what is your idea of the ideal student? Also, I noticed a correlation: adherents of anti-scientific, pseudoscientific, esoteric beliefs often appear very kind and good-hearted at first—standing for “all things good against all things bad”—but once you scratch the surface, there’s often a classic racist, anti-Semite, or nationalist beneath. Their “good-heartedness” disappears, giving way to ingrained biases. Have you encountered this? How would you explain it?
You know, the fact that obscurantism often goes hand-in-hand with fascism, xenophobia, and the like is natural. They are often part of the same package: abandoning reason frequently leads to the triumph of brutal, inhuman instincts. So yes, I have encountered this, and I agree with you that this phenomenon exists.
As for who I consider an ideal student and who I focused on: when you walk into a classroom, at first you face a faceless mass. But gradually, you begin to study people, looking into their eyes, observing their reactions. Even in a lecture format—even with an audience of over 100 people—I always tried not to indulge in monologues but to break things up with questions, drawing people in, inviting them to the podium, keeping the atmosphere dynamic.
Of course, orientation toward the best and brightest was present—they are more engaging to work with. However, strictly answering your question, focusing solely on the best students is not a good practice. I admit that I often fell into that pattern, and it does not reflect well on me as a teacher. Nevertheless, there were always attempts to work with everyone, including struggling students—sometimes successfully.
That’s just how it was.
About Polls by TV and YouTube Hosts Link to heading
A question about your field:
Quite often, many channel hosts conduct what are essentially disguised polls: “Friends, write in the comments who you would vote for if the presidential election were held soon.” Meanwhile, everyone stays silent about the key event, the timing of which no one knows and which must happen at least six months beforehand—the end of martial law. To me, this sounds both idiotic and provocative. Or perhaps in sociology there are technologies for manipulating time frames?
Yes, of course, sociology includes many forms of manipulation, including so-called commissioned polls. These exist and are widespread.
As for the type of poll you mentioned, I don’t see anything provocative about it. It’s normal. Yes, obviously, martial law must end before elections can be held. But I don’t understand why we can’t ask now about who people would vote for. This is a standard practice. Maybe I misunderstood something, but I see nothing provocative here.
Sociologists are doing their job: studying public opinion and holding up a mirror to society. Of course, in wartime, that mirror is a bit distorted—but it’s the one we have.
About Stoicism Link to heading
Leo Tsoi writes:
I’m interested in stoicism—not in terms of praising it, but in trying to understand it. Maybe it’s not a useless concept but a kind of gradient, a continuum with degrees. For example, your daily broadcasts and refusal to sleep look quite stoic. Compared to the average person, some protesters willing to face arrest are seen as “old-timers” because others aren’t ready for such decisions. So maybe it’s not about being a stoic or not, but about degrees of it. What do you think?
This continues the question about my attitude toward stoicism. Of course, we’re not talking about the ancient philosophical school itself—which is fascinating, but not what’s meant here—but rather about “stoicism” as the publicistic term for the ability to endure hardships with courage and resilience.
I agree with you: your idea that stoicism is not binary but a gradient—a matter of degrees—is absolutely right. Just as with any quality, you can approach it in a binary way (good/bad, yes/no) or through a gradated approach with varying degrees, as is often done in sociology. So yes, I fully agree with you.
Slip of the Tongue About 50 Years of Teaching Link to heading
A question from Stoic:
On a recent stream, you said, “I have been teaching for 50 years.” How should this be understood? Are you still actively teaching?
I can immediately clarify without continuing the rest of your text: that was a slip of the tongue, an unfortunate way of putting it. I am not currently teaching.
There were dreams of returning to it, but I realize my resources are limited. I do miss teaching very much, but most likely, it won’t happen. It was simply a slip of the tongue.
On the Probability of Trump Providing Aid to the Aggressor Link to heading
You said that the probability of Trump providing direct military assistance to the aggressor is “science fiction,” because, despite being a fascist-type figure, he still heads a democratic country. But earlier, you acknowledged that to stop ongoing aid to Ukraine, he wouldn’t need any pretext or situation—he could just do it, with no one to stop him. So it seems that in one case, he can bypass Congress and the establishment, but in another, he cannot. The question is: where exactly is the red line that limits such voluntarism? And is there an effective external mechanism to shift this line in our favor? If so, maybe it’s underused due to underestimation.
Dear colleague, the previous author formulated the situation very precisely. There is no double standard here—it’s a matter of degree, not a binary yes/no.
When it comes to confronting public opinion or Congress, it’s about the degree of resistance. For example, stopping the aid still flowing from Biden could trigger some discontent in Congress, mostly among Democrats. Yes, they are fewer in number. But if Trump were to attempt something like providing military aid to Putin—something I consider absolutely fantastical—the level of outrage would be so enormous that it would simply sweep away the proposal, and possibly Trump himself.
