This publication is an accurate transcription of one of the episodes from the “7-40” series on Igor Yakovenko’s channel. All information is reproduced without changes, except for corrections of errors in the automatic transcription. I would be grateful for any indications of inaccuracies or discrepancies with the original.
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is December 3rd. It is currently 7:40 in Kyiv, and one hour later in Moscow. And we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, and in our souls.
News Link to heading
First, the good news from Beirut: the deputy head of the political bureau of HAMAS has been killed. This happened yesterday, on Tuesday, January 2nd. The man’s name is Saleh al-Arouri. He is the deputy head of the political bureau of the terrorist organization HAMAS and was essentially the second most important person in HAMAS’s political hierarchy. He was the mastermind behind a series of attacks on the West Bank of the Jordan River and generally responsible for the activities of HAMAS’s military wing in this region. He had long been a target for elimination by Israeli intelligence services. That this has happened is good news, because the HAMAS leadership, especially those outside the Gaza Strip, guarantees that even if militants are destroyed, HAMAS can recover. In fact, the threat of HAMAS persists. That is why the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) command says that this operation will be a long one, because it is not enough to destroy even the military group located in the tunnels under the Gaza Strip. It is also important to eliminate the political and military leadership of HAMAS that is outside. Well, this is an important story. It is significant that essentially the second most important person was eliminated. In essence, Godspeed to Israeli and Israeli defense forces, and Israeli intelligence. Good news. Although I am a person who consistently adheres to humanitarian values, the elimination of such harmful microbes as these terrorist organization leaders is undoubtedly an act of humanity. Such is the world.
Another piece of good news is that the President of Harvard University is stepping down. This is Claudine Gay, who took office in July last year. She is the first African American to become President of Harvard University. The reasons for her resignation are due to a combination of factors. First, she is accused of plagiarism, that is, failing to cite academic sources in her scholarly works. This is a classic case of claiming others’ ideas without quotation marks, effectively plagiarism. Moreover, a more serious accusation is her refusal to unequivocally answer a question posed during her testimony to the U.S. Congress, regarding whether the call for genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct. This raises the question: if asked about calls to reinstate slavery against African Americans or discrimination against them, would that also be considered freedom of speech? But this is a digression. Anyway, it’s good news, because the presence of such people at the helm of a respected institution like Harvard is concerning. The problem isn’t resolved, though, as the issue at Harvard is apparent. After she suggested that calling for the genocide of Jews isn’t necessarily condemnable, 70 congressmen called for her resignation, both Republicans and Democrats. Nevertheless, nearly all of Harvard’s faculty, over 700 members, supported her, which is truly alarming. She resigned, but the support she received from so many faculty members is indicative of a deeper issue, a breeding ground for antisemitism and unscrupulousness. This reflects a broader problem within the Ivy League universities in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Education has started investigating 14 universities, including Harvard, for discrimination against Jews. This isn’t an isolated problem but symptomatic of a larger issue in the American university community. Nonetheless, her resignation under significant pressure is a positive development and could mark the beginning of addressing this problem.
Now, about perhaps the most resonant event, a new bout of missile frenzy that occurred yesterday under Putin and his military lackeys. Putin’s occupiers launched 99 missiles of various types at Ukraine. Most of these were intercepted and destroyed, but some did hit their targets. The main strikes were on the capital, Kyiv, and also on Kharkiv. In short, the terrorism continues. This will undoubtedly be Putin’s main policy in 2024. Putin has no chance to change the front line, so all he can do is carry out acts of terror, which is evident. This should be seen as a long-term policy. Therefore, the response, which has been given, includes strikes on Belgorod. There is a separate discussion to be had on the effectiveness of this. However, in principle, Russia should feel that the war is also present on its territory.
