The U.S. and Ukraine may strike a deal on rare earth elements. In response, Putin laid open the depths of Russia to Trump, and Trump peeked in with interest.
Main theme Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is February 26. It is 7:41 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our usual morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
Ukraine and the U.S. Reach Agreement on Resource Deal Link to heading
A very cautious, cautious optimism. Today, a number of media outlets reported that Ukraine and the United States have apparently reached an agreement on a resource deal after Washington lifted its toughest demands. Both Ukrainska Pravda and Financial Times have written about this.
Now, let’s put it this way—there are no security commitments in this deal. Naturally, Ukraine’s demands in this regard were not met. However, the most oppressive aspects of the agreement have been significantly reduced—at least, according to press reports and expert opinions. The burdensome nature of the deal has been sharply diminished.
It is expected that the agreement will soon be signed by Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andriy Sebe and Marco Rubio on behalf of the United States.
The new structure includes a joint investment fund for reconstruction. The harsh clause granting the U.S. 100% control over the fund has been removed. Instead, shares will be allocated based on actual contributions, making it more of a real deal rather than an exploitative contract reminiscent of medieval times following a total surrender.
The fund will receive 50% of the revenue from the sale of Ukrainian natural resources—and not just that. In fact, what started as a rare earth elements agreement has evolved into a full-scale economic deal. The fund is expected to receive proceeds from the sale of all Ukrainian natural resources, as well as revenues from ports and infrastructure, with all of it being reinvested into the Ukrainian economy.
As always, the devil is in the details. It’s too early to assess the agreement definitively. However, I believe that Ukraine’s political leadership and the ministry responsible for the deal will scrutinize it carefully—there’s no doubt about that. At the very least, those absurd figures—like the half-trillion-dollar sum Trump mentioned—are nowhere to be found.
From what I’ve read in the press, the agreement appears to be a framework deal. There are no specific figures yet, which is a good sign, as they will have to be determined in a separate agreement. I hope Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy, which will be responsible for preparing the final agreement, approaches it with due diligence.
One more important piece of information: reportedly, President Zelensky is planning to meet with Trump this Friday. Now, let me express my completely unqualified opinion—this resource deal, or rare earth elements deal (which now seems to have taken a backseat), doesn’t hold much real significance for the United States. Rather, it’s an opportunity for Trump to present himself as a winner—to say, “Look how great I am! Who’s great? I’m great!” Trump can claim he secured benefits for the U.S., whereas Biden was supposedly just giving things away for free.
Of course, developing natural resources in a country at war is a complicated issue. But ultimately, this is better than nothing. And most importantly, I hope this deal puts an end to the intense personal confrontation between Trump and Zelensky. That, perhaps, is its biggest positive outcome.
No Connection Between the Deal and the War Link to heading
For some reason, Trump believes that this deal—well, as young people say, L – logic—somehow leads to two consequences. The first is that it will bring peace between Russia and Ukraine. This makes about as much sense as linking a flood to an estate or an elderberry bush to an uncle. In other words, it’s completely unclear how these three things are connected.
So, we have three elements being tied together:
- This agreement, which, in some form, will likely be concluded. If it’s a framework deal, there shouldn’t be any major obstacles to signing it. The real challenge will come later when the details are negotiated in a separate agreement—that’s where the real battle will be.
- Peace—because, after all, this agreement is between the U.S. and Ukraine. But what does Russia have to do with it? How does this impact the chances of peace or even a temporary ceasefire?
- Elections in Ukraine. It’s clear that peace, and therefore the lifting of martial law, are causally linked. But how does this agreement factor into that? The only possible connection is through improved personal relations between Trump and Zelensky. That could, in turn, lead to some steps forward.
However, the real issue of a peace agreement isn’t between Trump and Zelensky—it’s sitting on one person’s desk and exists solely in one person’s mind: Putin’s. And Putin has nothing to do with this deal.
Who Benefits from a Pause Link to heading
Now, regarding this so-called peace agreement—if it were to happen, it would be an incredible stroke of luck, a huge victory, and a great relief. But at the same time, it’s unclear who would truly be the winner in such a scenario. Still, if peace could be achieved, it would be a remarkable success. However, there’s a fundamental problem here.
First, these discussions are being heard at the front. This creates the one-minute-before-the-end-of-the-war effect. When such talks reach the trenches, they inevitably impact morale—both in Russia and Ukraine. Soldiers in the trenches start to hesitate because there’s this looming feeling: What if I die just moments before the war ends? Naturally, this doesn’t encourage more aggressive attacks or decisive action on the battlefield.
Now, defensive positions remain unchanged, but offensive momentum can slow. I’ll offer a hypothesis—perhaps military experts will refute me—but Russia’s recent decline in frontline combat activity over the past week may be linked to this effect. Russia’s focus has largely shifted to attacking civilian targets—missile strikes, drone attacks, and bombings remain as intense as ever across Ukraine. However, the number of direct clashes on the front lines has decreased, and the Russian army’s offensive drive has noticeably weakened.
It’s possible that this perception of imminent peace is influencing battlefield conditions. Fewer Russian soldiers are rushing into “meat grinder” assaults, which in turn means fewer Ukrainian soldiers are dying. In this sense, the mere talk of peace might even be having a somewhat positive impact on the situation at the front.
But in the grand scheme, the core issue isn’t Trump, Zelensky, the U.S., or Ukraine. The key problem is Putin. Since Russia is a personalist dictatorship, all major decisions rest solely with him. And it’s entirely possible that Putin himself now sees a temporary pause as beneficial.
