Musk explained that empathy is the enemy of civilization, Rubio knows that in Ukraine, the U.S. is fighting against Russia, with Ukraine merely as an intermediary, and Kellogg accused the Ukrainians of halting U.S. aid. Trump’s team is removing Zelensky from the negotiation process and holding talks with his opponents.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 7th. It is 7:43 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
The U.S. and Ukraine to Meet in Saudi Arabia Link to heading
The President of Ukraine announced that a meeting between the Ukrainian and American delegations will take place next week. According to American sources, it is expected to be on March 11 in Saudi Arabia. Zelensky also mentioned that the meeting will focus on discussing the conditions for a peace agreement and a possible ceasefire.
As for the composition of the delegation, preliminary data suggests that the United States will be represented by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. National Security Advisor Mark Mike Watts, and Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Watts. It is somewhat strange, considering Ukraine is not in the Middle East, but Trump apparently has his own approach to assembling his delegation.
Regarding Ukraine, only one name is known so far—Head of the President’s Office, Andriy Yermak. What can be said about this?
Based on this information, as we have already discussed, I was fairly confident in predicting that the next stage of negotiations would exclude Zelensky and that there would be no meeting between top leaders. In other words, there will be no remake of the Oval Office meeting at the White House.
Ordinary Trumpism Link to heading
Ordinary Trumpism – a reference to the film “Ordinary Fascism.”
The task at hand, the task of Trump’s team, is to remove Zelensky from the negotiation process. In general, recent developments are becoming clearer and more defined. The features of what can be called ordinary Trumpism are becoming more apparent.
Here in my Telegram chat, someone shared a link to an interesting interview—Elon Musk’s three-hour interview, published on February 28, with Pastor Joe Rogan. Musk was very candid in this interview. He shared various conspiracy theories about what is happening in the United States.
But what’s fundamentally important are the ideological positions he outlined. In particular, he stated that empathy is a fundamental weakness of Western civilization. Specifically, he said, and I quote: “We are witnessing civilizational suicidal empathy. The main weakness of Western civilization is empathy. The exploitation of empathy. They exploit the flaw of Western civilization, which is the reaction of empathy, that is, compassion. Humanism is the weakness of Western civilization.” According to him, empathy has been turned into a weapon. In other words, he openly states that empathy is the enemy and must be fought against.
This is, in fact, a very characteristic feature of Nazism. Nazis and Bolsheviks eliminated it, believing—remember the famous film The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed, which was originally titled The Era of Mercy in the Weiner brothers’ novel? In it, Zheglov, a blatant Stalinist enforcer, declared that mercy is a priest’s word. Bolsheviks and Nazis always spoke of the need to overcome this abstract humanism, this rotten liberalism. No sympathy—just execution, like rabid dogs.
It is absolutely clear that Musk is consciously and publicly continuing this line. He is an outright techno-fascist, as some call it. The masks are off—no pun intended. Musk has truly removed his mask.
And this man now wields incredible power. Before our eyes, he is firing tens of thousands of officials, replacing professionals with his own loyalists—essentially his own Red Guards—whose only qualification is personal loyalty to Trump and Musk himself.
Denying Ukraine’s Role Link to heading
Another member of Trump’s team, Marco Rubio, also recently gave an interview to Fox News, in which he stated that the war in Ukraine is actually a proxy war between the United States and Russia. In other words, Ukraine is merely the territory, while the real fight is between the U.S. and Russia.
It’s interesting to ask—how many soldiers has the United States lost in this war? Does this man even understand what he is saying? Does he realize how insulting this is to Ukraine, to the Ukrainian people, and to the Ukrainian armed forces? So, according to him, it turns out the U.S. is the one at war.
And as he spoke, he had a cross drawn on his forehead. Yes, it’s a tradition, a Christian practice associated with the religious group Rubio belongs to. But in this case, it looked highly symbolic and not religious at all.
Beyond that, he also stated that Ukraine’s stance—voiced by its allies—that they should simply keep receiving as much aid as needed is not a strategy. Essentially, Rubio framed Zelensky’s position as sabotage against Trump’s plans.
But regardless of what is said—now let me make some broader observations about what this all means—whatever Zelensky says, it won’t be heard. No matter what, they will keep claiming that Zelensky does not want to end the war. Even if he bows 20 times a day and declares that he stands for peace, that he is ready to sign any deal immediately, that he regrets what happened in the Oval Office—it won’t matter.
They will continue insisting that he is not grateful enough, that he doesn’t want negotiations, that he refuses to sign a deal. He could say it outright, and immediately after, they would tell him, No, you still don’t want to. This is the tactic at play here, and I will now try to explain what it means.
U.S. Rapprochement with Moscow Link to heading
And finally, Kit Callaghan, the U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine, stated that Washington needs to reset its relations with Moscow because the policy of isolation is ineffective. He made this statement during an address at the Council on Foreign Relations.
His position is as follows: refusing to engage with both allies and adversaries is a critical diplomatic mistake. And he was quite frank about it—which is very important. I believe this is a crucial statement for our further discussions. It doesn’t necessarily reveal any secrets, but it clarifies the official position of a U.S. representative.
