Persecution of Azerbaijanis continues in Russia. Macron spoke with Putin, and he explained everything to him. Trump has halted the delivery of anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine that were promised by Biden.

News Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is July 2nd. July already, excuse me. It’s 07:41 in Kyiv right now, and we continue our daily morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls.

Russian-Azerbaijani Conflict Link to heading

Well, first of all, we continue to monitor the deepening of the Russian-Azerbaijani conflict, into which Russian security forces, public figures, and the media are diligently pouring fuel. In short, all the actors of the Russian Putin regime are involved. In Yekaterinburg, the head of the Azerbaijan Ural organization, Shahin Shalinsky, was detained. He was detained along with his son, who is a lawyer. The son was released, and he described in detail how the arrest took place: several police vans swooped in on them. Two completely peaceful people were arrested in this way. FSB officers broke the car windows and pointed guns at them. Shalinsky’s son writes that he was in the car with his father at the time. Naturally, no one resisted. Obviously, they were unarmed. By the way, even those who were killed and beaten before also did not resist with weapons. So, why they were killed is not entirely clear. Or rather, it is clear, but it’s irrational. They were thrown onto the asphalt, loaded into the police van, and taken away. After interrogation, Shahin Shalinsky was released and remains a witness. Meanwhile, in Voronezh, police came to an Azerbaijani-born businessman, Iosif Khalilov. He owns a restaurant and is reportedly also a co-owner of the Alekseevsky market. I believe that’s the real reason—under the pretext of this anti-Azerbaijani campaign, it’s also a convenient excuse to seize a market and a restaurant. In response, a court in Baku arrested the head of the Azerbaijani edition of Sputnik, Igor Kartavy, and editor-in-chief Evgeny Belousov for four months. So, there is this back-and-forth of blows. Both sides—primarily Russia, which is clearly the initiator—are actively fueling this conflict.

As for official channels, theoretically, Putin could resolve the issue by directly speaking with Aliyev. I think he still has a chance to smooth things over, but it would require serious political will. This can’t be fixed with platitudes—it would take real action from Putin. He clearly isn’t ready for that, at least not yet. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a protest to Baku, accusing it of dismantling bilateral relations. In turn, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry called on Russia to investigate the detentions and killings of Azerbaijanis on Azerbaijani territory. So, for now, the conflict continues to escalate and deepen. Last night at 10:00 PM, we had another episode of the Mediafrenia program, where I went into more detail and showed how this conflict is unfolding in the media space. Naturally, figures like Solovyov—and even Macron—are eagerly fueling the fire. For Solovyov, it’s practically a hobby. He’s an arsonist and a maniac, so to speak.

If we talk about the issue that probably concerns you and me the most—dear friends—it’s the war in Ukraine. Sadly, but inevitably, this conflict benefits Ukraine. First of all, because anything that harms Russia isn’t necessarily bad for Ukraine. And secondly, this conflict undoubtedly pushes Azerbaijan further toward closer ties with Ukraine, which is happening right before our eyes. So, to all Russian security officials, propagandists, and pseudo-diplomats: go ahead and keep fueling the fire. And Vladimir Vladimirovich, please don’t get distracted. Focus on the past—the Pechenegs are waiting for you. No need to call Aliyev. Let the Russian idiots keep digging this hole deeper. Of course, it’s a shame about the people. But what can we do? Those dying in Ukraine are even more to be mourned.

Phone Conversation Between Macron and Putin Link to heading

Now, onto something else of significance, perhaps. Well, I’m not sure if it’s the most significant, but the phone conversation between Macron and Putin. This was the first phone call in three years. Naturally, they had spoken before, but this was their first conversation in that time. Of course, I don’t have the transcript of the call, but based on what I read on the Kremlin.ru website and what the French side reports, here’s what happened. Putin gave Macron a political briefing, explained to him the current policy—the party line, essentially—and once again stated that the West is to blame for everything, that for years the West ignored… well, the same old narrative: Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Khmelnytskyi again, the West disregarded Russia’s security interests, and Ukraine was turned into an anti-Russian staging ground. And so on. Along with complaints about the mistreatment of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.

By the way, regarding Russia’s position on the Azerbaijani-Russian conflict: the official Russian stance is, “What business is it of yours what we do with our citizens? Those Azerbaijanis who were killed, beaten, tortured, arrested—that’s none of your concern, they’re our citizens, regardless of nationality. If we want, we kill them; if we want, we jail them.” That’s the position. Yet, at the same time, Putin tells Macron that the war is also about violations of the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainian citizens. Well, if they are Ukrainian citizens, then by that logic, it’s not your business what Ukraine does with them. But, of course, “this is different.”

Again, Putin accused the West of prolonging the war by supplying arms to Kyiv. In the end, Macron naturally called for a ceasefire, while Putin explained that the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis must be addressed. Translated into plain language, this means eliminating Ukraine as an independent state. Because the “cause” is the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign country.

And the funniest part, of course, is how the article on Kremlin.ru ends—by saying the conversation between Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron was “substantive.” So, in short, what do I think about this? First, in terms of content, it was a completely meaningless conversation. I’m not sure about the level of harm—it’s worth discussing—but the question arises: why did Macron do this? I read a few political analysts’ comments, and they say Macron is just trying to stay afloat, looking for newsworthy reasons to remain relevant in global politics. Well, there are many ways to stay in global politics, and, in my view, this isn’t the kind of headline you should be chasing. I think it was a rather harmful move—first, because it creates illusions; second, because it gives Putin the image of someone you can negotiate with. Overall, I believe it was quite a damaging event. So, I consider the Macron-Putin phone call to be a negative development.