So, what’s the reaction? First, a few words about the reaction, and then about the essence, about the main thing that’s happening. The U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Brink, noted that Putin’s strikes on Ukraine have strengthened the resolve of Ukrainians to defend their freedom. I’ll quote her: “In the last five days, Russia has launched…”, referring to since December 29, “more than 450 missiles and drones at Ukraine. Putin has killed and wounded civilians, temporarily deprived 1000 people of light and heat, attempted to break the will of a nation, but only strengthened the determination of Ukrainians to defend their freedom, and our support to Ukraine in its existential struggle, which matters for the security of Europe and beyond.” End quote. Now what? I’ll contrast this with the reaction of a person who, in my opinion, epitomizes the vileness of Russia, Margarita Simonyan. A quote from Twitter: “The Commander of the Air Forces of Ukraine Lyschuk complains ‘Today Russia effectively repeated the attack of December 29 in terms of both missile types and the number of air strike means’”. Simonyan’s comment: “Repetition is the mother of learning”. All sorts of remarks like ‘Burn in hell’ seem somewhat dreary to me. I think this needs to be spread as much as possible, as widely as possible. I get criticized for making these periodic releases of Mediafrenzy. I would do it every day if I had the strength. We need to show the face of these vampires as often and as much as possible, and maybe even translate it into English, to show those people who still think that it’s necessary to negotiate with Russia. Who are you going to negotiate with? How will you negotiate with a leech that thirsts for your blood? How will you negotiate with a virus? How will you negotiate with an amoeba that simply devours everything smaller than itself? So I think, “repetition is the mother of learning”.
Okay. Now, the main topic of today’s discussion is Zelensky’s interview with The Economist magazine. I believe this interview deserves attention. I will address the criticism it has sparked a bit later, but essentially, Zelensky’s fate is such that everything he says now provokes criticism. His every action, how he stands, sits, looks, speaks, the tone of his voice, everything else invites criticism. Because now, it’s a trendy time to criticize Zelensky. Those who believe that the Ukrainian people made a fatal mistake in 2018 are currently in vogue. And there are those who think that Zelensky’s main mistake was being born in the first place. Such people exist; we know them.
Now, I want to highlight what I consider important in this interview and explain why I think it’s important. First of all, it’s crucial that he tried to convey to the Western public that the war is far from over, and that by supporting Ukraine, Europe is protecting itself. Indeed, the video I managed to see (I didn’t watch the whole interview in video format, I mostly read the text) possibly didn’t capture everything. But the snippets I saw showed Zelensky being irritated and somewhat nervous. I had a conversation yesterday with Mikhail Sheitelman, who critically viewed the Ukrainian President’s nervous demeanor. Nevertheless, I think, considering the heavy burden on him, we should focus on the content, not the form. Zelensky’s irritation is undoubtedly due to the disarray among Western allies and some fellow citizens feeling detached from the war and the threat looming over Ukraine. I’ll quote what he said: “Maybe we didn’t succeed in 2023 as the world wanted. Maybe not everything happened as fast or as someone imagined, but the idea that Putin is winning is nothing more than a feeling.” He elaborated on how the Russian army is suffering huge losses and that if the situation continues as it is, Russia will lose more than half a million people, killed and wounded, by 2025. He highlighted that in 2023, Russia failed to capture any major city, while Ukraine managed to break the Russian blockade of the Black Sea, which is a significant achievement. One of the key points of his interview was: “By giving us money or weapons, you are supporting yourselves. You are saving your children, not ours.” His most quoted remark, which I will also quote: “Putin senses weakness like an animal, because he is an animal. He smells blood, he feels his strength. He will eat you for dinner along with all your EU, NATO, freedom, and democracy.” This, you see, is rhetoric, emotions, vivid journalistic phrases.