One statement is that the restriction of intelligence access and the suspension of support for Ukraine are the fault of the Ukrainians themselves. That’s one thing.
But pay close attention—what’s even more important is the second statement: the suspension of intelligence sharing with Kyiv is a major concession to Russia. In other words, it was explicitly stated that this was done at Russia’s request. For concessions to be made to Russia, Russia must have expressed such a demand.
It is absolutely clear that the suspension of military aid to Ukraine and the denial of intelligence-sharing were carried out as a direct response to a Russian request.
The Trump-Putin Conspiracy Link to heading
I don’t know in what tone Putin speaks with Trump, but it is obvious that this was done at Russia’s suggestion, demand, or request. At this point, it is clear that there is a direct conspiracy. One could say that today we are witnessing a modern equivalent of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Today, it is the Trump-Putin Pact. This is absolutely evident. From everything I have just said, it follows that there is a certain conspiracy—a Trump-Putin Pact.
In one of our upcoming discussions, I will try to go into detail about this plan, as it is already taking shape through various statements by American politicians.
As for Callaghan’s statement, the most cynical part was that he expressed his overall sympathy for Zelensky and said—using an American phrase—that he would love to have a beer with a guy like that. I don’t even know how to comment on this.
Everything that is happening—the entire harassment of Zelensky, the entire Trump-Putin Pact—and after all that, he wants to have a beer with Zelensky? I doubt the President of Ukraine would feel the same way.
The U.S. Is Destabilizing the Political Situation in Ukraine Link to heading
Another aspect of this pact, another manifestation of the Trump-Putin Pact, is that the Trump administration has begun active negotiations with Ukraine’s internal opposition. I still adhere to the principle of not commenting on Ukraine’s internal politics. However, this is no longer just internal politics—this is a direct consequence of the Trump-Putin conspiracy.
Therefore, I will refrain from making judgments about the individuals involved in this process from the Ukrainian side. But it is absolutely clear that this is an attempt to destabilize Ukraine from within.
Several high-ranking officials from Trump’s circle have held negotiations with the Ukrainian opposition. According to American sources, specifically the Politico publication, the discussions revolved around Ukraine’s presidential elections. The Ukrainian participants in these talks were Yulia Tymoshenko and Petro Poroshenko. The main topic of conversation, therefore, was the organization of presidential elections in Ukraine.
Regarding the Ukrainian participants, they stated that they were in talks with their American partners but not about elections. According to Petro Poroshenko, the discussion was about U.S. support for Ukraine.
In this case, since I have no insider or exclusive information from the negotiations, I cannot say who is not telling the truth—the Politico sources or the Ukrainian politicians. However, it is absolutely evident that these negotiations are part of the broader narrative that President Zelensky is illegitimate, that his approval rating is at 4%, and that, supposedly, a different president is needed. America needs a different president.
Trump and His Team Have No Understanding of the Issues They Interfere In Link to heading
Now, regarding the claim of a 4% approval rating—I can address that. According to Ukrainian sociological agencies, the numbers are vastly different, by more than an order of magnitude. At one point, Zelensky’s approval was at 57%, and after all the recent attacks against him, I believe it has risen well above 70%.
Meanwhile, a London-based sociological center conducted a phone survey in Ukraine at the end of February. According to their data, 44% of respondents said they would vote for Zelensky, 10% for Poroshenko, and 6% for Tymoshenko.
So, in reality, the people orchestrating this entire effort—blocking Zelensky, attempting to negotiate behind Ukraine’s back with Putin, and backing certain opposition figures—simply do not understand Ukraine at all. Not in the slightest. It’s similar to how Putin, in 2022, invaded Ukraine with a 200,000-strong army, attacking from nine directions, thinking he would take over the country in three days. We all know how that turned out—this war is now in its fourth year, and they haven’t managed to capture a single regional capital.
Trump’s team is acting in exactly the same way—completely misunderstanding Ukraine. They have no clue what they are dealing with.
It seems like they don’t understand anything at all. They don’t understand the Middle East, as they consider deporting 2 million Palestinians to an unknown destination. They don’t understand Canada, as they absurdly propose making it the 51st U.S. state. They don’t understand Greenland, thinking they can buy it for a handful of beads, a pack of cigarettes, and some chewing gum.
The problem is—they understand nothing.
Fascists Are in Power in the U.S. Link to heading
But the main problem is something else. The problem is that they are fascists—openly fascist—who hold the belief that empathy is unnecessary, that compassion has no place in the world, and that people must be freed from the chimera of conscience. This is a distinctly fascist ideology, which is becoming more and more apparent.
Speaking of recent events—more specifically, yesterday—I cannot ignore the statement made by Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. He accused the United States of destroying the rules-based international order.
I will quote from his speech yesterday at the Royal Institute of International Affairs: “We see that it is not only the Axis of Evil and Russia attempting to overturn the world order, but ultimately, the United States is also contributing to its destruction.”
