Trump’s rubber deadline is a universal tool: it works both in the Middle East and in Ukraine. The alliance between Putin and Matroskin the Cat is a force. A soft one.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 20. It’s 7:43 AM in Kyiv. We continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Trump’s Rubber Deadline Link to heading

Well, the first thing to say is that Trump’s rubber deadline has turned out to be a universal tool that works perfectly in the Middle East — just as it does with Ukraine. As stated with a beaming smile by White House Press Secretary Caroline Caroline Leavitt, Trump will make a decision about intervening in the situation in Iran within the next two weeks. You remember, right? Putin kept getting two weeks to think it over, then another two weeks, and then another. And here again — within the next two weeks. So once more, the deadline is a universal tool. And it’s kind of the same everywhere: two weeks here, two weeks there.

As Trump explained, the time frame was chosen because there’s a significant likelihood of negotiations. By the way, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has already stated that Iran will not come to the negotiating table as long as Israel continues its attacks — and Israel has no plans to stop. So talk of negotiations is essentially meaningless, since it’s a closed loop.

Moreover, according to American media — particularly the New York Post, citing several sources — people in Trump’s circle say he fears that Iran could turn into another Libya if the government of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei falls. So, it’s more or less clear that there are many concerns. Nevertheless, there’s a leaning in a certain direction — and there’s a definite split, which we’ll discuss in a moment. But several sources close to Trump say he’s afraid of Libyan-style anarchy in Iran, afraid of what happened in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and so on.

Congress Is Holding Trump Back Link to heading

Well, some news here is that the United States Congress wants to prohibit Trump from interfering in this conflict. It’s a surprising development, and I’ll get into the details of how this resolution came about in a moment, but the resolution itself was prepared jointly by both Democrats and Republicans. It states that Congress has the exclusive right to declare war. And since the president doesn’t have such authorization for these actions, he therefore doesn’t have the right to act.

Let me quote the resolution draft — just a second, let me find it. Congress directs the president to cease the use of United States Armed Forces for military actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military unless explicitly authorized. Now — just a second — unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for the use of military force against Iran. So this is clearly anti-Trump — a straightforward limitation of Trump’s powers. How can this even happen in a Congress supposedly fully loyal to Trump? Well, turns out it’s not entirely loyal. Turns out there are rebels.

It’s a totally unexpected alliance. We talked yesterday about internal conflict within the MAGA movement, and now we’re seeing a surprising coalition of antiwar forces from both the right and left. The extremely conservative Republican Congressman Thomas Massie submitted this resolution earlier this week — I believe on Monday. He was immediately supported by members of the left wing of the Democratic Party, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is considered almost a communist — extremely, extremely left-wing.

In addition, Republican Thomas C. and Democrat Ro Khanna, who is planning to run for president, co-authored the resolution requiring Congressional approval for U.S. involvement in the conflict with Iran. So the rift within Trump’s camp is deepening over the Iran issue.

Notably, politician Marjorie Taylor Greene condemned Fox News and other media outlets for warmongering. As I mentioned, Tucker Carlson accused Republican Ted Cruz of pushing for war — war against a country he knows nothing about. I said yesterday how Trump responded — he called Tucker Carlson “crazy.” Basically, it’s like a lovers’ quarrel. We’ve already noted how the conflict between Trump and Elon Musk fizzled out.

Now, regarding the opinions of Trump’s own base — the Americans who voted for him: a few days ago, a poll by YouGov and The Economist showed that 53% of Trump supporters don’t want the U.S. to go to war, and only 19% support it. Of course, such attitudes can change. It’s clear that if Trump does decide to go to war, there may be a typical “rally around the flag” effect. We’ve seen that happen again and again. Public opinion on military actions tends to shift the moment military action actually begins — that has an impact. But still, it’s clear that as soon as — if and when — the war goes off track (and it inevitably will), once the first American dies, there will be serious problems, with Trump facing the blame, and so on.

So even now, before the U.S. has officially joined the Israel conflict, it’s already splitting the MAGA movement. That’s why I don’t rule out — and this is just a hypothesis — that Trump’s rubber deadline is partly motivated by fear of this internal division. Beyond his stated fears that Iran will become another Libya, descend into chaos, and so on.

And then there’s this completely irrational, recurring notion of a “deal” with Iran — that Iran will somehow agree to a deal, even though it’s obvious that the situation is a deadlock. Iran refuses to negotiate while Israel continues its attacks — and Israel will continue attacking. So, there’s a lot of fear, hesitation, and for now, Trump’s rubber deadline keeps stretching. He’s stalling — something he’s done since day one on almost every major issue.

Matroskin the Cat to the Rescue of Putin Link to heading

Let’s shift to Russia. Something rather amusing happened there. The event is called the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. It’s actually ending today. This evening, Putin is scheduled to speak. It’s quite disgusting, of course, but I’ll be watching. And if anything interesting happens, we’ll definitely analyze it together. So, something noteworthy happened there — they found a replacement for Iran. Since Iran stopped being a Russian ally for understandable reasons, a replacement had to be found. What kind of replacement? Just a few words. As I’ve already said, this forum witnessed a mass expulsion of the children and grandchildren of the Russian elite. The Taliban were being paraded around. But in general, if we try to sum up the preliminary results of this forum, it’s clear that — well, it used to be something, right? The old folks remember this event as a rather prestigious economic occasion in Europe. I remember well how leaders of the world’s major countries used to attend, how multi-billion-dollar deals were signed, how everyone was there. The entire Forbes list — it all actually happened.

Now? Just the dry facts. I won’t dwell on Ksenia Anatolyevna Sobchak’s deep sorrow over the absence of women of easy virtue, whose lack deprived her of her usual company. But there was another, no less important, event — the only first-rank foreign guest this year was the president of Indonesia. That is, the only head of state who showed up. All other countries, even Russia’s closest friends, were represented by relatively low-ranking officials — China, India, South Africa. Not a single leader came. Only rather low-level officials showed up. Moreover, leading Russian businessmen and heads of corporations were not present. From the top 50 of the Russian Forbes list, only four attended the forum. I’ve already talked about what was going on there — huge lines for T-shirts. That was the highlight event. No serious deals, nothing of the sort, no foreign guests.

So what was there? Long lines for T-shirts featuring quotes from Putin — and not just Putin, I think Lavrov said something too, and that was printed on the shirts. Enormous lines. Apparently, there was absolutely nothing else to do. One entrepreneur from Bashkortostan really seized the moment and printed those shirts with Putin’s quotes — they were snatched up eagerly.

And finally, Putin — or rather, someone for Putin — found a new ally and key partner. This was announced at the forum by Yuliana Slascheva, Chair of the Board at Soyuzmultfilm. According to her — I’ll just quote — she said they will continue filming the animated series Three from Prostokvashino, and a president character will appear. “He will come to visit,” said Slascheva. “We’ll draw him. And of course, this will become the most popular form of soft power imaginable. Matroskin and the President will form a wonderful duo for promoting our country and culture,” Slascheva declared.

What can I say about that? Well, something has to replace Iran, which is now preoccupied with internal issues. Judging by the fact that no major figures from China or other allies attended the forum — there are serious problems with partners. But I must say that in this situation, no one asked Matroskin the Cat — or more precisely, his creator. It’s clear that Eduard Nikolaevich Uspensky, who created the script and the story of Matroskin the Cat, Uncle Fyodor, and so on, cannot say anything — sadly, he passed away. But he clearly expressed his position and that of his characters, including Matroskin.