Trump Halts Missile Deliveries to Ukraine Link to heading

Another piece of bad news is that Trump has put an end to the dialogue with a Ukrainian journalist. You might remember during a press encounter at the NATO summit, a journalist from the Ukrainian branch of the BBC asked Trump about Patriot missile deliveries. Trump questioned her at length—where she lived, who her husband was, whether he was fighting—and then said, “We’ll see.” Well, now it’s final. The decision wasn’t officially made by Trump himself, but by Elbridge Colby, head of the Pentagon’s Office of Policy. Still, it’s clear that Colby doesn’t make such decisions independently—this is essentially Trump’s decision. Trump has halted the delivery of Patriot missiles to Ukraine, as well as other artillery munitions intended to defend Ukrainian airspace.

Officially, the reason given is concern over the low stockpile of such weapons in the U.S. itself. But that immediately raises the question: from which direction is an attack on the United States expected? Who’s planning to attack the U.S.? Of course, protecting American skies is important for national security. But it’s really a matter of priorities. In reality, if Ukraine, deprived of support, ends up losing the war, Russia will grow stronger, and that would create a real threat to Europe—and eventually, who knows, even the U.S. Putin’s appetite tends to grow with the eating, after all.

So, the decision has been made. The halted deliveries include weapons that had already been guaranteed to Ukraine—supplies that had been pledged and were supposed to be delivered under a plan originally launched by the Biden administration. Right now, Ukraine’s biggest vulnerability in this war is its shortage of anti-aircraft missiles to counter Russian attacks. We’re seeing an increase in the number of drones and missiles targeting Ukrainian cities. This development is deeply troubling.

There have been several comments from the U.S. administration. Deputy White House Press Secretary Anna Kelly explained that this suspension of deliveries was made in America’s interest, following an internal review of military aid to foreign countries. The U.S. Congress has already responded, stating that American air defense systems, including Patriot, are the backbone of Ukraine’s defense and save lives daily.

Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur said that if it’s true Colby is making such decisions—well, which Colby? It’s Trump making decisions that will inevitably lead to the deaths of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The aid that’s now being cut off had been flowing into Ukraine for over two years through multiple channels: from Pentagon reserves and under procurement programs from U.S. defense contractors. By the end of Biden’s presidency, all funds allocated under USAID had been distributed. Deliveries were ongoing as new systems became available.

So, what we’re really talking about is halting the supply of newly produced U.S. defense systems to Ukraine. It’s a very bad development, to say the least.

Q&A Link to heading

Before we move on to answering your questions, I want to mention that tonight at 8:00 PM we’ll be having a conversation with Abbas Gallyamov. I think it’ll be an interesting discussion, because Abbas Gallyamov, as a political strategist and former speechwriter, can explain a lot from behind the scenes—things he knows well and that, for example, I don’t. So, 8:00 PM with Abbas Gallyamov. And now we’ll continue our discussion of current events right here and now, as we answer your questions.

On Katz’s Statement Link to heading

So, a question from the Telegram channel chat. He asks whether Katz is right here—keeping it brief, as requested—Is Katz right? I believe no, he is not right. And a photo of Katz’s statement is immediately provided, in which he protests Canada’s sanctions against Chubais, Yeltsin’s daughter Tatyana Dyachenko, and former son-in-law Valentin Yumashev. Katz’s argument is that none of these individuals had anything to do with what Russia became many years after Yeltsin’s death.

I agree with you, dear colleague N., because I believe Katz is wrong. These people were at the origins of Putinism. They were the ones who orchestrated numerous manipulations to bring Putin to power through the so-called “Operation Successor.” They stood at the cradle of Putinism—you could say they rocked the cradle of little Sugar. So yes, they may not be bombing, killing, stabbing, or looting directly. But they brought Putin to power—they participated in that.

Moreover, Chubais was part of the Putin regime and supported it. So, I think the sanctions are fully justified. Even now, this is a person who supported the regime, who spoke of the Russian army’s “rebirth” in Chechnya, who called for the creation of a liberal empire—and who, to this day, is apparently involved in some legal projects for Russia, continuing the same political line.

Honestly, I don’t think these sanctions pose any direct threat to Chubais personally, since, as far as I know, he’s in Israel—and sanctions don’t really have any effect there. As the saying goes, “There’s no extradition from the Don.” So no. But the moral damage is absolutely there. That’s why I believe Katz is wrong.

“Nazis were called Hitlerites, not Germans. If so, why ‘Russians’ and not ‘Putinists’?” Link to heading

Andreas. Speaking about World War II, the aggressor was more often referred to as fascists or Hitlerites than as Germans. Now people say “Russians” or “the Russians are advancing,” etc., not “Putin’s forces,” “the FSB,” or “fascists”—though the latter is sometimes used too. Why is that? Will history judge this in hindsight, or is it just ideological framing?

Dear Andris, you know, I don’t have a content analysis of how enemies were referred to in Russia, the Soviet Union, the UK, or the United States. I do know for certain that they said “Germans,” and that it was a pejorative. Again, I must admit to a bit of professional deformation—I’m a sociologist, so I like to base things on data. And yes, “Germans” was definitely used. Now, what was the ratio of the use of “Germans” to “Hitlerites” or “fascists”? Well, again, phrases like “German-fascist aggressors” or “German-fascist invaders” were common. That seems, to me, to be the most frequent formulation. But really, we’d need a content analysis. And also—of what exactly? Of Soviet Information Bureau reports, for example? I don’t know. For now, I’m not convinced your premise is correct, even at that basic level.

As for the current situation: yes, the aggressor is often labeled “Russians,” “the Russians,” etc. I’m not sure why exactly. Time will tell. Officially, the Russian regime has been designated as “rashist”—that’s a decision of the Verkhovna Rada. I personally think “Putinism” is a more accurate label. But “fascism” is a broader concept, and if you go that route, you’d have to include other regimes that existed on Russian territory. That’s a separate debate.