One thing is to tell Congress, “We’re saving money by stopping aid to Ukraine for domestic social needs.” Another thing entirely is trying to send military assistance to the Russian aggressor. The degree of public outrage would be incomparable.
Thus, it’s a question of degree—of the intensity of the backlash. It’s a classic case of gradation, not a black-and-white issue.
As for shifting that red line in our favor: that’s a general question and a well-known task. It’s not really my job—working with American public opinion is the task of American politicians and those who have access to major American media. People like Garry Kasparov, for example, who works with U.S. media, are doing important, systematic work to move that line closer to our side.
But honestly, I think Trump himself is doing a fine job in this regard. I’m not even sure anyone needs to interfere or help. His support rating just dropped from 41% to 39%. Better to let Trump handle it himself—he’s doing it perfectly well.
How Does the Author Assess Lenin’s Work “Materialism and Empiriocriticism”? Link to heading
Galina Viktorovna asks:
How do you assess Lenin’s work Materialism and Empiriocriticism? Can Lenin be considered a philosopher?
You know, since I, unfortunately, know this work almost by heart—along with his Philosophical Notebooks—I can say that it is a student-level work. It is not a major philosophical treatise. It’s quite clearly a work of apprenticeship. Lenin, who was undoubtedly an intelligent person, was discovering philosophy for himself.
His two main philosophical works, Materialism and Empiriocriticism and Philosophical Notebooks, show him trying to read philosophical texts and grasp the philosophical world. In the margins, for example, about Hegel, he wrote “Scoundrel! Idealistic scoundrel!”—which still amazes me.
He was certainly a thinking person, but as a philosopher, I rate him very low. Lenin had several facets: as a politician, he was very strong—quick-witted, absolutely amoral, unrestricted by any limits, and able to achieve his goals both inside and outside his party. No wonder he managed to seize power and crush all his enemies (except Stalin, of course).
As a propagandist and journalist, he was strong—a good polemicist. But beyond that, things get worse. As an economist, he was terrible—he understood nothing about economics.
Thus: a strong (but negatively marked) politician, a capable propagandist, a mediocre journalist, a weak philosopher (an amateur), and a very poor economist.
As for Materialism and Empiriocriticism—it is clearly a work of apprenticeship.
About the Draft Peace Agreement Link to heading
Pan Stepan asks:
The current draft peace agreement seems to imply freezing the conflict along the line of contact. I don’t understand how Ukraine could agree to this. If it’s about ending the war completely, that would require constitutional changes in both countries, since the official borders are far from where the front lines are now. Theoretically possible, but both countries firmly reject this. If it’s about a temporary truce, hasn’t it been repeatedly stated that Ukraine must not agree to one because Putin would just use the break to regroup and attack with full force? Right now, both sides are exhausted, but Ukraine is not losing—rather, it could win if given more resources. Meanwhile, Putin cannot win without a break, having already committed all his resources. So isn’t a truce extremely disadvantageous for Ukraine? Or am I wrong? And so on.
Dear Pan Stepan, I believe we are very much on the same page here. I think Trump’s plan is clearly favorable to Putin, and that’s why Ukraine is not agreeing to it.
However, in the current situation, that’s not the most important thing, because, as I said at the very beginning of our stream, the key to ending the war lies in Putin’s pocket—and no one else’s.
Thus, any conflict between Ukraine and the United States over peace plans is secondary. The main point is simple: you could tell Trump, “Stop pestering Ukraine with nonsense—go and negotiate with Putin. Ukraine is ready.”
Therefore, I think the issue of whether Ukraine should recognize or support Trump’s plan is a secondary matter. The main issue is that Putin has no intention of ending the war.
Is Trump’s plan acceptable for Ukraine?
Here’s another question on the same topic from Andreas that I’ll read out.
And it’s very upsetting that you, just like other bloggers, have simply become a participant in the information war. My last three questions, which were apparently not very convenient, you ignored. Well, let’s try one last time and then I’ll unsubscribe. If Trump’s plan is not acceptable for Ukraine, then tell me, how do you see the end of this war? People are dying at the front right now. The chances of returning Crimea by military means are zero. But you. But. But you think we should continue? Even Grabsky, Zaluzhny, mentioned in this stream, say there is no magical weapon capable of shifting the front line without significant human losses. Therefore, in my opinion, everyone who rejects Trump’s plan is simply a beneficiary of this war. And don’t say that Russia won’t agree if that’s the case. Ukraine loses nothing, but to Trump and the whole world, it becomes obvious who doesn’t want to end the war. As it is now, by rejecting the plan, Ukraine appears just like Russia, unwilling to compromise. Only the difference between Russia and Ukraine is that Russia practically depends on no one. Ukraine is completely dependent on the USA and Europe and will perish without their help. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very foolish to reject such an opportunity and, at the cost of Crimea, defend its sovereignty and save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.