First of all, he was a fierce opponent — a very harsh, vehement critic — of Putin’s aggression in 2014, when Putin occupied Crimea and started the war in Donbas. Eduard Nikolaevich said the following — I specifically found this quote from 2014. Quoting Uspensky:

“Television had been convincing Russians for over a year that fascists were active in Ukraine. Crimea has long been Russian, so we’re taking it. And in Donbas, the Russian-speaking population is being subjected to all sorts of repression — the Russian language is being banned, and so on. Television showed footage; viewers were persuaded. If they couldn’t convince the husband, they’d convince the wife, and it was hard for Russians to be alone, etc. The country,” said Uspensky in 2014, “is divided into 10% smart people and 90% idiots. I believe I belong to the 10% of smart ones, because the whole story with Crimea is outrageous.”

That’s the first point.

The second is why I think the attempt to somehow forge an alliance with Matroskin the Cat will inevitably fail for Putin. Uspensky, Matroskin’s creator, was known for fighting for his copyright on the characters. He managed to secure the rights to Cheburashka and, until his death, battled that same Yuliana Slascheva over the rights to characters from Three from Prostokvashino, and he protested against the continuation of the cartoon series.

So this attempt to somehow appropriate and recruit Matroskin the Cat as an ally will undoubtedly fail. Just like all of Putin’s other aggressive ventures.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

Dear friends, before moving on to your questions, I want to say that there will definitely be a continuation of the media series. The cycles of MediaPhrenia and TrumpoPhrenia. I can’t guarantee that it will happen today, but in any case, there will be a continuation. So, to those who are outraged and reproach me for not doing all of this—there are circumstances that prevent me from doing it regularly. We will get things in order and establish regular releases. Now, I’ll move on to answering your questions.

Have leftists emerged thanks to the work of Russian intelligence services? Link to heading

Pan Stepan, we return once more to the issue of the “leftist” question. So, I don’t know the scale, writes Pan Stepan, of the corruption scenario you mentioned involving the transformation of leftists into radical leftists.

Well, this isn’t about a corruption scenario. I want to reiterate that, from my point of view, this is a problem of alienation. It’s a problem that arises when institutions, infrastructure, bureaucrats, and so on are created — that’s when this issue appears. That’s when the transformation from leftists to radical leftists begins. But Pan Stepan offers the hypothesis: What do you say about another significant, provocative scenario, where a good idea — for example, the weak helping the weak — is distorted and taken to absurdity, not by individual foolishness but on a mass scale? Isn’t it worth checking whether someone’s ears are sticking out behind this? It’s well known that no one equals the Russian intelligence services in the art of provocation — it’s a tradition. They have experience in this. Centuries-old attempts to divide Western society go way back. True, in the early 1990s, with the fall of the USSR, as if by magic, all the Western Communist parties deflated, and some — like the largest in Europe, the Italian one — simply disappeared. So much for convictions. Now the old work has picked up new momentum with the help of social media and has reached enormous power. Personally, I’m sure that Brecht, the rise of right-wing populists, and the undermining of a strong leftist movement — these are all links in the same chain.

Well, dear Pan Stepan, you know, I still think that we shouldn’t exaggerate the role of Russia, the Soviet Union, or, in particular, the current role of Putin in what’s happening around the world. First of all, let’s put the dots over the i’s regarding your suggestion that Western Communist parties were almost entirely the result of a powerful Communist force — namely the Italian party. I’d say the French party comes second. But the Italian Communist Party was undoubtedly the strongest in Europe — and perhaps in the world, outside of the Communist bloc. But to consider it a kind of proxy or puppet of the Soviet Union is a serious mistake. The leaders of the Italian Communist Party were completely independent figures. Gramsci alone is worth mentioning.

It was a powerful force. Just look at its role in the Italian resistance movement. These were the partisan units, the so-called Garibaldi brigades, which played a key role in the armed struggle against the fascists — including in the famous April Uprising of 1945. That was a powerful force. So to say that the Italian Communist Party was a lackey of the Soviet Union is deeply mistaken. They opposed Soviet policies — for example, in 1969 in Berlin, Berlinguer, who later became the party’s General Secretary, participated in an international conference in Moscow and opposed the harassment of Chinese communists. He said to Brezhnev’s face that the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact troops was a tragedy — a tragedy in Prague — and that it revealed massive contradictions within the international Communist movement.

And this was at a time when the Italian Communist Party was the largest Communist party in any capitalist country. It was receiving more than a third of the vote. And their paths diverged more and more from the Soviet Union. There was even an attempt at an alliance with the Christian Democrats. And finally, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to a complete break between the Italian Communist Party and Moscow. After that, in 1984, the Italian Communist Party took first place in the elections. And right after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the General Secretary of the Italian Communist Party — I don’t recall his name now, but I remember this happening — he announced a name change for the party.

So, the force itself didn’t disappear — it simply changed its name. It effectively became the Democratic Party. So, we can’t regard all these leftist parties as mere lackeys of the Soviet Union. That simply wasn’t the case. And that brings me to the point: dear Pan Stepan, your idea that it all comes back to Putin’s provocations doesn’t resonate with me. I don’t think that way. Putin is undoubtedly a tremendous evil, but he’s not the only evil on the planet.

What might make a person turn away from propaganda? Link to heading

A question from “Crying Sky”: Many Ukrainians and anti-Putin Russians say that Russians have been brainwashed by propaganda. They’re guilty because if they wanted to know the truth, they could turn off the propaganda and get information from alternative sources. They have every opportunity to do so — and that’s true. But it’s not the whole truth. I intuitively understand that in order to question propaganda and start looking for alternative sources of information, there needs to be a serious reason. But I can’t clearly formulate what that reason should be. Why would someone, for whom the worldview shaped by propaganda feels natural, suddenly break away from it and start seeking a different perspective?

You know, dear colleague, there could be a whole range of reasons. It might be a personal shock, or it might be new information. We remember how serious shifts occurred in public consciousness in the late 1980s, when, during perestroika, a flood of information poured in, when people lined up at newspaper stands, when huge numbers of people read Moscow News, Ogonyok magazine — even Soviet newspapers and magazines were making it into the Guinness Book of Records. People devoured this stream of new information. And real change happened. People turned away from Soviet propaganda and absorbed the new narratives. That did happen.

As for today’s situation — I think the possibility exists. But for that to happen, the regime has to change first. As long as the regime remains, there’s an effect — a kind of comfort zone. It’s uncomfortable to think badly about Putin, because if you recognize that the regime is criminal, then you have to do something about it. I’ve spoken several times about these motivations — it’s like how Germans didn’t look toward the smoke rising from the camps, where people were being burned, because it was uncomfortable. Because if they acknowledged it, they’d have to act — and acting was dangerous.

So, a kind of corruption of consciousness occurs. Even if people sense something is wrong, they block out that information — they block that part of their consciousness, because otherwise they’d either have to act or admit they’re complicit. And both of those are uncomfortable. So, in principle, I’ve outlined the factors that might lead someone to start seeking a different perspective.

Why are so many Spaniards against Israel and for Palestine? Link to heading

Tatyana Belyakova: I urgently need your help. I live in Spain. It seems to be a democracy, and all kinds of information are freely available, yet most Spaniards — educated and literate — are against Israel and for Palestine. What’s going on? Maybe we’re on the wrong side of political truth? And how is that truth defined anyway? Everyone says “it’s the truth,” everyone seems to understand — but where are all these people?