Now, to the main point that I believe is contained in Zelensky’s interview in The Economist and which I want to address separately: the role of Crimea. The fact is that Zelensky, like General Zaluzhny, is in a situation where he cannot speak about military plans, as it is essentially a military secret. Saying that the main strike will be on Crimea is quite reckless, as it would effectively inform the enemy where the main strike is to be made, allowing them to fully regroup. However, the evident role of Crimea as Putin’s “Koschei’s Needle” is very well articulated. I will quote Zelensky on Crimea: “A successful operation would be an example to the whole world. It would have a big impact inside Russia. Losing this central object of Kremlin propaganda would show that 1000 Russian officers died only because of Putin’s ambitions.” This is a very important statement, as it echoes what many, including myself, have been saying from the beginning. Many believe that Putin’s “Koschei’s death” lies in Crimea. This isn’t just about the territory from which strikes are made against Ukrainian cities, but about the potential for moral collapse. Indeed, Crimea is a sacred object, as Zelensky said, “the central object of Kremlin propaganda.” I would add that it’s a sacred value, a myth, one of the central myths of Russian propaganda and Putinism. Remember the land of the baptism of Rus, as claimed by Putin’s alternative history with Medinsky, supposedly originating in Crimea. Essentially, everything started with the occupation of Crimea, and there’s a good chance it could end with Crimea. Not certain, but likely. Zelensky highlighted not just the military, but also the political and mental significance of Crimea. I’m glad that the President of Ukraine understands these things, and I’m pleased that this understanding is, possibly, the basis of military planning. This is great.
Regarding the reaction, as I mentioned, the current situation is such that if Zelensky speaks, he faces criticism no matter what he says or how he says it. In the beginning of the war, after he refused the offer of evacuation, he was a hero, and everything he did was received with acclaim. Now the situation is different; every action of his is scrutinized and criticized. It seems crucial for him and for all of Ukraine to have tremendous patience. Again, I highly rate this interview despite its nervous tone; I think it’s a good sign. It’s a direct appeal to the West. There was also an appeal to the Ukrainian people, which was quite nervous and, in a way, confrontational, criticizing some for not understanding the existential nature of the current threat. I won’t comment much on that now. But his appeal to the West, I believe, has found its audience. Putin’s missile frenzy, which is destroying Ukrainian cities, along with the monstrous hypocrisy of Russian diplomats demanding the world to condemn Ukraine for strikes in the Belgorod region, while ignoring their own massive faults, is shifting the situation, in my opinion. The first reaction to this is from the Bundestag, where the head of the defense committee strongly criticized the slow delivery of weapons to Ukraine. Against the backdrop of massive missile attacks, she demanded Scholz immediately supply Ukraine with long-range Taurus cruise missiles. She explicitly requested the Taurus. “Scholz, where is the Taurus?” I’ll quote her speech: “The phrase ‘as much as needed’ will be just words if we don’t continue to support Ukraine together with our European partners to a much greater extent. Ukraine needs more ammunition, more spare parts. We need to mobilize the Taurus immediately to further complicate Russia’s ability to replenish its arsenal.” This is very accurate. What does it mean in plain language? It means the head of the German parliamentary committee is demanding strikes on Russian military factories. “Taurus is needed to complicate Russia’s ability to replenish supplies,” meaning she’s directly asking to give Ukraine the capability to strike at Uralvagonzavod and other military factories deep inside Russia. Long-range missiles are needed for this. This is a significant turn. If these sentiments, which clearly dominate the German parliament, also dominate the Western world in general, it would be a radical shift.