For now, it is what it is. Perhaps it’s just linguistic logic. I mean, what would we say—“Putinists are advancing”? That doesn’t quite work, because “Putinists” refers to people who support Putin, and they’re not always on the front lines. So I think the form “Russians” or “the Russian side is advancing” emerges naturally from language conventions.

Pivovarov on Azerbaijan Link to heading

So? Viktor Khripun Can you comment on Pivovarov’s statement about the Azerbaijan–Russia conflict? Pivovarov is definitely in the opposition.

Dear Viktor, I haven’t seen Pivovarov’s statement on this matter. I assume you’re not referring to Yuri Sergeyevich Pivovarov, but rather the politician Pivovarov who was recently released from a Russian prison. I haven’t seen it yet—haven’t looked into it. If possible, I’ll check and respond tomorrow. Alright.

Abulfaz Elchibey Link to heading

Question from an anonymous user Igor, what is your opinion of him? And what do you think—if he were in power today, what would he do about Putin’s repressions against innocent Azerbaijanis, citizens of the Russian Federation?

Well, I risk upsetting a large number of Azerbaijanis here—both his supporters and his opponents—but the question was asked, so I’ll answer. You know, I’ve said many times that I don’t know a single leader of a national liberation movement who wasn’t a nationalist. That’s just how the world works. And Elchibey was undoubtedly a major figure in Azerbaijan’s national liberation movement. Many call him the only dissident in Azerbaijan. That’s not true, of course, but he was certainly an unbending dissident.

Let me first address his critics—I’ll get to the supporters in a moment. I know that there was widespread, or rather narrowly widespread, speculation that he had been recruited by the KGB. That was used to “explain” (in scare quotes) his relatively quick release from prison, the fact that he didn’t end up working as a janitor but got a job in a research institute, etc. I want to say right away: I don’t support that kind of talk, because to make such claims, you need evidence—and there is none. Circumstantial arguments like “Why wasn’t he killed? Why wasn’t he executed? Why was he released early?”—that’s all just noise. People used to say the same about Nemtsov: “Why haven’t they killed him?” Then, when they did kill him, the critics fell silent. Same with Navalny. So I leave all that aside. For me, he was an unbending dissident.

Now, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a nationalist. His nationalism was a specific kind—panturkism, a passionate Turkic nationalism mixed with ideological Westernism. But in practice, he showed a total inability to function by Western democratic standards. A contradictory figure. I remember his presidential campaign well—it was run under the slogans “Turks, Islamism, Modernization.” That strikes me as a bit internally contradictory—the first two points don’t quite align with the third. But so be it. He was, without a doubt, a romantic. He called himself a soldier of Atatürk, claimed he was a “son of Anatolia”—referring to the region in Turkey—and was a supporter of uniting independent Azerbaijan with the southern (Iranian) part of Azerbaijan.

The outcome of his rule was preordained. From the start, it was clear how it would end. He had no experience in state governance. His personnel policies were beyond all reason. The result is clear: about 98% of the country’s citizens voted for his resignation in a referendum.

So, to sum up my evaluation: a resolute dissident who was completely unsuited to running a large, complex country like Azerbaijan.

What Were the Detained Azerbaijanis Doing in Russia? Link to heading

So? Serge Nemtsov Question: What exactly were all the Azerbaijanis detained in Russia doing? Need a hint—customs schemes, favorite hobbies?

Dear Serge, I want to tell you that I’m absolutely not interested in what the Azerbaijanis in Russia were doing. What I can say for sure is that the date of their detention makes everything else irrelevant. You see, when someone is arrested in 2025 over events that allegedly happened in 2001—and before now, no one touched them—it clearly means that everything was “fine” until suddenly it wasn’t. Only now, after tensions flared with Azerbaijan following the incident with the plane, are they being detained.

All these conversations—“well, the Azerbaijanis, you know…”—they echo the usual ethnic profiling: don’t we have enough of that with Chechen, Dagestani, or Chinese gangs? Why the sudden “epiphany” about the Azerbaijanis now? Exactly. As the saying goes, the right thing at the right time. A spoon is valuable when it’s needed.

Once again: the timing of the arrest makes any discussion of what they were allegedly doing completely irrelevant to me. This is political persecution based on ethnicity. Whether or not there are actual grounds for charges is beside the point—when there aren’t, they’re invented.

Who Was Taken Hostage in Azerbaijan? Link to heading

So, Alexey—also known as Lieutenant Rzhevsky. In the conflict with Azerbaijan, whose children were taken hostage?

Dear Alexey, I didn’t quite understand the question. Honestly, I’m not sure what you mean. If possible, please clarify. I’ll try to respond if I can. Because I really don’t understand—whose children? I haven’t heard of anyone’s children being taken hostage. So please clarify, and if I can, we’ll discuss it.

On State Media in Azerbaijan Link to heading

Andronik writes Mr. Yakovenko, you should know for sure that there are no non-state media outlets in Azerbaijan.

Well, Mr. Andronik, I can tell you that, since I’ve worked with media for quite a long time—not only Russian—I know two things for certain. First: yes, of course, the Aliyev regime is a dictatorship that undeniably suppresses independent media. That much is clear. And second: contrary to your statement, there are non-state media outlets in Azerbaijan.

You see, I don’t equate “non-state” with “independent.” You said “non-state.” Had you said there are no independent media outlets in Azerbaijan, I might have agreed with you. But to say there are no non-state media is simply incorrect. That’s false. Azerbaijan has several thousand registered media entities, and the majority of them are non-state. I know this for a fact, because I’ve worked on several media studies—not specifically on Azerbaijan, but on global media.