Well, you know, how is political truth determined? In reality, you simply have to look for information. And there are facts, you see? There are facts. That’s it. There is no “alternative” political truth besides the one based on facts. There are historical facts, current facts. These facts are very straightforward. We know full well that as soon as Israel was created, it was immediately attacked by its neighbors — Israel didn’t attack anyone; it was attacked.

In the same way, Israel didn’t break into Gaza and start indiscriminately killing people. It was residents of Gaza — specifically Hamas — who came out of Gaza, attacked Israelis, and killed everyone they could, and took others hostage. These are fairly obvious facts. People talk about genocide by the Israeli army in Gaza. But understand: Gaza is densely built, and Hamas hides behind civilians — that’s the first thing. Second, if genocide were truly the goal, Israel wouldn’t spend all day dropping leaflets warning civilians to evacuate before strikes.

If Israel really wanted to destroy the residents of Gaza, it could have done so very easily, given its total control and military superiority. They could just mow everyone down with machine guns — but of course that’s not the goal. Israel doesn’t want to destroy civilians; it wants to destroy Hamas. In the same way, Israel now wants to destroy Iran’s military nuclear program.

Civilians die — that happens in any war. But when the goal is extermination — like with the Nazis, with Hitler, who had a clear objective to wipe out the Jews — they did it. Nearly half of the Jewish people were exterminated. That was deliberate. Nothing like that is happening in Israel.

Iran openly declares the need to destroy Israel. Israel has never declared that Iran should be destroyed. That’s the difference.

And when people say “Putin and Israel are the same thing” — look at the facts: Putin is invading and seizing foreign territory in war. Israel isn’t trying to seize a single centimeter of Iraqi territory. The difference is clear. That’s what political truth is — it’s what’s established by facts.

So seek out facts, compare them. And as for people — well, sometimes there’s a certain infantilism. A child doesn’t understand the difference. A small child sees one person killing another and says “Oh, how awful — they’re both killing.” He sees no difference, because he doesn’t know how to analyze.

But an adult should know how to analyze, how to compare facts.

Parkhomenko Link to heading

Petya Kantor. Two questions. I haven’t followed PARKHOMENKO for seven years now. What is he like today? Does he wish victory for Ukraine or does he behave like a “good Russian” should? Stop the footwear. Let everyone be happy.

You know, I also haven’t followed Sergey PARKHOMENKO for quite a while, but I think it’s still not right to lump him in with those you call “good Russians.” I think his position regarding Ukraine was quite clear. And despite his strange remarks about me — and I must say, I’m not exactly a fan of PARKHOMENKO either — I believe our views on Ukraine are nearly identical. I haven’t double-checked, but I think they are. I mean, I’m confident about it — you see, disagreement or personal dislike doesn’t mean we should look for reasons to suspect each other. I believe that our views on Ukraine, on this war, are most likely the same. Haven’t checked, but I’m convinced of it.

Do Stalin’s admirers want to live under Stalin? Link to heading

And the second question from Petya Kantor: An admittedly serious thought experiment. Let’s imagine that scientists have mastered space and time. They’ve built a time machine for the sake of societal reconciliation—be it with some future government of a normal Muscovy, or a Siberian Republic, or whatever. They offer all admirers of, say, Stalin the chance to emigrate permanently to any year of their beloved friend and leader’s rule. What percentage do you think would, without hesitation, set off to seek adventure in the past? And what percentage would cling to the edge of the time machine’s hatch with all their limbs?

Well, you know, what is this thought experiment really about? What are you proposing to test? A survey? That won’t work, because of course Stalinists might say, “Yes, we want to go,” and so on. But in reality, if it came down to an actual opportunity, then clearly a significant portion, you understand? It’s one thing to believe in myths, and quite another to deal with them in practice. It’s like Sharikov saying, “I’ll register, but I won’t go fight.” Many so-called patriots, supporters of the war — why are so many of them elderly? Because they’re not at risk of being sent to the front. That’s why I think it’s the same with Stalinists. You see, many people say, “If only Stalin were around to deal with you!” But what about dealing with themselves? So I don’t want to name a specific number, but I think a significant portion would be clinging to the time machine’s hatch.

Russia’s War, Not Just Putin’s Link to heading

Eldar, this is from the chat. Question: In one of your recent conversations on a certain channel, you said that after about a year and a half of reflection, you concluded that this war is not Putin’s war, but a war of the entire people—of Russia. Question: are you serious?

You know, dear Eldar. Frankly, the nonsense people attribute to me never seems to end. But I’ll just answer your question. I have never seriously — not even jokingly — said anything of the sort. It was clear to me — I don’t know what channel you were watching me on, or what exactly I supposedly said, since you’re not naming where, what, or when. But the kind of nonsense you’re attributing to me, I of course never said, because it’s been clear to me from the very beginning — from the first day, February 24, 2022. And beyond that, it became clear that this war was started by Putin.

But of course, now this is already Russia’s war. And you don’t need a year and a half to realize that — you just need to look and see right away that this is Russia’s war. As for “the entire people,” I want to emphasize again: precise wording is important. This is Russia’s war. This is the war of the Russian state. This is the war of the country called Russia. But you can’t say it’s the war of the entire people, because I, for example, consider myself part of that people. Yes, I’m currently in forced exile, but I am part of that people. And I know quite a few people inside Russia who do not consider this war their own. This is not my war. And I emphasize once again: my position is that I am against Russia in this war. Clear enough? And everything else is your invention — some supposed words of mine that I’ve never said.

Servant of the People Series Link to heading

A question from Ilya: Perhaps you’ve already been asked this? I may have missed it. But I’m curious — have you watched the series Servant of the People? I read from Portnikov about Putin that it was almost like Vladimir Zelensky’s election campaign. I also noticed that the show was once well-liked by so-called vatniks. They tried to air the series in Russia, but the first two or three episodes were immediately cut by censors. The famous line “Putin khuylo” — well, we know who that’s about. That’s where the show ended on Russian TV. What’s your general attitude toward series? If you’ve watched any, which ones? A series is not just a commercial, entertaining product, but also a way to influence society. Not from a film criticism angle, but from a sociological perspective.

Well, regarding the series Servant of the People. I watched some excerpts. I wouldn’t say I was glued to the screen watching every episode — no, I can’t say that. But I saw enough to understand what it was. Yes, without a doubt, it was a powerful tool that was later used to promote Volodymyr Zelensky’s presidential campaign. So there’s no denying that.

As for the influence of TV series on society — a series is a wonderful invention overall. As a phenomenon, it’s a remarkable invention for, first of all, commercial purposes, and second, for influencing people. Why? Because not only films but literature too work on people — when someone watches a film or reads a book, they consciously or unconsciously identify with the protagonist. That’s how it usually works. And with series, the characters become like members of the family. We remember how people watched Slave Isaura or The Rich Also Cry with bated breath. Turkish series too — what was it called? That famous Turkish historical drama — it’s slipped my mind. Well, never mind, but yes, that one too. And I’m not even talking about all the cop shows, crime dramas, and so on. Every time, there’s that identification with the character.