Continuing, she states, “The widely publicized European F-16 coalition must work much faster if we want to counter Russian air superiority. Putin is counting on us being afraid of our own courage, and he’s obviously right.” From the Green Party, her coalition colleague Sarah Nanni adds, “There needs to be clarity in planning when it comes to German support for Ukraine. It’s insufficient due to tense budget discussions. Ukraine urgently needs more ammunition for artillery and spare parts for heavy equipment we supply.” I’ll refrain from citing more quotes, though there are many important and interesting ones. The general sentiment is, “Scholz, where are the Tauruses?” This is a turning point. I think this is a very important story. I’ll also quote CDU member Norbert Röttgen, who, in light of Russia’s renewed wave of terror on Ukraine, stated, “We must finally provide weapons that allow Ukraine to destroy weapon depots and supply lines behind the front lines.” Taurus, Taurus, Taurus. I don’t think Scholz will resist, as it’s his ruling coalition. In my previous stream, I summarized the year saying that all agree the war will last for years, beyond 2024 and 2025. Now, summarizing 2023, it’s trendy to say the war will last for years. But we forget one simple thing in saying this: we live in a probabilistic world, and the future is not predetermined. It’s defined by people’s free will. Now, what German parliamentarians are saying matters. Parliament is a place for discussion, but their words turn into real money and real weapons. There could be surprises for those, including myself, who think the war will last long. If Ukraine has long-range missiles and aircraft, the war could end. I’m not saying it will end in 2024 or even 2025. But with a large number of long-range missiles and F-16s, what Zelensky talks about, de-occupation of Crimea, could become a reality, increasing unpredictability. This is not an inertial scenario. A situation where Crimea is de-occupied is a completely different ball game.
Therefore, on this note, I would like to conclude our discussion for today, before moving on to questions.
Questions Link to heading
We have a lot of questions, and I want to draw your attention to the fact that gradually, in our morning discussions, questions are taking up maybe even more time and significance. As I have said before, my deepest belief is that thought is not born in the head of an individual but arises in dialogue. So, let’s try to listen and respond to the questions, as they are interesting.
Regarding today, looking at my notes, what do we have? Today, there are many segments on Ukrainian channels. And in the evening, I will try to prepare Mediafrenzy. It’s important. We need to know what they are saying because what they say today, the Kremlin does tomorrow.
1 Link to heading
Questions. Sergey Andryushchenko asks:
“What do you think about those who consider themselves the opposition? Of course, among those who analyze the leader and, most importantly, acknowledge their mistakes in working with audiences, both Russian and Western, if any. Mistakes in the strategy of fighting the Kremlin regime, in the correctness of the imposed sanctions. It seems everyone thinks they are absolutely right, not noticing that none of their actions lead to a more or less positive result for the opposition. Wouldn’t it be wrong to dedicate part of your precious, and I mean it without sarcasm, time to analyzing mistakes and the activities of our oppositionists, instead of focusing on Solovyov’s waste and the like?”
Dear Sergey, I’ll start with the second part. I’m not sure I’m ready to take on the role of a self-appointed, new ombudsman of the opposition, especially at the expense of Mediafrenzy. I’m not sure about this. I will occasionally address this topic, and thank you for supporting it, but to say that it will completely shift the focus, no, that won’t happen. Firstly, I don’t think Mediafrenzy should be closed. I still believe it’s an important project and we will continue it. As for constantly criticizing the opposition, I do that, but to say I’ll do it every day, no, listen, you see, almost every time in our discussions, there are critical evaluations of what leading opposition publicists and politicians are doing. There aren’t many reasons for constant criticism, as they don’t do much.
As for your main question, frankly, it stumped me. The first thing that comes to mind, of course, is Nevzorov, who “recovered” from fascism. But this sounds more like an alibi. It’s like, “Why didn’t you come to school? I was sick.” Just got sick. Hitler was sick with fascism but never recovered and died. Mussolini also suffered from fascism, hung upside down, and died in an unfamiliar pose. As for Nevzorov, few have performed such political acrobatics, from “600 Seconds” to suddenly changing sides mid-air to become the author of “Our Guys”. Then he embraced the Communists, then seemed to lean towards democrats and liberals, became a trusted person of Putin, and now he’s with us, though “us” is a ambiguous term. That’s what first comes to mind. As for the others, I don’t know, one must observe. Maybe I’m not observant enough. Please tell me in the comments if you have answers to Sergey’s question. It’s a very important and interesting question. I’ll keep thinking too, and if I remember something, I’ll definitely say it.
2 Link to heading
Sergey’s question:
“Wouldn’t it be more sensible for Ukraine to concentrate all diplomatic efforts on temporarily requesting, primarily, a large quantity of long-range precision weapons, even at the expense of other types of armaments, which would guarantee the complete logistical isolation of Crimea, thereby deciding the successful outcome of the war in the near future? Perhaps it would be more convenient for you to redirect this question to a military expert.”