Off the top of my head, I can name Space TV, for example—its founder is Vagif Mustafayev. Khazar TV is also a private outlet. There’s also InterAz. The founders of all these outlets are non-governmental—either individuals or private entities like LLCs or JSCs. So you’re mistaken: there are non-state media in Azerbaijan.

Of course, that doesn’t mean the media policy isn’t fully controlled by the administration—by Aliyev, to be exact. If you had said that there are no media outlets in Azerbaijan that are not under Aliyev’s control, that would be a more debatable but more accurate claim. Although even then, the degree of control varies. There are music and entertainment outlets that don’t cross the line into anti-presidential or anti-government speech, but even so, the level of control differs. That’s how it is.

Trump Threatens 500% Tariffs but Doesn’t Support Sanctions Package Link to heading

Rusal responds Please explain how this works? Trump threatens 500%, but doesn’t support the 18th sanctions package—despite the $45 price cap being more effective than those theoretical 500%. I understand that Trump’s logic lives on a different planet. Please clarify.

You see, dear colleague, threatening 500% tariffs and actually implementing them are two very different things. For now, that law hasn’t been passed. What we’re talking about is a proposed law on 500% tariffs for those who trade with Russia. But it hasn’t been signed or passed yet, and as far as I know, it will be revisited after July 7. That means we’ll still have to see what the law actually looks like if and when it gets signed.

There’s a hypothesis that it’s already been carefully gutted. So yes, I agree with your point—Trump’s logic exists on a different planet. But for now, what we’re seeing in practice is that Trump is working very diligently in Putin’s favor. So in that sense, it’s all quite logical.

I didn’t include in today’s overview the outcomes and consequences of eliminating USAID programs—that’s a massive topic. Maybe we’ll discuss it soon, because something truly terrible is happening there. But yes, I agree with your point. As for what exactly to clarify—well, I’m not even sure. Trump is just… Trump. A kind of disaster for planet Earth.

On Aurobindo Ghose Link to heading

Question from Oleg Igor Savva, as a political analyst and expert in 20th-century history, you’ve surely heard of Aurobindo Ghosh, one of the leaders of the Indian revolutionary movement. Have you ever wondered what could lead such a radical political figure and practitioner to completely change course and devote his life to exploring what he called the “evolution of consciousness”? I came across Sri Aurobindo’s book or The Adventure of Consciousness (1962), which essentially documents this rather extraordinary shift. Isn’t it curious what inner logic might underlie such a turn?

Dear Oleg, I haven’t read the book you mentioned. But as for the figure himself—Sri Aurobindo—of course I’m familiar with him. I have a general understanding of who he was and his teachings. That said, I have to admit something I’ve shared many times before (not with you personally, Oleg, but with the audience as a whole): teaching philosophy requires me to engage with a wide range of thinkers, including some I wouldn’t otherwise choose to study. And yes, when you cover Indian philosophy in a curriculum, naturally you become familiar with Aurobindo.

But let me put it this way: these ideas are not close to me. There are several areas in the history of philosophy—particularly modern ones—that I’m only superficially familiar with, and frankly, not that interested in. Russian religious philosophy is one, simply because it’s part of the teaching syllabus. So I know something about it. The same goes for Indian philosophy, which is also largely religious in nature. That’s just not my thing.

As for Aurobindo’s ideas—integral yoga, the notion of a “supramental consciousness”—I’m familiar with the basics. But it all falls into the realm of “cosmic mind” for me. Though he didn’t use that term—he called it “supramental”—it’s conceptually adjacent. As you already know from our past discussions, this isn’t my area of interest. And frankly, I think someone else would be better suited for a deep discussion here.

Now, your actual question is genuinely interesting: what might have caused such a shift in him? It’s essentially the reverse of what we discussed earlier regarding Elchibey—a serious historian drawn out of academia by revolutionary fervor and thrown into politics. Here with Sri Aurobindo, we see the opposite: a deeply involved political actor who left politics to pursue religious philosophy.

What caused that? One hypothesis is that this turn happened while he was in prison. At least from what I know, that’s when he turned toward integral yoga and began contemplating these things. He had the time and chose to dive deeply into this philosophical, or rather religious-philosophical, direction.

Perhaps it also had to do with a broader sense of disillusionment. He came into politics out of necessity—India was under colonial rule, and there was no real hope for independence at the time (early 20th century). So maybe, seeing no immediate path forward, he turned inward instead. A turn from action to reflection. From practice to theory, or the reverse of what we often see.

So those, I believe, are the motives behind his shift.

Reasons for the Deportation of the Peoples of the Caucasus and the Crimean Tatars by Stalin Link to heading

Tatyana Shcherbakova What was the reason? The deportation of the peoples of the Caucasus, a generous gift, gifts to Hitler, loyalty to fascism — name them.

Here you go. There were no real reasons. Dear Tatyana! If you want me to list the lies told by Stalin and his lackeys, so to speak — the slander that Stalin and his lackeys spread about the peoples of the Caucasus — then I won’t do that. It was all lies. Claims about collaboration with the Nazis and so on. That’s nonsense. Nonsense for geographical reasons. Because the Chechens, the Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, it wasn’t occupied. So neither the Chechens nor the Ingush could even theoretically collaborate with the Nazis, because they didn’t encounter them — at least not on the front lines. Maybe they did, but we know that there were quite a few Heroes of the Soviet Union among the Chechens and the Ingush. But collaboration — you understand — how could they collaborate? For that, you have to be in occupied territory. And the Chechens and Ingush lived in areas that weren’t under Hitler’s control. So it’s all lies. What’s the reason then? Stalin’s maniacal paranoia. His great-power chauvinism. His xenophobia. That whole package, in other words.