And when it comes to series like Servant of the People, where an ordinary person becomes president — that’s a really good narrative, a great script in terms of influencing people’s consciousness. So yes, this is definitely a product that can shape society. I agree with you on that.

Bohdan Khmelnytsky Link to heading

Is that so? Well, here’s some outrage again, this time from two authors, as I understand it, and it’s not limited to just this. Two people — Sergey Gurevich and Vlada — are very upset about, so to speak, my statements regarding Bohdan Khmelnytsky and about, well, everything related. I’ll read both of their comments now. Both of them.

So, Sergey Gurevich: First of all, I think comparing the actions of Bohdan Khmelnytsky in the 17th century to Hitler in the 20th century is not quite appropriate. After all, Khmelnytsky didn’t organize the Holocaust — he didn’t have the goal of exterminating all Jews in Europe or as a nation in principle, as Hitler did. Perhaps. Would it be possible to organize a meeting with a specialist historian on this topic? That would be interesting. And secondly, under Zelensky, a law was passed in Ukraine introducing criminal liability for manifestations of antisemitism. This is in addition to an already existing law against inciting ethnic hatred and xenophobia. Don’t you think this is, to some extent, an act of repentance by Ukrainians for the actions of their ancestors? Or is it still not enough?

And here’s a comment from Vlada: You seem to have confused historical eras, Mr. Igor, trying to connect in the same context the fact that, say, Germans have repented for the gas chambers for Jews, while Ukrainians haven’t turned the page on the times of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Do you really believe these are equivalent crimes? During Khmelnytsky’s era, killings and massacres were happening across all European countries. The French killed Germans, the English killed the French. We don’t hear of any of them repenting for events that happened 400 years ago.

Dear colleagues, let me respond to this matter right away. First, a brief remark regarding Bohdan Khmelnytsky. You see, war is war. But here, it was just sheer antisemitism, because Khmelnytsky’s campaigns were exterminating unarmed civilians who posed no threat to anyone. And purely on an ethnic basis. Yes, not only Jews were killed — also Poles and others — but Jews were targeted strictly based on ethnicity.

Now, let’s take it from the top. Why did I suddenly start talking about the fact that there were complicated and grim chapters in Ukrainian history regarding Jews? It’s not like I just woke up one day and decided to talk about that. I was answering a straightforward question: why is it that these two nations — Israeli Jews and Ukrainians — though facing common problems, have not stood back-to-back as close allies? Yes, Israel does help Ukraine, no doubt, but not in the way one might hope, and in the UN, they often vote against each other. And overall, there’s a lack of mutual support and, frankly, some resentment — primarily from Ukrainians towards Israel.

Do you want an answer? Or do you just want to keep asking “how come” and “why”? If you want answers, then listen to this one. As I’ve said, there’s one reason related to competition between Israel and Ukraine for Western, particularly American, aid. That’s a fact. The second reason is this unresolved, unaddressed chapter in history.

For example, Israeli President Rivlin, in his speech at parliamentary hearings in the Verkhovna Rada on the 75th anniversary of the Babi Yar tragedy — this took place during that anniversary — said that Ukrainians, especially fighters of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), were involved in mass murders and persecution of Jews during World War II. In that speech, he mentioned that 1.5 million Jews were killed on the territory of present-day Ukraine during those years. And among the accomplices in those crimes were many Ukrainians.

He also noted that over 2,500 Ukrainians have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations — just to be fair and show that among Ukrainians there were also people honored in Israel more than anyone else. But still, he said that most Ukrainians at that time remained silent. And he urged Ukrainians to stop glorifying the OUN.

So that’s a fact. And I want to remind you what happened after that. There were heated protests. Some Ukrainian politicians were outraged, saying these were Soviet propaganda clichés, and so on. Ukrainian historians also weighed in, saying it was all Soviet propaganda. I just want to note that the position voiced by the Israeli president is supported by leading Western historians who have nothing to do with Soviet propaganda. For example, Swedish-American historian and professor at the University of Vienna Per Anders Rudling considers both factions of the OUN — the one led by Bandera and the one led by Andriy Melnyk — to have supported mass killings of Jews. This is treated as a historical fact and is backed by works of Western historians such as Kai Struve, John-Paul Himka, Mark Tsayarnik, and others.

German political scientist Andreas Umland also commented on Rivlin’s speech and the criticism it faced. He said that yes, Soviet and post-Soviet propaganda certainly influenced how the actions of the OUN are interpreted, but that’s irrelevant in this context. There are numerous independent academic studies in the West that confirm these facts about the activities of the OUN and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. These are independent researchers who are extremely critical of both the Soviet Union and of Putin’s regime and its fascism. So they’re not just echoing propaganda narratives.

I just want to point out that when someone refers to Zelensky’s actions — yes, antisemitism in Ukraine today is at one of the lowest levels in Europe. It’s much lower than in Poland or France. In fact, antisemitism is not a real problem in Ukraine today. However, in historical interpretation, the antisemitic chapters of Ukrainian history remain unaddressed. That’s also a historical fact.

And again, I don’t want to be drawn into this debate right now, because it’s not particularly necessary at the moment. This really is a matter for historians. But the problem is, there’s no actual debate happening among historians. That’s the issue. And when I suggested bringing together Ukrainian and Polish historians or those who study the history of World War II, I was told: now is not the time. Well, then it won’t happen. Understand?

So if you really want to answer the question “Why is that?”, “Why is there this tension between Ukraine and Israel?”, then go ahead and believe everything’s fine. Believe that there’s nothing to talk about, that there are no unresolved chapters. But I’ll repeat: the Germans have turned that page. Ukraine hasn’t.

And by the way, the fact that Roman Hryhorovych Svitan, who is a staunch antisemite, still regularly appears in Ukrainian media and is a welcomed guest — that’s another small detail. If you think nothing alarming is going on, dear friends, then go ahead and keep thinking that. But don’t be surprised if there are certain tensions between Israel and Ukraine. Or keep pretending they don’t exist.

Could Trump and Netanyahu Be Playing Good Cop, Bad Cop? Link to heading

Is that so? Sergey Andryushchenko: Igor Aleksandrovich has repeatedly stated that a politician’s words are everything. Therefore, he apparently doesn’t even consider the possibility that all of Trump’s rhetoric could have just been a cover — like much of what entered the information space about the plans of Israel, its government, and Netanyahu himself before the attack on Iran. That operation would hardly have been possible without coordination and close cooperation with the U.S. A perfectly staged scene: good cop, bad cop. But given the absolute hatred for Trump, calling him an “empty bucket,” you can no longer dismiss what’s happening. This scenario is not meant to defend Trump. It’s just that we’ll be observing the consequences of his policies for the next ten years. Regarding Iran, in my opinion. Draw your own conclusions.

It’s telling that you say it’s not in defense of Trump — although everything said is, in fact, a defense of Trump. First of all, dear Sergey, I want to tell you that the words attributed to me — that “a politician’s words are everything” — well, I couldn’t have said anything like that. I have indeed said, and continue to assert, that a politician’s words do matter, no question. But to say that they’re everything — that’s not true. In addition to words, there are also actions, decisions, and so on, but all of that is often expressed through words. So yes, words are of enormous importance to a politician.

Now to the main point. You know, let’s try applying your logic — that we should wait ten years — to any foolish or harmful act committed by a politician. Let’s take Putin, for example, starting a war against Ukraine. Should we also say, “Let’s not rush to judgment — let’s see how it turns out in ten years”? Or when someone says something outrageous, should we hold off on reacting and wait to see what it leads to in a decade? And why stop at ten years? Why not wait a hundred?