This is significant because Zaluzhnyi, without a doubt, has a strong base of support within Ukraine. And it is important that he has not given in to playing the game that Washington is clearly trying to impose—the game of sidelining Zelensky and backing someone else instead. Zaluzhnyi has clearly refused to take the bait.
Furthermore, Zaluzhnyi stated that the White House’s concessions to Moscow pose a tremendous challenge and could lead to NATO ceasing to exist. He warned that Europe would become Putin’s next military target.
A clear, well-articulated, and absolutely correct position.
The Brussels Summit Link to heading
The Brussels summit concluded yesterday, and while the participants, of course, did not arrive with missiles, tanks, or planes, they did speak. But behind their words lies a position—a certain vision for the future.
The key question yesterday was whether Europe would stand as a united front in support of Ukraine. The attempt to reach a consensus ultimately failed for one simple reason: it is impossible to achieve consensus when the European Council and the EU include Putin’s Trojan horse—Viktor Orban.
Despite all efforts to persuade Orban, he remained opposed and blocked the consensus. As a result, the statement in support of Ukraine was adopted by 26 votes instead of 27. Even Slovakia was convinced to support it, but Orban remained firm. His position is clear—he does not believe that military aid to Ukraine leads to peace. Essentially, he is fully aligned with Trump, serving as a reinforcement for Trump’s stance.
A telling exchange took place between António Costa, the President of the European Council, and Orban. Costa stated that Hungary was isolated, that it stood alone and would not divide the EU. Orban responded by claiming that it was actually the European Union that was isolated, while Hungary had excellent relations with the U.S., China, and Russia.
In other words, everyone is out of step except for Orban.
This is not a particularly significant event in the grand scheme of things, but regardless, support for Ukraine will continue. I won’t get into the numbers now, but the key takeaway from yesterday is that the EU remains committed to supporting Ukraine.
The American People Do Not Realize They Have Elected Fascists Link to heading
As for the United States, an unprecedented situation in human history is unfolding—where a fundamentally democratic country, one that still has functioning courts, a parliament, independent media, and a large population of free people, is now led by what is essentially a fascist clique. A group with blatantly fascist views, fascist practices, and a fascist agenda, aiming to establish a dictatorship by fascist means.
Right now, an extraordinary battle is taking place—one between a country that remains free and a fascist faction that is supported by half the population.
However, if you take a closer look, a significant portion of that half are not fascists themselves—they simply do not understand whom they are supporting. They just don’t get it. As I have said many times, I closely follow various polls in different countries, including the United States. In one in-depth survey, a respondent was asked if they realized that the trade war tariffs would lead to higher prices. Their response? “How so? Why would that happen? After all, it’s those other countries that will pay.”
This person was genuinely convinced that a 25% tariff meant that foreign countries would be the ones paying that amount to the U.S. each month. They did not grasp that it was they who would bear the cost of those tariffs.
This kind of misunderstanding is widespread. I think that once people start seeing the impact in stores, in their bills, in the cost of services, in gas prices—they will be in for a surprise. Whether Trumpist propaganda will manage to spin it differently—to blame Biden, Ukraine, or someone else—remains to be seen. But for now, watching this battle between common sense and the fascist leadership of the United States is fascinating.
Of course, it would be far better if this did not come at the cost of bloodshed.
And the most striking thing is that while these people declare empathy to be the greatest enemy of civilization, while they claim that it’s not Ukraine fighting Russia but the U.S. fighting Russia—at that very moment, bombs are falling on Ukrainian cities, and people are dying.
This is a whole new level of cynicism.
Fascism is always bad, always horrifying. But when it takes on this postmodern form, it becomes not only horrifying but also profoundly repulsive.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Dear friends, before I move on to answering your questions, I want to mention that at 3:00 PM, we will have a meeting with Vladimir Osechkin. I think it will be an interesting conversation, so I recommend not missing it.
Now, I will proceed to answer your questions.
Thought Experiment: The Author as President – On Animal Protection Link to heading
So, continuing from her previous question, Yulia asks:
“Previously, you said you wouldn’t want to be president. Well, you really wouldn’t. And your mission would be limited to freeing political prisoners and organizing elections. But wouldn’t you, as president, feel the urge to radically change animal protection laws? To ban petting zoos and impose harsher penalties for animal abusers? Wouldn’t you want to take the Netherlands as a model and implement a policy of absolute animal protection? I would love to become president for these very reasons. Otherwise, what is the point of the Animals religion?”
Dear Yulia!
And to everyone else who is trying to seriously analyze my responses regarding this thought experiment—where some unknown force supposedly drags me into the president’s chair—I’ll be honest: I really don’t want to delve into this scenario seriously.
Do you understand? Because, really, what’s the point of discussing some kind of fantasy where I puff up my cheeks and say, “If I were the tsar…”? It’s just not serious.
Of course, there are many urgent issues. But I also understand that for this thought experiment to make any sense, a whole set of conditions would need to be defined. If some whirlwind of miracles landed me in this position, I’d have to understand what resources I could rely on, what the situation would be at that moment—there are simply no parameters for such a thought experiment, you see?