Dear Sergey! Indeed, a military expert would be better suited to answer this. However, unless the discussion involves specific knowledge of military technology, strategy, or tactics, sometimes a layman in military affairs like me can provide a reasonable answer based on common sense and understanding of the political situation. Until Monday, when we have a meeting with Sergey Maratovich Grabsky, I think I can provide a sensible answer. First, why I disagree with your idea: when you say “at the expense of something,” it implies at the expense of air defense systems (PVO). But how can we do without PVO? Right now, Ukrainian cities need protection from Putin’s missile frenzy. Leaving Ukraine without air defense is not an option. There’s a huge frontline where Ukraine fights with other types of weapons, not just long-range missiles, and it holds back the enemy along this vast front. So, it’s not feasible to do this at the expense of other areas. But in principle, we are already talking about Taurus and F-16s. Overall, from our discussion, it seems we are speaking the same language. But I don’t think it’s possible to do this at the expense of other necessities.
3 Link to heading
Anonymous question. The question:
“Do you think it makes sense to petition the West to allow the use of weapons provided by them against military targets in Russian territory?”
I think, yes. Although, based on what I quoted from the German parliament members, it seems they are already shifting in this direction. I believe it does make sense. The question, of course, is who will initiate it and which prominent figures will sign it. It should be politicians, possibly retired politicians of global stature. If someone can take the initiative to gather such a coalition with notable names, I think it would be worthwhile.
4 Link to heading
Question from Ilya:
“Sergey Parkhomenko wrote a short comment about the scandal of a nude party, more precisely, about the crackdown on its well-known participants. His note suggests that this is an internal struggle with the motto ‘Die today, so I can tomorrow.’ He also noted that the general public, to put it mildly, doesn’t care about this event in the club. It’s hard to argue with these theses and, in principle, one can agree. However, there’s a nuance. Since 2014 and up to February 24, 2022, many political scientists, journalists, and other knowledgeable experts were skeptical, even scoffed at Russian propaganda focused on Ukraine. The opinion that the people didn’t care about the hunt for power was also prevalent. But then the war happened. My question is, why did the authorities hype this scandal so widely? Could this scandal lead to something more serious than it seems at first glance? And it’s equally important that political scientists, experts, and journalists are talking about the people’s general apathy again.”
I don’t entirely agree with the motto ‘Die today, so I can tomorrow.’ Yes, we see an internal struggle, but it’s a fight for budgets. When I commented on the semi-naked party, I showed how the persecution happens, with the video featuring ‘Red Riding Hood’ - Poplavskaya, I think, I don’t remember the actress’s name. This monster, this monstrous figure, was screaming for their destruction. You could see her eyes gleaming with dollar signs, obviously pursuing a goal to redirect financial flows from Sobchak, Ivleeva, and Lolita Milyavskaya to herself. But this aside, she wants it, they want it, you understand? The hysterical battle. The epic battle between Solovyov and Ksenia Sobchak is an internal fight between two factions of Putinists, each defending the Putin regime in their own way. But Solovyov is losing to Sobchak in this fight. In a free competitive battle, Solovyov loses to Sobchak because he has become tiresome even to his audience, and he is indeed absurd. Sobchak plays more subtly, more convincingly. She is like poison in the grass, more dangerous and effective than the openly stinking mess. That’s why they all, Solovyov and the likes of ‘Red Riding Hood,’ lashed out at the naked party.
I think you’re right. This isn’t just happening. This whole story, initiated by Putin, is about changing Russia. Remember the movement of Kasparov, Limonov, and all of us? We wanted a different Russia. Now Putin wants a different Russia. The relaxed, glamorous Russia represented by the participants of the naked party doesn’t suit him. Putin wants a militant, ferocious, fanatical, constantly screaming, cursing, and malicious Russia, where there’s no room for naked parties or anything else that distracts. Women should not be women but breeding machines. So, I believe the persecution of the naked party is indeed about Putin’s desire to transform Russia into a military camp, a besieged fortress, where there’s no room for such foolishness.