The point is, what Trump is doing is already having an impact on the current situation. Right now. I don’t see the need to wait so many years. And besides that, this so-called staged good cop, bad cop routine — again, I suggest we not overcomplicate things. Let’s use Occam’s razor. There’s a simple, clear explanation: Trump constantly says foolish things and does foolish things. That much is already obvious. So there’s no “good cop, bad cop” scenario here. There’s just the misfortune of someone like him currently leading the United States of America.

Trump Will Never Get Involved in a Conflict With Iran Link to heading

Aleksey Ivanov: Please consider a nickname for Trump — instead of “empty bucket,” how about “a pie with nothing inside.” I believe Trump will never get involved in a conflict with Iran. The reason is as simple as it gets: he’s a pathological coward, like any amateur and phony. Responsibility is too much for him. And since making decisions means taking responsibility — he never will. What do you think? Let’s compile some thoughts and then verify.

Possibly, possibly. I’m not going to argue with you.

If Trump Is an Empty Bucket, Then Who Fills It? Link to heading

One Node: I was thinking about the empty bucket. And I have this question: if it’s empty, then who fills it? Someone must be able to.

You know, it’s empty. No one fills it — Trump just periodically makes some noise. I mean, we all see it. This isn’t even the 20th century anymore, when some things were unknown. Now everything is known, everything is clear to everyone. Everything that happens, every word is known. They all post everything on social media. So, as I see it, there’s no one filling that empty bucket.

Are the Bad Guys in Israel Preparing a Showdown? Link to heading

Dark UN Israel and Trump are bad: So, so. Igor Yakovenko, I think you’ve seen certain ties between Israel and Trump. So, don’t you think the situation might be the following? That there are bad guys on both sides who are simply preparing a showdown for their own purposes — kind of like the left and right in America, both tearing the country apart with no hint of any new people. They’ll just devour the centrists, as per the horseshoe theory.

Well, as for America — fine. But regarding Israel and Trump, I don’t really understand what this “showdown for some goals” has to do with anything. Israel is fighting for its survival. That’s it. This strike on Iran is just like how Ukraine spent months preparing its own web — that strike on Russia’s strategic aviation took months to prepare. In the same way, Israel prepared this strike for months. It was a response to November 7 — and to the fact that Iran is indeed working on a nuclear bomb. That’s it. They’re fighting for survival, just like Ukraine is right now.

What does a “showdown for personal goals” have to do with it? Maybe someone does have their own goals — sure, I agree that in the course of pursuing this noble goal of saving the people, the state, someone might also be pursuing their own interests. Yes, absolutely, that happens. But the main point in my analysis is this: even while pursuing their own goals, these people are primarily acting in the interest of their country and their people.

I believe that — whatever one may think of Volodymyr Zelenskyy — at this moment, he is clearly acting in the interest of his country and his people. That’s obvious to me. Whatever his personal ambitions may be — holding on to power, or something else — who cares. He’s acting in the interest of his country and his people. The same goes for Netanyahu — and I view him much more negatively than I do Zelenskyy, much more. I’ve said this many times, and I’ve been attacked for it by NATO supporters and by several of my Israeli colleagues.

But I still view Netanyahu very negatively. Nonetheless, at this moment, he is acting in the interest of his country. What can you do? You have to try to be objective, put personal dislike for Netanyahu in your pocket, and understand that right now he is acting in the interest of the state.

Can Trump Be Called a Serial Killer Link to heading

Sergey. This is a question from the chat: Can he call Trump, the AI of the drink, and Khamenei serial killers?

Well, I assume you’re referring not to Khomeini, who is deceased, but to Ali Khamenei. By the way, I’m often criticized for sometimes pronouncing Ali Khamenei like Khomeini. You know, it’s a matter of diction — maybe I need a speech therapist.

So, look, dear Sergey — Trump, despite all my dislike for him, is hard to label a serial killer. I don’t really see where or when he’s repeatedly killed anyone. Yes, he organized certain operations, but even so, calling him a serial killer — that doesn’t apply. Netanyahu, I also can’t call a serial killer, because he’s defending his country.

As for Putin and Ali Khamenei — yes, probably. Especially Putin.

About All the Good Guys Killing All the Bad Guys Link to heading

Friend of a Chekist: In light of current events, a question arose — what do you think of the idea that all the good people gather and kill all the bad people? Does that work?

Well no, of course not. In the end, only killers would remain — as we know. But you know, this is such a purely theoretical scenario that it feels odd to take the question seriously. It’s a well-known joke — what would be the result? The result would be that only killers are left on Earth. But this is more of a philosophical question than a practical one.

Can the state restrict a person’s right to self-destruction? Link to heading

A question from Yulia. The issue concerns drug addiction. How could the state solve this problem? A person is weak and susceptible to addiction—drug addiction, alcoholism, everyday drinking, smoking, overeating, and so on. Is it right to give a person the freedom of choice, to allow them to destroy their personality and health, as is the case in some parts of the US? Or should the state try to do something about it? Can the state have the right to decide what is best for a person?

Yes, of course. I don’t see a real question here, dear Yulia. That is, yes, I believe the state should fight against the harm people inflict on themselves. First and foremost, this concerns drugs. You see, again, it’s about limitation. Look, restricting drug use or, for example, restricting totalitarian cults or propaganda—many freedom of speech advocates, for instance, back when I worked as the Secretary General of the Russian Union of Journalists, I fiercely opposed the position of the International Federation of Journalists, who tried to defend the rights of propagandists by saying, “But they are journalists, you can’t restrict them.” I constantly argued that no, they are not journalists, this is propaganda, and it should be fought just like drug trafficking, because it causes harm. It’s a blow to public consciousness. So, dear Yulia, I don’t see any problem here. This is a case where freedom must be limited—do you understand? When a child tries to stick their fingers into an outlet, their little fingers, and they try to stick them in, we restrict their freedom. When a small child plays with matches, we restrict their freedom. That’s how it is. Freedom must be limited in cases where a person tries to do self-destructive things.

On Pollution and Progress Link to heading

Is that so? Who is to blame and who bears responsibility for the fact that just 300–400 years ago the entire Earth was essentially a natural reserve, and people even drank water from the Moskva River in the 15th and 16th centuries, not to mention the amount of fish caught? Who is to blame for scientific progress continuing to destroy nature? Maybe scientists? Isn’t the price humanity and nature pay for this scientific progress too high? Is there a connection between the development of humanism and the development of scientific progress?

You know, these are the kinds of arguments reminiscent of Jean-Jacques Rousseau—that we need to return to our roots, slow down progress, and go back to a natural, spontaneous way of life, in harmony with nature and so on. Well, I won’t even bring up the fact that in the 15th and 16th centuries there were epidemics that just wiped people out. And without scientific progress, which included advances in medicine, humanity would still be suffering from plagues, cholera, smallpox, and so on. So let’s remember how things really were. Scientific progress hasn’t only resulted in the fact that we can’t drink water from the river. I don’t know—do you personally suffer from not being able to drink water from the Moskva River? Are you lacking decent drinking water—bottled, filtered, or otherwise? There are filters you can install on your tap. In reality, things get resolved. On the other hand, people now live about three times longer thanks to the medical advances enabled by scientific progress. And besides that—well, dear Lenin, I’m not so sure that if you were transported back to 15th-century Moscow, you would be all that thrilled, despite the joyous opportunity to drink from the Moskva River. Just saying. As for the relationship between humanism and scientific progress—these are two sides of the historical process. They are two aspects of the same phenomenon. They are undoubtedly interconnected.