Dear Andreas. You see, I have answered your questions quite a lot, but your recent ones were essentially repetitions and interpretations of the previous ones. And you know, I have the impression that for some of my interlocutors, when a question is asked, I answer, but not the way you would like. You see, I’ve encountered this many times — I answer, but not the way you want, so you ask again. “How could you not understand?” you say. I did understand. I just think differently than you do. And you want me to think the same? That’s not going to happen. That’s why I sometimes stop answering certain questions. Now, specifically regarding your latest question — and forgive me for addressing the topic of unsubscribing in advance — if for various reasons it becomes unbearable for people to listen to me or they think I’m saying something wrong, yes, I am a participant in the information war, undoubtedly. At the same time, I try to be objective. But I know exactly whose side I am on. So in this sense, yes, I am a participant in the information war. But my weapon is truth, real analysis. This is my weapon in the information war. That’s regarding your reproach. Therefore, I’m not ashamed that I am a participant. I just participate through my analysis, my reflections.
Now to the essence of the matter. The thing is, when Trump starts proposing — first, we haven’t even seen his plan. And the fact that the Ukrainian side reacts negatively to it suggests that it contains elements that indeed provoke outrage, such as the recognition of Crimea as Russian. Naturally, this causes outrage because it is wrong. Today, the Russian aggressor demands the recognition of Crimea as Russian. This encourages the aggressor. The main issue is that Trump’s plan doesn’t lead to peace because he ultimately cannot come to an agreement with Putin. When you say, “let’s agree to anything,” it looks like Ukraine would be showing it’s ready to recognize Crimea as Russian and announce its willingness to withdraw. It’s written there — to withdraw from the occupied territories, the ones Putin has already written into his Constitution. So the next question would be: if you are ready to leave, why are your troops still there? Why are you still holding Zaporizhzhia? Holding Kherson? Leave, then. These are not harmless things. Talking about putting the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant under American management — while it remains under Putin’s control — has no practical meaning.
Moreover, the declaration of readiness to take such actions would create a dangerous precedent. You are proposing a very strange thing. No peace would actually come, because Putin is not going to stop the war. But the Ukrainian leadership would already have demonstrated readiness to capitulate. For what reason? This is the policy of appeasing the aggressor. And it leads not to peace but to further aggression. It encourages the aggressor. Basically, you are suggesting that the Ukrainian leadership take the same stance as the Czechoslovak government once did — sitting quietly, nodding, signing documents that led to the complete loss of sovereignty. This demotivates Ukrainians and is, in fact, ruinous. Appeasement of an aggressor is a very bad story. It is not the path to peace. The Munich Agreement convincingly demonstrated this.
I understand that you, with your position, do not like what I am saying. You ask a question, I answer what I think. And threats to unsubscribe — of course, it doesn’t make me happy when someone unsubscribes. But if I say something you don’t like, I have no other answer. As for the statement that everyone who rejects Trump’s plan is a beneficiary of the war — excuse me, dear Andryusha, that’s complete nonsense. Trump’s plan is not a plan to end the war but a plan to appease the aggressor. And those who reject it are not beneficiaries of the war, but opponents of the policy of appeasement. This policy has discredited itself many times in human history.
Will Putin agree to make peace? Link to heading
A question from Tatyana.
I just can’t imagine that Putin would agree to make peace without achieving everything he has set out to accomplish. I even think he won’t stop at anything, not even the use of nuclear weapons. So what way out is there? How can he be forced to make peace by military means? If he feels he is losing, will he use nuclear weapons? And what other options do you see?
I don’t think the probability of Putin using nuclear weapons is very high. He still loves life very much, and I believe he understands that the response — especially since he has been directly warned — would be fatal for him. Therefore, I clearly see only one option: continued support for Ukraine, providing it with sufficient weaponry. Ultimately, of course, sanctions must also continue — suffocating sanctions, secondary sanctions that destroy hydrocarbon trade. These, in my opinion, are the comprehensive measures that will allow Putin’s aggression to be stopped — not immediately, not quickly, not in a single moment, and most likely not this year.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
So, dear friends, we are concluding our morning discussion for today. And before we end, I would like to remind you that at 7:00 PM we will have Polish statesman Piotr Kultura. From what I know about him, it seems this will be an interesting conversation. With that, I am ending the morning stream. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian captives! See you at 7:00 PM! Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/5eEzdivUr0o