5 Link to heading
Question from Evgeny, combining several queries about Feigin’s idea of holding alternative elections for the President of Russia:
“What is your opinion on Feigin’s idea to hold alternative elections for the President of Russia?”
Here’s what I think. I am quite skeptical of this idea. I believe even Feigin himself evaluates it skeptically but proposes it under the principle of ‘be realistic, demand the impossible.’ The primary issue is that such elections would be exclusively for emigrants. For those living in Russia, there is no safe way to participate. Any technical protection can be breached, and anonymous participation opens the door to manipulations and troll attacks. Therefore, the legitimacy level of such elections would be diminished, being just an emigrant story.
Secondly, there are technical challenges, though they might be solvable. The question is about accurately defining who can vote and how to prevent fraud or manipulation.
Politically, I am convinced that most leading opposition politicians will not participate in this.
Conceptually, are we advocating for a presidential system again? I am not ready for elections of an alternative president. A government in exile or a parliament in exile, yes, but electing a president again? The problem I see is that we are mirroring Putin. He holds elections, so we respond with our own elections. It’s a losing strategy. I think it would be better to elect a government or parliament in exile. Electing a president seems unwise. What if we elect someone? It might just be someone with the largest audience, like Feigin or Navalny’s team, which likely won’t participate. It’s a beautiful idea, but a bad one. We shouldn’t focus on these elections, but rather calmly gather, think, and form a political will for creating a government in exile. Mirroring Putin is a bad story.
6 Link to heading
Question from Alexey:
“I would like to hear your opinion regarding the mobilization of military-eligible citizens of Ukraine, who, in terms of principles, do not differ from Russia.”
Dear Alexey, the main difference lies in the fact that Ukraine is gathering people to defend its country, while Russia is gathering people to destroy a neighboring country. This is the fundamental distinction. It’s obvious that some wartime practices are similar between occupiers and the victims of aggression. It can’t be otherwise. Both sides shoot, so expecting a principal difference in behavior is challenging. Mobilization is mobilization, so practices are similar. The behavior of warring countries coincides in some aspects. This doesn’t negate the criticism of the mobilization law in Ukraine, which we’ve discussed many times, including with Ukrainian experts. However, the main difference is that one side is the aggressor and the other is the victim of aggression. Everything else, yes, coincides. Both sides shoot at each other. That’s the similarity.
7 Link to heading
Question from Pan Stepan:
“Do you believe, considering the current collapse of the post-war world order, that Fukuyama was wrong with his ’end of history’ concept? Will such an end never occur? Journalist Yefim Fishtein recently wrote about this on Radio Liberty, calling Fukuyama’s idea infantile. He believes Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ concept is more accurate. However, psychologist Steven Pinker in his work ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined’ argues that the world is steadily moving towards humanism, with a decrease in violence, and individual wars, even the bloodiest, do not disrupt this trend, which he traces back to at least the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. So, could Fukuyama have just been wrong about the timing, and in the long term, will the liberal world order prevail globally? And should we not succumb to pessimism because of the unfortunate moment that has befallen our era?”
Dear Pan Stepan! Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History or The Last Man,’ written in the late 1980s, was influenced by the euphoria in the West following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the bipolar world system. The Empire of Evil ceased to be, and it seemed like the dungeons had fallen, and Freedom joyously awaited at the entrance. Since the publication of Fukuyama’s most significant work, he’s been criticized for his linear perception of reality, where the world moves in a single column towards progress, led by Western countries. His world construction was proven erroneous.
Huntington’s model appeared more accurate but had its flaws, seeing civilizations as static entities. Not just what these authors wrote is important, but how it is perceived in public consciousness. Fukuyama and Huntington have become stereotypes in public thought - Fukuyama as the herald of the triumph of liberal democracy and Huntington as the eternal conflict of civilizations that refuse to evolve.