Two Extremes in Attitude Toward Animals Link to heading

All right. Two more questions from Yulia. You recently commented on sex and said that higher-order animals also have foreplay and are similar to us. But do you know about snails? They move toward each other along some mysterious trajectory. When they meet, they kiss, sway from side to side, then go “banzai” into each other—shooting arrows on threads of calcium—then collapse in exhaustion and each goes their own way. Snails are hermaphrodites, combining both male and female in one. If you turn the ladder upside down and go up it, who knows what’s at the very top? But one thing is certain—we are all equal. What do you think about that?

You know, there are two extremes. Two extremes that I define for myself this way. One extreme is Descartes’ position, which I find revolting in regard to animals, because for Descartes, animals are completely devoid of feelings and incapable of experiencing pain. And when an animal cries out, when, for example, it’s being killed or wounded, Descartes suggested considering it no different than the screeching of a machine breaking down. That’s one extreme—and it’s unacceptable. And the other extreme is to completely humanize them, you see? So somewhere between these two extremes lies a scale, and in a sense, this scale corresponds to the Lamarckian ladder—at which step on Lamarck’s ladder does some degree of reflection appear? At what step can we say an animal experiences pain? At what step on Lamarck’s ladder does something emerge that could, in some sense, be considered analogous to imagination? And so on. So in fact, this is—by the way—part of the research project I’ve called Religion Animal. So yes, those two extremes: Descartes, and total humanization.

Comparing Nevzorov to Kant Link to heading

Also a question from Yulia. Yesterday, Nevzorov and Sheitelman were being compared. Each is good in their own way, and each has their own style. But regarding Nevzorov—yes, he calls himself a cynic. His books and programs may seem cynical, but he doesn’t come across as a cynic. When he spoke about the theater in Mariupol, about Azov prisoners, about the children of political prisoners, about the elderly man from Rumyantsevo who set up a radio station in his village and told old women the truth about the war—and how the Gestapo burst in—I saw firm tears in Nevzorov’s eyes. He’s not a cynic. Most likely, the war awakened all that is good in him. And as for naivety—it’s unclear. Kant, writes Yulia, for all his naivety, would surely have had the sense to sell his property in Russia if he had to flee branded as a terrorist. Nevzorov had everything taken from him. But I want to ask a question about cynicism itself—regardless of Nevzorov, who to me is not a cynic. What do you think? Is cynicism always a bad thing? Don’t we sometimes wear cynicism like a mask to hide our tears?

Dear Yulia, first of all, I must say I was deeply struck by your phrase that “Kant, for all his naivety, would have figured out to sell his property in Russia.” And Nevzorov had everything taken away. You know, Kant lived his entire life in poverty. That is, a person who clearly had the potential—if he had used his intellectual abilities to accumulate wealth, I think he could have been one of the richest people in the world. But he lived his whole life in poverty simply because money didn’t matter to him. He lived modestly—not in destitution, but in poverty. He was always in need, but it just didn’t matter to him. So whether he would have sold property—well, that’s not certain.

Now, regarding Nevzorov—journalist Alexander Glebovich Nevzorov—well, selling property when you’re in that kind of situation isn’t easy. So it’s not that he’s indifferent to money, it just didn’t work out. But he now lives in Italy. He moved to Italy in 2022, where he has property and a residence permit. So the idea that everything was taken from him isn’t entirely accurate. Of course, no one’s going to count Nevzorov’s money for him, but he does own an apartment in the city of Como. The value of that apartment is approximately €700,000 to €900,000. So as for calling Nevzorov indifferent to money—let’s not. He has always had a respectful attitude toward money, unlike Kant. So let’s not place side by side what really doesn’t belong together, you see? It just doesn’t fit.

Guest Suggestions Link to heading

All right, Zhuchok insists we invite him. Yakovina—he’ll explain.

Yes, of course he will, if he comes.

Huh? Zhan? No. Now, someone who understands the realities of Iran is the Orientalist Ruslan Suleymanov. So invite him.

Margarita? That so? No, Margarita insists. Krutykhin—as well as Aleksandr Korolchuk. Krutykhin is an Orientalist, an expert in the oil and gas sector. He served in the army in Iran. He was a translator there, that’s true.

No, the fact that Mikhail Krutykhin is undoubtedly a brilliant expert—that’s a fact.

Now, Olga from Sumy says: Invite Mikhail Brovkin—or even better, Dina Lisichansky. I think she knows everything about the Middle East.

Yes, that should be done.

Now, Sergey Gurevich insists: Invite Sergey Shur.

A friendly user here is giving compliments to me and Professor Lipsits. It would be great to hear your dialogue, dear colleague.

We have invited and will continue to invite Professor Lipsits.

Also, channel sponsor Olga Dorenko—thank you, Olga, for your support. I would love to see Ukrainian journalist Roma Strayk on your channel.

Apologies. All right. Noted.

Street Talks Link to heading

All right, a few comments on the format and content of the street talks. NATO writes: Regarding street talks, it’s better with voice than with subtitles.

Okay. Admiral also offers a critical comment about the street talks: The subtitles are machine-generated and do not accurately convey the content of the answers.

So, dear colleagues, we’ve only done one street talk so far. I have to say—I believe that with things like this, well, I’m still of the opinion that it’s a form of production, and it needs to be organized accordingly. What we did was just put out a call and hoped it would somehow come together on a volunteer basis. I think that was a mistake. We’ll see. I won’t make any promises just yet. But if we really want to do street talks—if we’re serious—then we have to take on the responsibility of organizing the process. It doesn’t just happen on its own, you see? There’s this simplified view of journalism—like, let’s do it all voluntarily, and the volunteers will just come together. Nothing happens by itself. It’s a production. That’s my—well, my many years, my decades of experience in journalism show that journalism is a form of production. For now, that’s where we are.

Natashka is asking to post a link to the film Propaganda in the chat. Yes, we’ll definitely do that.

Unreal. Chandler Chandler Bing. It’s the first time I’ve seen a call to subscribe to the channel—has something changed in the channel’s policy?

That’s probably the ticker line we sometimes use. Nothing has changed in the channel’s policy. It’s just, you see, there’s my reluctance to constantly interrupt the broadcast with calls to subscribe to the channel, on the one hand. But on the other hand, there’s the criticism I get for not doing it—because the channel is growing very slowly, very slowly. And really, if we want to reach more people, to have a bigger audience, then we need to promote in some way. I’m not good at that—I don’t want to do it. So if there’s a ticker line, it doesn’t bother anyone.

Dates on Streams Link to heading

All right. There have been a few requests to include dates on the streams—this is from Leo. Leo and a few others have mentioned it. Well, yes, probably, probably makes sense.

Suggestion Not to Ask All Questions at Once Link to heading

A question from W.M.S. Alexander, When you invite guests and ask them questions, ask one at a time. You usually ask two questions, then repeat them in shortened form. It’s annoying. You answer the first question and often forget the second. This was noticeable in the conversation with Felshtinsky. What’s stopping you from asking one question, listening to the answer, maybe asking a few follow-ups, then moving to the second question, and so on—as a dialogue should normally go? You’ve chosen your own interview style, but it doesn’t really work. Please don’t take this as criticism—just a sincere request.