Continuing the Topic Link to heading

Alright. A question from Vera Kovalchuk Igor Aleksandrovich, it’s some kind of madness to deport entire peoples from their native lands. Why? What was going on in the heads of those Soviet officials? It always horrifies me — horror, horror. After all, Homo sapiens is the most disgusting creature on Earth. Capable of incredible atrocities. Yes, of course, there are decent people, but how hard it is for them to overcome evil! And now there are so many of them.

Well, I read your message and understood that, dear Vera, this is not really a question, and I’m ready to agree with you. In this case, I think the question doesn’t require an answer.

And this one: Igor Aleksandrovich, my father remembered how, in his youth, he was sent to work on the virgin lands. He said that back then it was especially dangerous to run into Chechens — traveling alone through the steppe was considered risky. Later, my brother, who served in the army, also told me they seemed to be the harshest, the most aggressive. I’ve long wanted to understand why that is. Was it a reaction to the deportations, or are there some other historical and cultural reasons?

I think it was a reaction to the deportation. You see, when a people are torn from their homes, stripped of all means of subsistence, taken to a barren steppe, dumped there, and forced into a brutal struggle for survival — an entire people was pushed to the brink of existence, and it wasn’t the first time in their history. The Chechen people’s struggle for survival, for independence under the oppression of the Russian Empire, lasted for centuries. So naturally, the surviving people became extremely tough and aggressive. That is a normal, understandable reaction. You see, there are peoples who were destroyed as a result of such policies by the Russian Empire. The Chechen and Ingush peoples survived. And naturally, they developed the traits you describe.

About Mayakovsky’s Poem Link to heading

Arlekin. Studio writes: Igor Aleksandrovich, that’s right. From Vladimir Mayakovsky: “If I were a Negro…” And it’s “of advanced years,” not “years” [“лет” vs. “годов”], Arlekin Studio corrects me.

Dear colleague, I think you’re mistaken in this case. It’s a rare occurrence — usually I appreciate your corrections, because I often misspeak, sometimes wishing someone a good evening in the morning, and so on. Thankfully, I haven’t said “Happy steaming!” yet — which means I can still keep hosting the broadcast. But this time, I believe I’m right. So, this poem by Mayakovsky, dedicated to our youth, goes like this: “If I were a Negro of advanced years.” So it’s not “лет” but “годов.” Yes — “If I were a Negro of advanced years, even then, without despair or laziness, I’d learn Russian just because Lenin spoke it.” Well, that’s on Mayakovsky’s conscience. But still — it’s “годов,” not “лет.”

Is Global Security Possible Without Weapons? Link to heading

Alright, Yulia: Not very relevant. But how do you see the future of the global security system? Modern wars aren’t fought for territory, but to humiliate and punish enemies. Soon, nuclear weapons will become obsolete, but the human heart doesn’t change, and the desire to fight doesn’t go away. In a hundred years, a new ayatollah may be threatening Earth from Mars with laser beams. Do you think global security is possible without weapons at all? Have you noticed that we humans somehow get along when close together, but hate each other from afar? By the way, animals do that too — predators and prey are found in proximity. Somehow, something changes at close range. Is a new idea of human closeness even possible? A completely new idea? Or is it impossible without weapons after all?

Dear Yulia, I very much support the idea, but I don’t see — sorry — I don’t see how it could be implemented. I think it’s just not possible without weapons. The idea itself is good, but I don’t see a mechanism for making it work. Not at all. So — it seems there’s no way without weapons.

About the Protests in the Altai Republic Link to heading

A question from Crying Sky, please tell us. Well, that’s the name. That’s what the person calls themselves in English. So, the question is: please tell us about the protests in the Altai Republic. What’s happening there? What are people protesting against?

Well, you know, I think the root of the protest is actually the appointment — the appointment of Turchak as head of the republic. He was exiled there, as far as I understand. But he quickly made his presence known. The protest itself is against the abolition of rural councils and against amendments to the republican Constitution. And also personally against Turchak. So — I think it’s basically a protest against Moscow’s diktat. If I understand correctly, amendments have been made to the Constitution that, in the long term, could lead to the Altai Republic losing its republican status. And eventually, it might be merged into the Altai Krai. That kind of future, of course, doesn’t suit anyone, hence the protest. And the resignation of this outsider, Turchak, is also a driving force. Even though Altai is a small republic, and a national one, and even though there aren’t many people from the titular nationality, they are there. And they’re willing to fight for their rights. So — the main reason is Moscow’s diktat and the appointment of outsiders like Turchak.

About Michael Naki and the Shelling Link to heading

Oleg: Aleksandrovich, I think you know Michael Naki. When the shelling started, he addressed Russians saying: stay away from military targets. I live in Ukraine, near such a site. Where am I supposed to go?

As for knowing Michael — personally, I’m not acquainted with him. Though, as far as I understand, he also lives in Lithuania. We once ran into each other in a store, just nodded to one another, but we’ve never really talked. You know, this falls into the category of those well-meaning but useless pieces of advice. It’s like Babchenko, who loves to tell Russians: “Run, fools, run!” But what if someone has no legs? Where are they supposed to run? What if someone’s mother is ill? Or there are other problems keeping them in place? It’s the same as the wise owl telling the mouse: “Become a hedgehog.” The mouse asks, “But how?” — and the owl replies, “I’ve given you the strategy; you figure out the tactics.” That’s the kind of advice we’re talking about here. I’m not trying to criticize Michael, but I think these are that kind of suggestions. Of course, it’s clear that it’s not ideal to be near military targets. But if that’s where your home is — where are you supposed to go?

On Demands to Change Language Norms from a Neighboring State Link to heading

A question from MTS: Don’t you think it’s nonsense to demand that a neighboring state change its language norms?