Regarding Steven Pinker’s work, it is indeed a persuasive text. However, in today’s world, I see no trend of China turning into a liberal democracy. The Islamic world, with its sense of ummah, responds collectively to any perceived attack on any part of it. The Latin American countries also represent separate civilizations. Huntington is right in recognizing the diverse trajectories of civilizations, but all civilizations, including the Euro-Atlantic West, China, India, and the Islamic world, are developing, each running on their own track at their own pace. The global interconnectedness further complicates this, as civilizations influence and borrow from each other. So, the world’s progression is much more complex than Fukuyama’s or Huntington’s models suggest. Each civilization is moving forward on its path, making the world a more intricate place than a simple linear or confrontational model can depict.
8 Link to heading
Question from Garik Zurabov from Tbilisi:
“Do you agree that Ukraine is an independent state with the right to enter into international agreements on military assistance, for example, with Poland or the United Kingdom, with all the ensuing consequences for both Ukraine and Russia? Why is this not happening? Is it because the descendants in the West are very afraid of losing their warm toilet and a cup of hot coffee in the morning? Churchill was not afraid to enter the war after Hitler’s attack on Poland. What is your opinion?”
Dear colleague, I believe that Churchill was a great man, but why break the chairs? In Churchill’s time, NATO did not exist. I understand your point. Like Zelensky and many others, you are frustrated with NATO’s sluggishness and inertia. But what would happen if Ukraine signed a separate agreement with Poland? Would Poles fight for Ukraine? Recent public opinion polls in Poland showed that only about 13-15% of Poles are ready to defend Poland in case of war. How many in Ukraine are ready to fight? NATO currently exists, and separate agreements between Poland and Ukraine, especially military ones, would be a matter for NATO. This means that some NATO countries would essentially be leaving NATO if they entered into a separate agreement with Ukraine and began fighting. Then all NATO countries would have to come to their aid. Churchill’s post-war policies contributed to the creation of NATO, but when he entered the war, NATO did not exist, so the situation was entirely different.
9 Link to heading
Question from Johnny Walker:
“Do you see the IP addresses of those who ask you questions?”
No, I don’t see them. I could find them, but it would require checking each time. For instance, in the comments section of a morning stream, there might be 600 comments, and I select a few dozen questions from them. Searching for IP addresses would be immensely time-consuming and practically impossible. So, to answer your question, I do not see them.
“And how do you determine who is a sponsor of your channel and who is not?”
That’s a simple matter. YouTube’s service indicates it with a star next to the person’s name, showing that they are a sponsor. So, it’s not rocket science.
10 Link to heading
Question from Igor in Berlin:
“Regarding one of your phrases, your exact quote from December 31, 2023, about the persistent demands on Ukraine to negotiate with Putin on the formula of ‘peace in exchange for territories.’ It seems like an obsession that has taken over Western partners. I will read only the question: ‘Don’t you think that your above words could be a result of partly falling for Putin’s propaganda, which is aimed at more sophisticated audiences and delivered by anonymous and other experts and politicians? I personally consider Mark Feigin as one of the main broadcasters of this Putin narrative among the Russian opposition, who has been repeatedly saying that Ukraine is being unanimously pressured into peace. If they had been so strongly forced into peace for two years, perhaps there would be some visible results?”
You know, I won’t argue about where I saw specific words of Western politicians suggesting that publications in the Western press say Ukraine should now go for peace talks. There are many such publications, and I don’t see the need to confirm this with quotes. As for why there are no visible results, the reason is simple: there are no results because Ukraine is a subject. There are no results because the Ukrainian people are sovereign; there are no results because Ukrainians see every day what Putin is like. They remember Bucha, Mariupol, and they are subjected to attacks every day. When I communicate with my colleagues, the people who help me with this channel, I hear the sirens and explosions every day. When I turn on Ukrainian channels broadcasting from Kyiv, I constantly hear the sound of sirens, sometimes warnings that they might have to leave the studio. This is constant. Ukraine lives in a completely different world than the West. So, it’s futile to try to force Ukraine into negotiations with Putin. Ukrainians know that Putin wants to destroy them, and that’s it. That’s why there are no visible results. Not because there aren’t attempts, but because it’s futile to coerce Ukrainians into self-destruction.