Well, why not call it criticism? I actually welcome criticism—I’m open to it. I’m not going to spend too much time explaining why I do it this way. It’s simply a matter of time constraints, you see? The problem is, you ask a question, and the person begins to answer it. Then there’s always the dilemma: do I interrupt or not? Yes, sometimes you want to ask a follow-up right in the moment, but if you wait until the end… There are different kinds of speakers—some answer briefly, and then you can do it the way you suggest. But others open their mouth and don’t close it for half an hour. And then we face the issue of the program’s duration. Sometimes the guest has limited time, and I also have time constraints—maybe another guest is waiting, or I have another broadcast coming up. So that’s the issue. I’ll definitely think about your comment, but there are reasons behind the current style.

Don’t Waste Time on Idiots Link to heading

Veller. Ivashchenko: Don’t waste your time on Islamic—on Islamist idiots.

Well, I try not to waste time on idiots. I answer questions. From the outset, I don’t consider any of my interlocutors to be idiots—unless they’ve convincingly proven otherwise.

Andrey Cherednik—regarding answers to questions in modern adult education…

Facilitation Link to heading

There’s an approach called facilitation, which has nearly replaced the traditional instructor. The key difference is: an instructor explains and shows how to do things, while a facilitator involves the group in the process. If a training participant can answer a question, the facilitator stays on the sidelines and only corrects if necessary. The same approach is suggested here with questions: if other participants have answered, and you agree, just type a plus, and the question doesn’t get read on air. YouTube sends a notification. If there’s an answer, the author will see it. Pure time saving.

You see, in that case—if I understand your suggestion correctly—we wouldn’t be broadcasting it on air. Which means that if it’s an interesting question, only the author and the participants would hear the answer. So basically, we lose the dialogue. I don’t know—something to think about.

Could Khamenei Be a Frail Old Man? Link to heading

This is not so much a question as a comment from Musk Max. To my surprise, I realized that I’m echoing a certain phrase used by some Russian liberals—“don’t touch Putin.” But okay, we all discover things about ourselves. Now it’s my turn. Yes, Khamenei strengthened the IRGC. That’s a fact. You could use a time machine, go back to the ’90s, and eliminate—personify—the evil before it had time to empower the IRGC. Today, the situation is different. To me, the parallel isn’t with Putin, but with the leadership of Hamas. In the first case, an assassination changes everything. In the second, nothing. I’m not against assassination. I’m just not sure that now is the perfect time—he’s a weak, aging, and defeated politician. A living illustration of another parable: the elites can’t, the masses don’t want to. I’d support—mildly support—leaving him in that position for a bit. But I trust the decisions of the Israeli military. The fans in the stands always know best who should pass the ball, but the players on the field think differently.

Dear Max, I’m not sure I even want to comment on your remark. The only thing I’ll say is—I’m not convinced that Ali Khamenei is a defeated politician. I may not know the internal situation in Iran as deeply as you do, but I’ve seen no indication that he’s weak or defeated. At least, I haven’t heard any experts express that view.

About Yesterday’s Joke with the Explosion Link to heading

So, Valery? If we take that, yes? Well, there were several messages—Valery’s and others—about the explosion scene on Russian television.

Dear friends, I remember that Yulia once suggested: every time I try to joke, there should be a little cloud appearing somewhere with the caption “He’s joking.” I don’t know—maybe we really do need to implement something like that. A laugh track, maybe? Or perhaps I should just stop. Maybe I need to put on a serious face and say everything seriously, stop using humor altogether. That might be the way to go.

A question from A.S.—A.S. being the person who asks the question: Dear Igor Aleksandrovich, I feel that you’ve begun to gloat. How can you call it good news when you witness the possible death of an Iranian TV presenter? Killing and death cannot be good news, no matter who is doing it. You, as someone watched and listened to by thousands of people, should understand this. Death and killing should not be good news. Please think about that.

Dear colleague. First of all, look—I’m not sure we actually witnessed the death of the presenter. She was running away very energetically and didn’t look dead at all. She was scooped up quickly and ran off.

Now let me say just one word about what Iranian television is. What she was saying before the incident happened—“Death to Israel, death to the Jews, death to Americans”—that’s their daily “five minutes of hate.”

What is Iranian television known for? We know well what North Korean TV is like. Russian, Belarusian—of course. But what makes Iranian TV distinctive is that they have a special genre, which as far as I know doesn’t exist even in North Korea or Belarus. They bring on the relatives of people sentenced to death for actions against the regime. These relatives must publicly declare what scum their sons, daughters, husbands are—and how they, the relatives, want them executed.

That’s the regime, you understand? They hang gay people in the city center so that everyone sees it.

So when I say it’s good news that that TV station was bombed, I’m not rejoicing over the death of the anchorwoman—because, most likely, she didn’t die. I’m glad that this source of hatred, this source of savage malice, was hit.

Just as I would be glad—and I’m sure many normal people were glad—when the employees of Radio Mille Collines were put on trial. You understand? And when Julius Streicher was hanged—that too was a good event, you see?

So should we rejoice? I’m not rejoicing. I just think there’s a distinction to be made, you understand? There’s a difference between rejoicing and stating that something is good. Rejoicing is an emotion. Calling something good is something else. I’m not making excuses—I’m just clarifying my position.

I believe it is good news. The fact that Julius Streicher was hanged is good news. That the Radio Mille Collines staff were convicted is good news. That Iranian state TV in Tehran was bombed is good news. That’s the destruction of an enemy, the destruction of a hostile resource.

Why Ukraine Doesn’t Respond Symmetrically Link to heading

Viktor Kuts I asked earlier why Ukraine shouldn’t respond symmetrically to the fascists’ terror. You gave various arguments against it. I asked again, in light of the recent terrorist attacks, whether Ukraine shouldn’t respond symmetrically — five question marks? I am responding. I am explaining my point of view. Only similar shelling will increase the tension inside Mordor. The fascists see the killing of Ukrainians as entertainment. But when they know that there will be retaliation, any one of them could be killed precisely. That will clear any head. A beating, even with a complete absence of brain activity. Now I have explained clearly — four question marks.