Dear colleague, let’s try to break this down and clarify — that’s important. First of all, no one is demanding anything from a state — meaning Russia. I haven’t heard that the President of Ukraine, Zelensky, has appealed to Putin with a demand to stop using the preposition “na” and start saying “v.” I assume that’s what this is about. I haven’t heard any official statements on this issue addressed to the Russian government.

The conversation is about interpersonal communication — since Ukrainians and Russians, and Russian citizens, communicate in Russian, and virtually all Ukrainians are bilingual. That’s why they speak Russian too. And they simply say: “Why the hell are you speaking to us as if we’re your colony?” So it’s directed at people, not at the state. They don’t care about the state. They’re speaking to individuals they interact with in Russian.

And I just want to emphasize the key point here. Before the war — before the occupation of Crimea, before the war in Donbas, before the full-scale war — basically, no one paid much attention. Well, maybe there were a few isolated comments, but they were entirely optional. I can’t say this was an issue before 2014. As much as I talked to people — come on, let’s be honest — nearly everyone said “na Ukraine” before 2014. Simply because it wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t.

After 2014, it became an issue — just like the St. George’s ribbon. Before 2014, it was something fairly innocuous. After 2014, everything changed — it became a symbol of aggression. That’s all. The swastika — sorry for the distant analogy — but it’s obvious. Before Hitler, the swastika was a completely harmless symbol — in India and elsewhere. It was understood: a symbol of eternity, infinity, and so on. A symbol of eternal motion — that broken wheel. But once it appeared on the flag of the Third Reich — it became indecent. So it’s the same here.

And again — no one is appealing to the state about this. It’s addressed to people. To individuals.

About “The Not-So-Holy Opposition” Link to heading

VINTER Anna, please tell me, will there be new episodes of The Not-So-Holy Opposition?

Yes, I hope there will be. Well, I’ve already mentioned that I have a lot of outstanding obligations regarding a number of Mediaphrenia programs. I’m trying to get systematic. I understand how wrong what we’re doing is. Because really, we need to try to switch to a proper media mode, where commitments are met, where there is a schedule, what’s called a broadcasting grid. We’re trying to do that. But there are some internal, well, certain difficulties, which I hope are temporary. So yes, there will be. I hope there will be. There are many plans, we have plans, and we will carry them out.

About the Discussion with Skobov Link to heading

Sergey. Aleksandrovich, where will it be possible to read your discussion with Aleksandr Vasilievich Skobov? It’s extremely interesting.

You know, first of all, this discussion is still somewhat one-sided. The thing is, on our Telegram channel, our Yakovenko Mediaphrenia, several articles have been published—Skobov from prison—and just to clarify, “Igor the elder,” that’s me. Right now, one of these articles has been published on Kasparov.ru. This is the polemic from his side. From Igor Valeryevich’s side, this is a discussion about… Igor Valeryevich believes that the ideology of Putinism exists, and he’s arguing that. I think I’ll publish a rebuttal soon. I understand that we are in different circumstances. He’s in prison under torturous conditions; I’m free. The conditions are different. But the thing is, I have a good sense of who Igor Valeryevich Skobov is. And I think he is the embodiment of that dictatorial principle: “I think, therefore I am.” For him, thought is the foundation that helps him endure. And so I will continue to engage in discussion with him. And I see this, perhaps, as the only form of my support. That is, I believe that this is how I support him. In my conversations with his wife—we occasionally write and have spoken a couple of times—I believe she supports this as well. It’s through her that these articles are passed along. And I hope that the article I intend to write in opposition to Aleksandr Valeryevich will also be passed along, that he’ll read it and respond. We think, therefore we are. That’s exactly about Skobov.

About Inviting Oleg Itskhoki Link to heading

Marat, Marat has two questions. You invite competent economists like Aleksashenko, Lipsits, Inozemtsev as guests. But there’s always a desire for more variety on the show. I listen to Oleg with great interest, considering how engaging he is—sorry. He speaks fascinatingly about modern economic theories and their application in the current economy. To use a cliché, he’s on the cutting edge of science. Some economists, in particular Auzan, are mentioned as potential future candidates for the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Do you consider it possible to invite him?

Good idea. Good idea. I think yes. Right. Yes. We need to broaden the range of experts. We will do that.

About Eduard Vorobyev Link to heading

And the second. The second question is also from Marat: I remembered another general who refused to carry out an order. Colonel General Eduard Vorobyev in December ‘94 refused to follow the order of Defense Minister Grachev to take command of the military operation in Chechnya due to its complete lack of preparation. He submitted his resignation. Perhaps the real reason was something else. Were you acquainted with him?

Dear Marat, I—well, first of all, I don’t think there was another reason. Colonel General Vorobyev is quite well known for his principles. And that was precisely the reason. He was initially opposed to that war from the very beginning and remained a consistent opponent. That’s what led to his resignation. As for personal acquaintance, it was very casual. We didn’t overlap in the State Duma. I was a deputy of the first convocation, he of the second. So we didn’t meet within the walls of the Duma. Well, at various events… He was, as far as I know, a member of the leadership of the Union of Right Forces, and we ran into each other a few times at various democratic gatherings. But it was a casual acquaintance—there was no personal interaction.

About the Book Translation and Serhiy Hrabskiy Link to heading

So, Anatoliy: I’m a publisher, living in Zhytomyr, and I’d like to ask you for contact information for Serhiy Hrabskiy. I’m planning to translate a military-themed book into Ukrainian. I really need his advice.

Dear Anatoliy! I have a request for you. Well, obviously, as for Hrabskiy’s contact info—I mean, that’s not how it’s done, right? It’s not customary to share someone’s contact information publicly without their permission. So let’s do this instead. Please message me privately on Telegram. That option is always available. Go to the Telegram channel, enter the chat, and just send me a private message. I will definitely respond. I always do. And the next time I speak with Serhiy, I’ll ask him for permission. That’s how it’s done, and we’ll handle it that way.