11 Link to heading
Question from Margo:
“Igor Alexandrovich, can you characterize the Russian people?”
Dear Margo, a thorough answer to this question would require not just one program but an entire series of broadcasts. I had a favorite program on Radio Liberty when I lived in the Czech Republic, titled ‘The Ethnographic Map of Russia.’ We covered about 200 ethnic groups living in Russia. I was fortunate to discuss this topic with the eminent Russian anthropologist Arutyunov, who had encyclopedic knowledge of all peoples living on Earth. Unfortunately, our program was interrupted just before we were to discuss the Russian people.
In short, firstly, let’s consider the points. Firstly, of course, there’s the homo sovieticus. Before homo sovieticus, there were characteristics of the Russian people brilliantly described by Gorky, especially in his famous article about Russian peasantry published in 1922 in Berlin. It portrayed the Russian people in terms of brutal, unmotivated cruelty, not the myths of kindness and hard work. Gorky’s depiction showed a monstrous, wild cruelty that distinguishes the Russian people from many others.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, traits of homo sovieticus remained to varying degrees in the people of sovereign states of the former Soviet space. None of the peoples residing in these sovereign states have completely freed themselves from homo sovieticus, except perhaps the Baltic countries, which were part of the Soviet Union for a shorter period. But in Russia, and not just among the Russian people but all peoples of the Russian Federation, homo sovieticus exists to the maximum extent.
What is homo sovieticus? I won’t go into detail, but it’s a new historical community, as Soviet propagandists used to say. Alexander Zinoviev, before he went insane, spoke well of homo sovieticus, describing them as accustomed to living in comparatively poor conditions, ready to face hardships, always expecting the worst, approving the actions of authorities, striving to hinder those who disrupt customary behavior, fully supporting the leadership, possessing a standard ideological consciousness, a sense of responsibility for their country, ready for sacrifices, and willing to subject others to sacrifices. The Soviet person did not disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union but continues to exist and reproduce in Russia. It’s evident to me.
To these negative traits of homo sovieticus, such as social hypocrisy, paternalism, etatism, and the tendency to align with the state, have been added a monstrous cynicism and an unprecedented level of aggression. The post-Soviet homo sovieticus is a much more dangerous anthropological phenomenon than the Soviet homo sovieticus. I once did a program called ‘The Putin Person,’ which is a much more dangerous phenomenon than just homo sovieticus. So, there is a degradation of the anthropological type in our country towards greater danger than it was in the Soviet Union, and even more than in the Russian peasantry that Gorky wrote about. That’s the story.
12 Link to heading
Question from Marina:
“When will the details for supporting the Free Russian Legion be available?”
Thank you for the reminder, dear Marina! I am currently checking these details because, as you understand, I am very cautious about fundraising. I realize the responsibility that comes with handling money, so when posting payment details, I try to be very careful and rarely post details for supporting the channel. By the way, I should do that soon. Currently, only Patreon is available, but I need to provide other ways to support the channel, as it is not a cheap endeavor, especially considering development. Regarding supporting the Free Russian Legion, I think not only the Legion but also the Russian Volunteer Corps and possibly the Siberian Volunteer Union deserve support. I need to verify all the details. Naturally, I won’t do it myself, but I’ll ask people to check them. So, that’s what’s being done now. Thank you for reminding me. I hope the details will be available soon, and then I will periodically call on you to pay attention to this, as it is a real way to help.
Dear friends, this concludes our morning conversation for today. Glory to Ukraine! Please, take care of yourselves. And we will meet in the evening in the program. In the next episode of the “Mediafrenia” program. All the best to you.