So, once again, let me be clear: I really don’t want to engage in this. I absolutely do not.
At this point, due to both age and health, I can no longer be actively involved in politics. But even if I could, I am psychologically repelled by the very idea of it. That’s why this thought experiment is not something I find particularly relevant.
Now, if we are talking about what Russia needs—yes, I’m absolutely ready to discuss that. I’m ready to talk about what must be done to protect animals, what policies should be implemented. That is important. And I will continue developing the Animals religion project.
But not as a politician.
On Mikhail Svetov’s Article Link to heading
Mr. Socrates! “Could you comment on Mikhail Svetov’s article Farewell to Idealism about the mercy of power? If you haven’t read it, I think you might find it an interesting read.”
I actually came across this article and saw some commentary on it. It was highly praised by Ksenia Sobchak. That, in itself, piqued my curiosity—what exactly is it that Sobchak is praising Svetov for? So, I decided to read it.
What can I say? You know, when I finished reading it, I was reminded of Mayakovsky’s words: “The street writhes, tongue-tied.” In this case, Svetov has a tongue—he just has no thoughts.
If anything, his article feels like a mind struggling without a brain.
The problem is that he starts to “sing” a certain tune—he gets through one verse, but then there’s no second verse. It’s like in Kin-dza-dza, that classic Soviet dystopian film, where one character says: “You’re thinking in languages whose endings you don’t know.”
Svetov begins by criticizing the opposition—but then what? Not in the sense of “if you criticize, offer an alternative,” but in the sense that his thoughts simply cut off, leaving behind a vacuum.
From what little can be gathered from his disjointed and rather meaningless train of thought, it’s something akin to the Change of Landmarks movement from the early 20th century. Essentially, his argument boils down to: Don’t try to change Putin, don’t try to change the government. Power is eternal. It is a given that exists in different forms.
In essence, it’s a hymn in defense of the regime.
Well, that happens. Latynina also suddenly fell in love with Putin, and now Svetov follows suit. He constantly insists that he condemns Putin, condemns the war—but at the same time, he argues that Putin shouldn’t be replaced, that power is a fixed reality, and that resisting it is pointless.
It’s such a tangled mess of contradictions that—well, much like Svetov himself—each sentence contradicts the previous one.
Uninteresting.
Will Trump Resume Military Aid? Link to heading
Cape Horn. Two questions.
I previously asked you about the inevitability of a world war. Have you changed your opinion? And my second question: I have a theory that Trump will not resume military aid under any circumstances. What do you think?
You know, regarding the first question about the inevitability of a world war, my worldview is still one of probabilities. I believe that the threat of a world war exists, and Trump’s return to power increases that probability. But again, there are many variables whose values we do not yet know. So, I can’t say that a world war is inevitable. I don’t see this inevitability. At the very least, yes, the threat exists, but everything depends on the actions of specific individuals. Therefore, I still do not see it as inevitable. The probability exists, but inevitability does not.
As for Trump not resuming military aid under any circumstances—let’s think it through. Trump suspended military aid and cut off intelligence sharing because he believes this forces Ukraine toward peace. Let’s analyze this based on common sense. If Ukraine agrees to all concessions and participates in this Trump-Putin deal, then what would be the point of resuming military aid? It wouldn’t be resumed, right? I mean, logically, if Ukraine is willing to agree to everything and peace is established, then military aid wouldn’t be needed, would it? Of course not.
The second scenario is that Ukraine refuses and the war continues. But Trump believes that the war must be stopped. In that case, from Trump’s perspective, Ukraine would be to blame for the continuation of the war. So, logically, military aid would still not be provided. That’s why I think the most likely scenario is that Trump indeed will not restore military aid. At least, that’s the conclusion that follows from this analysis.
On Translating the Author’s Broadcasts into English Link to heading
Someone is asking:
There is a viewer who translates your videos into English for distribution on English-language social media. Perhaps it would be worth taking the time to think about what message you would like to convey to them and create a few substantive videos for free people who have the ability to influence their officials, on whom aid to Ukraine depends.
Dear colleague, I have a great desire to do this, but also to do it well. Let’s be honest: these would be small films that require preparation, and preparing such films takes time. I fully understand that if I take on this project, I would have to pause most of my daily videos. I’m not even sure that it can be combined with the morning streams, because I know very well what it takes to create a high-quality video product. Not just streams, but serious, well-prepared content. This is a month-long effort.
At this moment, I’m not sure I’m ready. I would really like to do what you are suggesting, but I’m not certain that I’m prepared to stop my current work for it. It’s a matter of choice. I do want to create the kind of content you’re talking about, but right now, at this very moment, I am not ready. Especially since I also have several other projects of this kind coming up. I don’t want to make any promises or announce them prematurely, but I think you’ll see them yourself in about a week.
So, what you’re suggesting requires very serious preparation in order to produce a quality product for a Western audience. It’s a major undertaking. I believe that my team and I are capable of doing it, but it would require completely stopping what I’m currently working on.