Can National Sentiment Disappear? Link to heading

So. In the comments, there’s a remark from Max about humanism, modernism, and national sentiment. It seems to me the picture is like this: the more archaism, the less humanism. National sentiment is clearly an archaism. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just a stage of development. If there were a map of humanism on Earth, the most of it would be found in EU countries, in education systems that have stepped on their own national sentiments and united into a new kind of modernist community. So my prediction is: if people don’t bomb themselves with nuclear weapons or build dystopias, then modernism will prevail, and following it—humanism. It’s hard for modern people to understand how neighbors could slaughter each other in religious wars simply because some sang psalms in French and others in Latin. So if that could disappear, national sentiment could disappear too—it’ll be incomprehensible why anyone would kill just because some are Tutsi and others Hutu.

You express yourself beautifully, Maksim. And I agree. Overall, I agree—except for one point: that national sentiment will disappear. It doesn’t. You see, there are counter-processes that keep it going. This national sentiment doesn’t go away. I don’t think it will disappear entirely. Right. But overall, I agree. I’ve already objected to someone who said that national sentiment is proportional to humanism. I don’t think so. So I agree more with your point of view, except for that last thesis—that national sentiments will vanish. That’s not something we see yet. ASBEST Yes, I think that was our colleague who spoke about the proportionality of national sentiment and humanism.

About National Sentiment Among Tajiks and the National Virtues of Russians Link to heading

So, colleague Asbest writes: Looks like we need to be careful with wording here. Otherwise, it sounds like nationalism somehow leads to humanism.

Well, excuse me, I—you know, I’m like that akyn, I sing what I see. What you wrote, I read. Then another colleague writes nonsense—trying to clarify. Let’s replace “national sentiment” with “traditional upbringing.” All right, let’s do that. Of course, in a specific national culture. And let’s replace “humanism” with “personality.” Especially since humanism has been criticized a lot lately—and justifiably so. But I also really want to add empathy to this—memory and the ability to think. Where do these bold theories come from? And what happened to the famous Russian hospitality? Selflessness, soulfulness, readiness to help, and so on. Now it’s fashionable to say none of that ever existed. But I remember—there used to be more of it. And even the grass was stronger.

By the way, there was a girl from Odesa who asked the same question. So, watching the people around me, I see more signs of some kind of sweet participation from people—expressive emotionality—than from typical modern Russians, those of nontraditional or “experimental” nationality. Of course, it’s easy to go off the rails with these national topics. They abolished the nationality line in passports. You can’t even ask anymore. But, for example, last year in St. Petersburg a trolleybus was sinking, and several Tajiks jumped into the icy water to save passengers. But Russians didn’t. Were they stupid or something? The whole country is sinking, and no one seems to care. Or you could illustrate it from another angle, like they used to teach: first learn to love your small homeland, lowercase, then your big homeland, and then world peace. Well, let’s suppose it’s all so—but what to do, I don’t know. There are a lot of wrong, easy answers. You could stage an Arab Spring and hide behind traditional values or ignore the problem altogether. But both options are, as we say, inelegant. And short-lived. Didn’t manage to keep it short—sorry. Well, you know, it doesn’t always work out. I agree.

Dear colleague, first of all, I want to say I’m not convinced that those heroic Tajiks—truly heroic, I say that without irony—who jumped into the icy water had stronger national sentiment than those who stood by. That’s the first point. You’d need to prove that—it’s not obvious. Second: your description of the traditional Russian virtues—empathy, and so on. Well, let’s do this: I won’t retell Gorky’s famous article on Russian cruelty. You’ve surely read it. But it’s very helpful to reread when people start reminiscing about Russian empathy, Russian hospitality, and all that. Just read “Gorky on Russian Cruelty”—it really clears your head. And there was national sentiment in that—plenty of it. So I’m Russian, I’m an Orthodox Christian, I’m Russian. And that’s why—well, it just doesn’t work. Your concept doesn’t hold up. You can’t just substitute national sentiment with traditional values. You can’t swap humanism for empathy. It just doesn’t work. I get that this idea is dear to you—but it’s wrong.

So. One more comment from Max: I’ll offer a guess as to why Crimean Tatars were treated differently. If Chechnya didn’t have a strategic position, Crimea did. So their property was taken, they were brought to their knees, then something was given back. Just remember: “This is mine, but you can use it.” Some things weren’t returned. “Nice thing. I’ll wear it myself.” That’s why Crimea was annexed into the USSR as a regular region in Ukraine. It wasn’t handed over to a new owner—it was assigned a manager, like under a landlord. But always considered part of ‘us.’ So why would they want Tatars there?

Yeah, probably.

About the Return of Chechens and Ingush from Deportation Link to heading

A question from the author who goes by, or whose YouTube is called, Type 250. A small—or maybe large—remark: Dear Igor Aleksandrovich! After returning from deportation, neither homes nor property were returned to the Chechens and Ingush. The people who had taken over their homes didn’t leave voluntarily. On the contrary, the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from July 16, 1956, explicitly prohibited returnees from even claiming their property. The vast majority of Chechens and Ingush lost everything they owned and were forced to buy back their own homes from strangers, often under pressure or threats.

Well, essentially, you’ve partly restated what I said about the return. There were several decrees. One decree explicitly prohibited return—there was rehabilitation, in a way, but also a ban on returning to the territory of the then-existing Grozny region. Then there was another one—this one. So you’re right here. Although sometimes those same, let’s say, “occupiers,” the settlers—the people who came to the Grozny region under population replacement policies after the expulsion of the Chechens and Ingush—some of them just left on their own once the Chechens and Ingush began returning. But yes, what you said is true.