Dear Viktor, you can put 12 question marks. And 500 exclamation points. But you won’t convince me of a very simple thing. You see? From my point of view, Ukraine is acting absolutely wisely and appropriately — destroying the enemy’s manpower, destroying the enemy’s military potential, destroying everything related to that potential: airplanes, oil depots, ships, and so on — precisely targeting war criminals, while trying to minimize strikes on civilians. Now, tell me, please, dear Viktor — in your opinion? Did the mass bombings of German cities, which killed a large number of civilians, lead to Germany ceasing resistance? Well, no, of course not — that is well known. I’m not saying it was a mistake, because in that case military, defensive, and economic potential was being destroyed. So that was justified. But to say — how does it look in your head? The roadmap, the mechanics of this matter. So you think that if Ukraine spends its resources, spends its shells and drones on destroying residential areas in Russia, then what will happen — Putin will stop the war? Do you really believe that? And I can put 100 exclamation marks here. Do you really believe that Putin will stop the war? You really think that? That, for example, as a result of — let’s say — Ukraine doing what Putin is doing in Kyiv, in Odesa, or in Kharkiv, with drones? If Ukraine starts deliberately killing people in Belgorod, in Moscow, or elsewhere — and then what? You really think Putin will stop the war? Or do you really think the Russians will rise up, get angry at Putin, and overthrow him? Do you really not understand that if Zelenskyy follows your advice and starts killing Russian civilians en masse, it will be the greatest gift to Putin? Because, first, then there really will be an equalization: this side kills civilians, and Ukraine does too. Well, then — a plague on both your houses. Get it? That’s the first thing. And second — of course, there will be no outcome that you expect. You say, “clear any head.” And then what? What will the person with the “cleared” head do? I’ll tell you. To some extent, it will increase motivation for those who currently have no motivation other than money. And now they’ll have motivation: “They’re killing us, we’re defending ourselves, we must go to the front and kill Ukrainians.” That’s all. That’s the kind of motivation that will arise. So you want to clear the orcs’ heads? What you’re actually doing is just giving Putin an extra motive for killing. That’s all. So, by putting yourself on the same level as the aggressor, you achieve absolutely nothing — except creating conditions for Ukraine’s enemies in the West to gain more arguments. That’s how it goes. Your outrage, your desire for Russians to suffer the same way Ukrainians do, would lead to the opposite result. I’m very glad that Ukraine’s military and political leadership doesn’t listen to your advice.

Koch Link to heading

Viktor Bychkov Koch is his own personal creature. That creature even. And so on. So let’s not fool ourselves — he does not wish Ukraine well. It’s visible to the naked eye. And anyone who doesn’t see it is politically blind. Once again, regarding the sabbath, regarding Free Russia. About 20 percent there want Ukraine to win, the rest are wholeheartedly for Russia, just so long as it doesn’t lose. So it’s a real shame, Igor Alexandrovich, that you either don’t see this or don’t notice it.

Well, about Koch — I would say I generally agree. I don’t think highly of him. Right. But separately, I’d just like to say — if I understand correctly, you’re talking about the Free Russia Forum, saying that everyone there is for Russia. Where are you getting that information from? I’m more or less a regular participant in the Free Russia Forum. I don’t see that. I see that the Free Russia Forum is precisely the structure that fully supports Ukraine, and as for allies or supporters of Russia — I don’t see them there. Where are you getting this information from? Just, dear Viktor, do share. I’m a participant in the Free Russia Forum. I don’t have any connection to the leadership, unlike Koch, who is part of the leadership of the Free Russia Forum. But I’m a regular participant there. I don’t see this. Would you share?

What to Believe In Link to heading

Katz Bey. Thank you for addressing the essence of my post. Of course, maybe I went a bit too far with the religion part, but what can you do if the vast majority of the world’s peoples still continue to believe in myths like gods? And this in the 21st century — the age of the ultimate triumph of rationalism, science, and technology. I just don’t understand — what does this have to do with what’s needed?

Well, that’s not what I was objecting to. I was surprised that you’re calling on people to abandon their current beliefs and religions and return to the origins — like, for example, for the peoples of Europe to stop being Christians, Muslims to stop being Muslims, and to return to the religions of their ancestors — to start believing in the ancient Greek, ancient Roman gods, in Perun, and so on, in Odin and the rest. Well, that seems strange to me. It struck me as very odd to tell people what they should believe in.

Could China Fall Apart Link to heading

What is this now? All right, all right. About China. The Chinese speak their local languages, and the official language is considered to be the Beijing dialect of the Chinese language group — the so-called Putonghua — which is imposed on all of China from above. And the difference between the dialects is basically just the characters. So we should talk not about “the Chinese,” but about “the peoples of China.” Not to mention the Tibetans, Uyghurs, Manchus, Mongols, and all sorts of other peoples. And so on. After all, the Germanic peoples, the Slavs, and the Proto-Turks all eventually created their own languages. So, in principle, the breakup of Han pagan China by language and tradition is quite possible — not to mention the independence of other peoples conquered by the Chinese empire.

Well, I don’t know, I’m not ready to say. I don’t see any very serious centrifugal trends in China. Maybe you do, but I don’t see them.

How Can One Call Sheitelman Naive Link to heading

All right. Dreary little donkey Sheitelman worked in producing shows, concerts, and tours. Since 1996, he has been involved in political consulting. He was an advisor to Boris Berezovsky. He consulted on election campaigns in Israel, Russia, Latvia, and Kyrgyzstan, as well as NGOs such as the Russian Jewish Congress. In 2015, he was an advisor to the election campaign of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, which led to its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, being appointed Minister of Defense. And so on. This is a story about what kind of manager Sheitelman is — and this man is supposed to be naive? Nothing personal against Sheitelman, quite the opposite — he’s quite an interesting respondent. But telling the audience fairy tales that this is a naive person who doesn’t understand what’s going on — what for?

Well, you know, I want to tell you something. Sheitelman really does have a strong business sense. But that doesn’t rule out naivety, by the way. From my personal communication with him — though not extensive — I can tell you: when I headed the State Duma commission investigating the privatization of Ostankino, I met several times with Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, as he was the main figure in that investigation. And I have to tell you that Berezovsky himself, despite all his business acumen, was an incredibly naive person. It happens. Naivety and business savvy sometimes go hand in hand. So, Yuri, I think Sheitelman is an idealist, not naive. “Naive” carries a negative connotation, akin to “foolish.” I just disagree with that. Dear colleagues, I disagree. I believe that naivety is absolutely not the same as stupidity. I’ll say it again — Kant was incredibly naive. You see? Incredibly. I can just imagine how these hardened cynics, people who know everything, understand everything, squinting at the world — how they view Kant and his categorical imperative. Like, come on — in a world where everyone lies, steals, deceives — and here comes Kant talking about a moral law within. What moral law? And then his ideas about eternal peace? Eternal peace, really! Everyone’s at war, everyone’s killing each other. What naivety! And then suddenly, the European Union is formed exactly along Kantian lines. And the League of Nations was created following those same ideas, and the UN as well. But especially the EU — and as a result, for many decades now, the countries in the EU don’t go to war with each other. According to Kant’s model. So yes, it’s naivety — but it turned out to be wisdom. That’s why I don’t consider naivety to be naive. Valeriya Ilyinichna Novodvorskaya was naive — extremely so! But that was naivety as a synonym for wisdom. So in a way — and I understand, placing Sheitelman alongside Novodvorskaya or especially Kant is not really possible — but still, in some ways, he is wise. And that wisdom is a synonym for naivety. And for me, the word “naivety” has no negative connotation whatsoever — but that’s a matter of taste.

On Jokes and Sarcasm Link to heading

A whole bunch of people are telling me that the video with Skabeeva is fake. In particular, Vladimir ARD says: Yakovenko is spreading fakes. I’m talking about the video with Skabeeva at the beginning of the program. Still, it was so good that — just like.

Well, what did Yulia say about the little cloud, where that word is supposed to appear — that’s just the uncle joking. So, maybe — I don’t know — either I should stop joking, or, so to speak… The cloud, the cloud, Yulia — and definitely no canned laughter. The cloud — I don’t know. No, I won’t stop. I’ll keep going the same way. And if they don’t get it — well, all right, in the end, in the end, it’s no big deal.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

All right, dear friends, this concludes our broadcast for today. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives! Have a good day. All the best to you! See you soon! Goodbye.

Source: https://youtu.be/ho7ZojOqBz4