Is It Possible That Russia Will Use Nuclear Weapons? Link to heading
Ivan Goncharuk:
Considering that Trump has sided with Putin, the latter now has free rein to carry out a nuclear strike—question mark. I’m not talking about right now; at the moment, it wouldn’t make sense. But let’s say the U.S. fails to force Ukraine into submission, and Ukraine manages to hold out with Europe’s help. As a result, Russia will be even more exhausted. In that case, the idea of using nuclear weapons could become a real priority for Putin. Trump would just shrug and say, “Well, I told you we should have made peace with him.” I fear that France and Britain’s nuclear deterrence forces won’t be enough. As for China and the others, they don’t care at all.
Well, again, this is a matter of speculation. I still think there won’t be a nuclear strike because, after all, Putin is not a suicide case—he’s a madman, but not a suicidal one. However, this is ultimately a question of probability. So, making definitive predictions here is pointless—it’s a matter of belief. I believe Putin is a coward and won’t launch a strike. Others believe he will?
What Constitutes Capitulation Link to heading
Vladimir Savoysky:
If we imagine that, for the sake of ending the war, Ukraine agrees to Putin’s key territorial demands, why do you call this capitulation? I firmly believe in speaking honestly and concretely with the audience. Ukraine has 25 regions, including Crimea. Without Crimea and four regions, 20 remain under the control of Zelensky’s government. Those who do not wish to stay in the occupied territories can relocate to the part of Ukraine still under government control.
Furthermore, if elections are held with the participation of pro-Russian candidates—surely, you don’t consider Ukrainian citizens to be complete fools who, after everything that has happened, would elect Murayev, Boyko, and others like them? They might get 10–15% of the vote, but the presidency and parliamentary majority would still be formed by representatives of other political forces. In other words, Ukraine, within 20 out of 25 regions, would fully retain its status as a democratic, independent state. NATO membership is out of the question due to opposition from the U.S. and Hungary. Other issues, such as the size of the military and the status of the Russian language, are not categorical demands from Russia once its key territorial conditions are met and could become bargaining chips in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions. This scenario is not capitulation.
Look, reducing the size of the military would be a mandatory condition—that much is obvious. And in this scenario, Ukraine would lose five regions voluntarily. In essence, it would be a public betrayal of its own citizens because it would surrender Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, and other territories currently controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces without a fight. This isn’t just a matter of arithmetic—it’s a devastating moral defeat. It would lead to a severe loss of motivation, disorganization, and a sense of betrayal within the military. The morale in the army would be shattered.
When you say, “Well, it’s no big deal, those who don’t want to live under Putin can just move elsewhere,” by that logic, Ukraine should have simply surrendered entirely to Putin from the very beginning, and anyone who didn’t want to live under his rule could have just moved to some European country. What’s the difference?
As for the idea that Ukraine would still exist within 20 regions—of course not. Putin would continue his aggression. He would keep going, using excuses like alleged discrimination against the Russian language or some other fabricated grievances. And with a weakened, demoralized Ukraine, divided by prolonged elections that would shake the country for months, Ukraine would become an easy target. And Putin never passes up an easy target—he would take over the entire country. That would be the end of it. To me, this is completely obvious.
Do you really think Putin would stop at taking just five Ukrainian regions? Of course not. There is no reason for him to stop, just as Ukraine’s behavior in this so-called “deal”—or “agreement,” as Trump likes to call it—wouldn’t matter. Ukraine is guilty simply because they want to take it. That’s all there is to it.
So, I believe the problem isn’t about numbers—whether it’s five out of 25 regions or more. The problem is that this would be a defeat—an outright defeat, a humiliation, and a complete loss of trust, not just in Zelensky personally, but in the government as a whole. People would feel disgusted by a government that abandoned its own citizens.
I can already hear the voices of opponents saying, “But blood is being spilled now, and stopping it is what matters.” And yes, stopping the bloodshed is important. But in reality, even more blood will be spilled if Ukraine is left without an army. The whole country will be drenched in blood. If the military is reduced, there won’t be an army at all. And if the army no longer trusts its leadership, then that’s the end of everything.
And if sanctions are lifted? Well, then Putin is the king. Putin wins. Sanctions are removed, and he stands triumphant. So what’s stopping him? He’ll just take the rest of Ukraine. And with U.S. support, he’ll do it effortlessly—painlessly. And then? Then Putin will move on to Europe. There’s no doubt about that. He needs to send his army of monsters somewhere. That’s just how it is.
Did the Rescheduled Meeting with Podolyak Take Place? Link to heading
Someone is asking:
Could you please tell me if the rescheduled meeting with Podolyak, which was moved to Wednesday (I don’t remember the exact date), took place? If not, is it planned for the near future?
Yes, it took place. The meeting was held on February 26. You can watch it on our website and our channel.
On Lech Wałęsa’s Appeal to Trump Link to heading
So, Ilya,
You’ve probably read Lech Wałęsa and Solidarity’s appeal to Trump. I’m curious—why do you think there hasn’t been any major public reaction from the Democrats in general, and specifically from Obama, Hillary Clinton, and so on?