About the Crimean Tatars Link to heading

A remark from Alexander: Igor Aleksandrovich, how can you say you don’t know why the Crimean Tatars, unlike other repressed peoples, weren’t allowed to return? Try looking at it from the perspective of an ordinary person. Who needs Chechnya or Ingushetia? No sea, no white or red stone from Mask—just endless mountains. Neighboring peoples aren’t very friendly. There probably weren’t many people eager to move there. And what is there to do? The oil industry? You get paid way more in Siberia. And from the authorities’ point of view—if there are any disturbances with those returning, no one’s going to find out anyway. It’s not like Crimea, which gets mentioned on the Vremya news program. Crimea is a different story. So many military personnel wanted to retire there—just to stay. In the Brezhnev era, Crimea’s population grew mainly thanks to retirees. You know this better than I do. And the cultural layer—from Pushkin to Chekhov. Sanatoriums, holiday homes, creative retreats. Ah, what a glorious land around the Koktebel Bay! And you’d send some Tatars there?

Well, yes, I agree, Alexander. You’re right.

Once Again About Ilya Novikov Link to heading

So. Pavlo writes: What exactly is untrue in Novikov’s words?

Dear Pavlo, with your question, you’re trying to drag me into discussing Ukraine’s internal politics. That’s not going to happen. I’ve already said I’m not satisfied with Novikov’s position—some specific statements, like “Poroshenko is a hero, and Zelensky is not.” Well, what’s that supposed to mean? I’m not against someone not considering Zelensky a hero—don’t want to, fine. But when in the same sentence you say “Poroshenko is a hero, Zelensky is not”—what is that? That statement amounts to saying Poroshenko is the main challenger to Zelensky in the upcoming possible elections. Well, excuse me—there’s polling data, there’s an understanding of what’s going on. That’s just plain untrue. There are lots of things that are really a stretch. But the main thing is something else: what does he want? He wants—what? He wants Zelensky to resign right now. And then what? To create an internal crisis, a serious crisis in Ukraine. It’s obvious—obvious. His statements completely align with Putin’s agenda. So in fact, it objectively plays into Putin’s hands, and it’s an obvious conflict of interest. If you’re Poroshenko’s lawyer, that doesn’t mean you have to act like a prosecutor against Zelensky. That’s a clear conflict of interest. The man is getting paid—paid by Poroshenko—and at the same time, he’s attacking his political opponent, Zelensky. Well, I feel like something’s not right there. Right. And to go into detail about Novikov’s specific accusations against Zelensky would mean getting involved in Ukraine’s internal politics. That’s not going to happen.

Continuation Link to heading

A question from Sfera Efira: Igor Aleksandrovich, Novikov, although he said he was for Ukraine, never clarified which Ukraine exactly. But from the very beginning, he expressed some very strange, controversial things. Like Latynina—she seemed like “one of us.” But unlike her, he never gained much popularity. He received his Ukrainian passport directly from Zelensky’s hands and immediately ran off to get a salary from Poroshenko. You can’t call them hidden “canned” types. They were always like that and never hid it.

Well, I don’t know what kind of “canned good” Novikov is supposed to be. I just go by the fact that the man served in the defense effort. And so, although I don’t agree with most of what Novikov says, calling him a “plant”… I don’t know—I’m not sure.

What Do You Agree with Novikov On? Link to heading

Boris writes: Igor, you surprised and disappointed me. It’s either the cross or the underwear—make up your mind. Please be specific, point by point. What exactly do you agree with Novikov on? How many things? Four question marks. You’ve gone from an impartial expert to a “good Russian” with a suspicious interest in words.

Ah, so this is another hint that Novikov is paying me now? Is that it? Listen—how many people are supposedly buying me off? And yet somehow the money never seems to arrive. For the record, I don’t wear a cross—so there’s that. As for what I agree with Novikov on, I said it already, point by point. I agree with Novikov that imposing sanctions on one’s own citizens is, in my view, strange. That’s where I agree with him. If the state has claims against its own citizens, there’s the court, the prosecutor’s office, investigative bodies, police, and so on. What do sanctions have to do with it? That seems wrong to me. On this, Novikov is right—I didn’t exactly hide that. That’s the only point on which I agree with Novikov.

Why Don’t People Want a Change of Power? Link to heading

So, Ivan Kats: And what makes you think the people of Ukraine don’t want a change of power? Maybe they do—but not enough. Or maybe they’re just rational enough to understand that elections are impossible right now. Don’t confuse these concepts.

Dear Ivan! What makes you think I’m confusing them? That’s like one of those accusations—like, “Why do you keep drinking cognac mixed with blood every morning?” Why are you doing that, huh? Well, I don’t know—maybe I like it, maybe I enjoy it. What can I say? It’s tasty—you haven’t tried it, that’s why you’re asking. So where are you getting these claims that you’re attributing to me? It’s interesting, really. From the very beginning I said there’s polling data. Look, I don’t have direct contact with the entire Ukrainian people. I rely on sociological research. Based on that, it’s clear we can say the Ukrainian people are currently against holding elections. Period. That’s it. Everything else is just misdirection.

Why Did You Become a Preacher? Link to heading

So. And here’s the final remark from someone. I used to have a pseudonym. And this person asks me: You’ve turned into a preacher. What happened to you

No punctuation, except for the question—what happened to me? I don’t even know. Maybe I ate something bad? Ate something wrong and transformed. You know, like drinking from a hoof and turning into a kid goat. Apparently, I ate something wrong and turned into a preacher. That’s the sad story.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

Dear friends, with that we conclude our morning stream for today. As I said, at 17:00 we’ll have Abbas—Abbas Gallyamov. There’s plenty to ask him, and it’ll be interesting to hear his answers. Take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Aleksandr Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian POWs! All the best! See you at 17:00.

Source: https://youtu.be/oCnbzKYRpfc