Well, I don’t know—I haven’t been following the media coverage of this particular statement. Maybe it’s because they don’t pay much attention to what comes out of Europe, as they live in America, a rather cynical world. But that’s assuming there really was no reaction—I just don’t know, as I haven’t followed the press on this matter.
On the Political Situation in the U.S. Link to heading
In response to this statement, you expressed the idea that Trump’s victory is partly due to the degradation of the Democratic Party. In your opinion, what caused this? After all, there has always been competition with the Republicans, and elections for Congress are always intense. Or should there be something beyond just healthy competition?
You know, we’ve talked about this quite a bit. The obvious problems within the Democratic Party? Well, there’s the so-called progressive wing, which forces the party leadership to maneuver—to support all these super-leftist ideas, which, naturally, prevents any real stability. Many people now perceive the Democratic Party as practically communist, and of course, that weakens its chances.
But the main issue, in my opinion, is the lack of strong leadership. There is a deep crisis in the U.S. party system, and as a result, we can’t name a single competitive leader within the Democratic Party. As for the Republican Party, there simply isn’t one anymore. There is only Trump’s party, which is not the Republican Party in the traditional sense. And within the Republican ranks, there are no strong, charismatic leaders left.
So now, when there is a real challenge to the very foundations of American democracy, we don’t hear the voices of the Democrats. Where is Biden? Where is Kamala Harris? Where are their bold, decisive actions and statements against what Trump is doing? There’s nothing. And yet, almost half the country is on their side. Yes, Trump won, but tens of millions of people voted for the Harris-Biden team. Where is her response to the outrageous things Trump is doing? There is complete paralysis.
And this, by the way, shows that they are not real politicians. Sorry, but they just aren’t. When there was a campaign, they were active. But once it was over, they washed their hands of it and went off to drink coffee. That is not politics.
On the Kursk Region Link to heading
Sergey Shevchuk:
Everyone talks about the demands of both sides. Putin wants Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, a reduction of the Ukrainian army, Ukraine not joining NATO, and so on. Ukraine has its own demands as well. But I haven’t heard in what capacity the Kursk region would participate in the negotiations.
The Kursk region will not participate in the negotiations in any independent capacity.
As for the related question (which I see was mentioned below) about the possibility of the Kursk region joining Ukraine—I don’t think such a goal exists. I believe that, since we are dealing not with full-fledged negotiations but rather with the consequences of this deal between Putin and Trump, the issue of the Kursk region will be implied. Naturally, Ukraine will simply be required to return it immediately.
Another question is how exactly these negotiations will unfold—I don’t want to speculate too far ahead. I don’t know how the final stages of the talks will take place. That’s a separate matter. But ultimately, when it comes to a serious discussion—when the real reckoning begins—I don’t know how it will be structured. However, if everything happens under Putin’s terms (which is clearly the intent for now, with Trump involved), then what Kursk region are we even talking about? The demand will simply be: “Return it, and that’s it.”
On the Author’s Project for an International Public Tribunal Link to heading
Vitaly asks:
What happened to your project for creating an international public tribunal? Has it really disappeared into oblivion?
No, it hasn’t disappeared. I hope that next week we will have a stream specifically about the public tribunal. Right now, we are preparing at a different level. The problem is that, since this is a project I have been working on for quite a long time, some materials from it have already surfaced. But the real issue is the complete unpreparedness of European and American public opinion.
You can see what’s happening—what kind of public tribunal are we talking about in such circumstances? And this isn’t new; I’ve run into this before. Of course, I could create a small-scale, “chamber-style” tribunal, but that wouldn’t be very serious. It would be like a school play where students put Eugene Onegin on trial. What’s needed here are serious resources. My initial plan was that this would be supported by Western politicians, which would have turned it into a significant process. Unfortunately, that support didn’t materialize.
Maybe I’m not good at persuading, I don’t know. But now, the project will take a different format. You’ll see it very soon.
On Felshtinsky’s Statement Link to heading
So, Yuri,
Yesterday on Feygin’s channel, I heard Felshtinsky’s theory that Trump wants to unleash a major war in Europe and use it to make America great—not by developing its own economy, but by creating total devastation around it, as happened after World War II. If, on one side, there are Russia, Belarus, China, and North Korea, and on the other, Europe, Canada, and Japan, then all these countries will suffer, while the U.S., where there is no war, will appear to be a true oasis of prosperity. His message is that Europe should focus on its own continent. What do you think about this?
You know, I haven’t heard Felshtinsky’s statement, so I won’t comment on it. But here’s what we’ll do—I’ll invite Mr. Felshtinsky onto our channel, and we’ll discuss this topic. Sound good? Because, honestly, I don’t want to comment on something I haven’t heard myself. But the idea of inviting Felshtinsky is a good one. Valery Ivanov hasn’t been on for a while either.
On Belkovsky and His Statements Link to heading
Unfortunately, after constantly interacting with Latynina, Belkovsky has now switched to her side and is pushing pro-Kremlin, pro-Trump narratives. He calls Zelensky “Napoleon,” but Mr. Zelensky is not conquering or seizing foreign territories—he is defending and fighting for his country’s interests, trying to reclaim land taken by the aggressor and liberate it. Ukraine does not need anyone else’s land. That’s the truth. Please respond—what do you think about the statements of the turncoat Stanislav Belkovsky? Many political analysts and bloggers have already shed their snake skin, and so on.
Dear colleague, I watched Belkovsky’s speech. You know, I have analyzed what he represents several times already. Belkovsky is a provocateur, and I still consider him to be a Putinist provocateur. His role in the first Khodorkovsky case is well known. His report on oligarchs, which essentially became the ideological justification for Khodorkovsky’s trial and conviction, speaks for itself.
So, I believe he is doing this deliberately. And I think he fully understands the dishonesty of equating Zelensky with Napoleon. The reality is that Napoleon invaded and conquered territories, while Zelensky is trying to defend his own. Where is the similarity?
On Lipsits’ Opinion Link to heading
Viktor B.:
I would like Lipsits to be asked why a military spending increase of just 1% or so is considered so dramatic and painful for European countries. Why do they claim it’s such a serious issue if the increase is only by 1–2.5%? Is this really a problem? If so, why?
Dear colleague, as you understand, I only read your comment late at night, long after my conversation with Igor Vladimirovich Lipsits had ended. So, I can’t ask him this question now. However, I believe the issue is fairly straightforward, and despite my lack of expertise in economics, I can attempt to answer it.
The key point is that when the discussion began about increasing military spending “by 5%,” or rather to 5%, it was referring to the share of GDP—not the share of the government budget, but GDP. Military expenditures, however, are paid from the state budget, not directly from GDP. GDP represents the total economic output of an entire country, including private sector production.
When we translate 5% of GDP into budgetary terms, depending on a country’s economic structure, it can amount to roughly 40% of the total government budget. Do you see the problem? A seemingly small 1.5–2% increase in GDP terms translates into an enormous jump when reflected in the actual budget—potentially increasing military spending by a factor of 10. That’s a significant amount.
So, while 1.5–2% of GDP might not sound like much, in budgetary terms, it could mean allocating 20–30% of total government funds to military needs. That’s a huge shift. It effectively leads to a war economy, with heavy militarization, and results in serious financial constraints for other social needs. If military spending reaches 40% of the budget, that means there will be severe shortages for healthcare, education, pensions, and other essential public services.
So, their concerns are understandable. The other issue, of course, is that they have no choice. When war is a reality, the concept of “guns over butter” becomes a legitimate and necessary principle. But the problem is real—it’s not just European leaders being difficult.
Are Jewish Pogroms Possible in the U.S.? Link to heading
Alexey:
According to unverified reports, the Trump administration is conducting direct negotiations with Hamas regarding the release of hostages who are U.S. citizens and a future peace settlement plan. Israel was not informed of these talks. At the same time, we are witnessing Trump’s aggressive broad-front attack on liberal democracy both in Europe and in the U.S. The question is: Are Jewish pogroms possible in the United States?
Dear Alexey, I don’t quite see the connection between what you said at the beginning and the possibility of Jewish pogroms. I’m trying to understand—how does an attack on liberal democracy lead to Jewish pogroms? If anything, liberal democracy inherently includes tolerance and a strong stance against anti-Semitism. So, I’m attempting to reconstruct your logic—how did you arrive at this hypothesis?
As for the likelihood of pogroms, at this moment, I don’t see it. That said, I don’t live in the U.S., I don’t walk its streets, and I don’t witness social interactions firsthand. But judging by the press, Jewish pogroms are not currently a pressing issue in the U.S. This seems to be a greater concern in some European countries, where a significant portion of the migrant population harbors strong anti-Semitic sentiments. In the U.S., I don’t see this as an imminent threat.
Now, if the worst-case scenario unfolds—a full-scale civil war—then, of course, pogroms could become a possibility. But for now, there are no visible signs of this happening. Anti-Semitic incidents do occur, as they do everywhere, but the U.S. is not leading the world in this regard.
On Shushkevich Link to heading
Question:
What kind of legacy did A. Shushkevich leave in history?
He supported independence while also considering Yeltsin a true democrat—the same Yeltsin who, as we know, eventually brought the current Russian president to power. This belief in Yeltsin’s democracy likely stemmed from their time together in the Interregional Deputy Group and their acquaintance. I don’t see this as any kind of scandal or compromise.
Overall, Shushkevich was a very interesting figure. He was a physicist, well-known both in the Soviet Union and abroad. He taught in the U.S., Poland, and several other countries. Having such a scholar at the head of a state is a fascinating phenomenon. I can’t say I followed his work very closely, but his most significant period of activity was between the 1990s and 1994, before Lukashenko came to power. During that time, his role was crucial.
He was one of the signatories of the Belovezha Accords—one of the people who buried the Soviet Union. And I don’t see that as a negative; rather, I view it as a positive.
As for his character, he tried to navigate a middle path. Personally, I found him very likable—may he rest in peace. But his case is a striking example of how difficult it is for scholars to survive in politics. His defining traits were moderation, gradualism, and a willingness to compromise. He constantly balanced between the party elite and the Belarusian Popular Front, between the political blocs of Kebich and Poznyak.
For me, this was frustrating to watch because, in trying to navigate these tensions, he ultimately paved the way for someone completely unpredictable to take power. It’s like watching a football match where a fan yells at the screen: “You’re one-on-one with the goalkeeper—just take the shot already!” But instead, he hesitates. That’s how it felt watching intellectuals like Shushkevich in politics.
Personally, I find him far more likable than not only Lukashenko but also Yeltsin—and even Gorbachev. He was truly brilliant, intelligent, and cultured. But when he was in front of an open goal, instead of scoring, he’d say, “You know, I don’t have the authority to take the shot.” And that was frustrating.
His moderation and caution—what I’d call a “bacillus of caution”—prevented him from moving forward decisively. He supported the New Riga Process even when it was clear that it was already dead. That was his downfall.
That being said, Belarus was fortunate, in some ways, to have had him in power for a time—though it’s unfortunate that he didn’t use that power.
And to touch on something from your question: You noted that he supported Yeltsin, who later brought Putin to power. But to take that line of reasoning further—and I know this might anger some Belarusian colleagues—who was it that politely, elegantly stepped aside and allowed Lukashenko to take power? It was Shushkevich. The power was in his hands, but he let it slip away, and Lukashenko picked it up.
That’s my unqualified opinion on Belarusian politics—apologies if I’ve overstepped. But Shushkevich remains one of the most admirable figures in post-Soviet politics. And frankly, he’s one of the reasons I want nothing to do with politics myself—because there’s simply no place for decent people in it.
On Gozman Link to heading
Mari:
Marina has completely disappeared from all news broadcasts, as has our dear Leonid Gozman. It’s understandable that this is because of his wife. What is known at the moment? How is Gozman doing, where is he, what are his plans? And most importantly, what is happening with his wife?
She remains in detention in Moscow, Russia. Obviously… well, to put it simply, Marina is concerned about Leonid Gozman’s fate, and so am I. I spoke with him just yesterday—he called and said he would be in Vilnius, and we’ll be meeting next week.
As for his wife—she is essentially a hostage. She is in Russia and, of course, is not being allowed to leave. She is under house arrest—not in prison, thank God—but there has been no trial. That means there is no way to appeal anything because she hasn’t even been officially charged with anything yet.
To put it in plain terms, Gozman’s wife has been taken hostage. That’s why he is staying silent—he fully understands that as long as his wife is being held, he must remain quiet. And honestly, I would do the exact same thing in his place. I completely understand, and I feel nothing but sympathy.
Next week, I hope to meet with him, talk, and get a clearer picture of the situation. As far as I understand, this is simply a strategy to hold her as a bargaining chip—there is no real case against her. That much is clear.
Can Ukraine Add the Kursk Region to Its Constitution? Link to heading
Viktor:
Can Ukraine add the occupied territories of the Kursk region to its Constitution?
That’s the first question, and I can answer it right away. First of all, this is not in Ukraine’s plans—and thank God for that. Because if Ukraine were to do this, it would immediately blur the line between Ukraine and Putin. Who started it first?
Given the current situation, this would be an incredible gift to both Trump and Putin. It would instantly change the entire narrative of what’s happening right now. The rhetoric of those fascists leading the United States would suddenly shift—“Look, they’re just the same! Two aggressors competing with each other.” Ukraine is, of course, not going to hand such a gift to either Putin or Trump.
Proposal to Create a Website Listing Supporters of the Regime Link to heading
And Viktor’s second question:
This question isn’t exactly for you but rather for Navalny’s team, though I don’t follow them—I watch your program. Why not create a website or channel where personal information is published about those who currently support this fascist regime? Propagandists poisoning minds, judges issuing unlawful sentences, prison guards abusing political prisoners, deputies…
Viktor then goes on to list all categories of Putin’s henchmen and suggests that this site should also provide advice and instructions on how to make them live in fear, and so on.
Dear Viktor, in principle, we started doing this with the Public International Tribunal project. I believe we will continue. However, as I’ve mentioned before, we are now launching an updated, more effective version of the public tribunal. There will be a program called Tribunal, with the first episode scheduled for next week, hopefully.
Closing Words Link to heading
Sorry, something strange happened—some part of the stream disappeared. I had more questions left… It’s a bit of a mystery. Well, somehow, the ending got lost, the final part with the answers to all the questions. Oh well, these are the mysteries of technology.
Dear friends, that’s all for today’s morning stream. A reminder that at 15:00, we will have Vladimir Osechkin on. I think it’s going to be interesting.
Glory to Ukraine! Take care of yourselves. Freedom to Alexander Skobov! Freedom to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! See you at 15:00!
All the best, goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/4H2JZZE8rEc