There’s no doubt that without firm security guarantees for Ukraine—and such guarantees are unlikely—Putin could use any ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and prepare for an even stronger offensive.
We’ve seen this before. Those who have followed Putin’s tactics over the years will remember what happened with the Khasavyurt Accord in Chechnya. Russia agreed to a ceasefire, only to later launch the Second Chechen War, exploiting internal divisions and the betrayal of the Kadyrov clan. Using this, Russia ultimately crushed Chechnya and placed it under Kadyrov’s dictatorship.
So even if a temporary ceasefire is achieved, which would indeed be a blessing as it would save Ukrainian lives, in the long run, it could lead to far worse consequences.
For now, we observe cautiously. If the war pauses, we can be relieved. But as long as Putin remains in the Kremlin, war remains inevitable.
The UK and France Visit Trump Link to heading
I won’t go into a detailed analysis of the British Prime Minister and the French President’s visit to Trump, but it seems they failed to convince the U.S. President that even if the war is temporarily frozen or put on hold, demanding elections in Ukraine is not an option.
Elections would almost certainly lead to destabilization within Ukrainian society, and it’s highly unlikely that Ukraine would agree to this. This, once again, sets up a personal conflict between President Zelensky and Trump. It’s clear that Ukraine must not accept such demands, and both the Ukrainian leadership and society understand this perfectly well.
Lack of Security Guarantees in the Agreement Link to heading
Returning to this agreement, I’ll refer to the opinion of Mykhailo Mykhailovych Podolyak, who gave an interview yesterday. By the way, today at 11:00 AM, we’ll have a conversation with Podolyak. This discussion was originally scheduled a couple of days ago but was postponed to today. I hope it will take place as planned.
In assessing the new parameters of the deal, Podolyak stated that Ukraine would sign the agreement—or at least, Ukraine wants the agreement to include three key elements:
- Some form of investment commitments from the United States, primarily military aid—specifically, Patriot systems, ammunition, and other weaponry.
- A clearly defined revenue share for Ukraine.
- Security guarantees.
From what I’ve gathered—not from the actual text of the agreement, but from reading numerous expert analyses, perhaps several dozen—I haven’t seen any indication that these three conditions are included in the deal.
So, if this is merely a framework agreement, Ukraine might sign it, but major issues will follow down the road.
Putin Offers Trump Rare Earth Metals Link to heading
And finally, the most amusing part—after hearing that the U.S. president had suddenly developed an inexplicable passion for rare earth metals, Putin immediately held a meeting to figure out whether Russia had any. I suspect that before this, Putin had no idea what rare earth metals even were. He probably thought, Well, they’re rare, right? And Russia has a lot of land, so we must have a lot of rare metals too.
Of course, he then spouted his usual nonsense, claiming that Russia has the world’s largest reserves of rare earth metals. This is complete rubbish. I tend to trust the U.S. Geological Survey, which ranks Russia only fifth in the world, behind China, Brazil, India, and Australia.
Having worked for two years at the Zoological Museum, I have some idea of how these elements are distributed across Russia. Many of them are in extremely remote and inaccessible locations. Russia does have some remarkable mineral deposits, but extracting them is extraordinarily costly. So, this is clearly a bluff.
Nevertheless, Putin “opened up Russia’s resources” to Trump and announced his willingness to make a deal with the U.S.
This is classic Putin—baiting Trump with the things he loves. Trump likes the word deal? Here’s a deal. Trump likes rare earth metals? Well, guess what? Russia has them! Naturally, Trump took the bait, immediately expressing interest in a deal with Russia for access to these resources.
I have a hard time imagining how such a deal would work, and I doubt it will ever materialize. But still, it happened.
On top of that, Putin also suggested joint aluminum production, which surely caught the attention of Oleg Deripaska. At that moment, Deripaska must have had a sudden realization about the true purpose of this war—perhaps to keep him from going under.
All of this would be laughable if it weren’t happening against the backdrop of a brutal, bloody war.
So, is there any reason for optimism? Maybe. If, for a brief moment, Putin’s interests align with de-escalation, perhaps a temporary pause in the war could be achieved. A glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, however faint.
But the key question remains—who will make better use of this pause? Because this won’t be the end of the war. It’s absolutely clear to me that the war will not end this year. If a temporary halt in hostilities is achieved, the real issue will be who uses the time more effectively. That’s an open question.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Before moving on to audience questions, I want to mention today’s two guests.
At 11:00 AM, we’ll be speaking with Mykhailo Podolyak. It’s crucial to hear the official position of the President’s Office—whether Ukraine is truly considering signing a rare earth metals deal and what this would entail. We’ll also discuss Zelensky’s upcoming visit to Washington.
Then, at 1:00 PM, we’ll have Dmitry Oreshkin, a Russian political scientist and sociologist. I think it will be interesting to hear his take on all these developments.
Moving on to your questions.
What Will Happen to Russian Citizens in Israel? Link to heading
I couldn’t determine the author of this question—an anonymous question from the chat:
“What should Russian citizens living in Israel expect after the UN vote, where Israel changed its position and downgraded Russia’s status from an aggressor state to something else? Could this lead to deportation back to Russia?”
Dear anonymous colleague, just because I covered this vote in detail doesn’t mean it should be given any sacred significance. It’s important only in the context of the foreign policy course of the countries involved.
Israel voted against the Ukraine-led resolution primarily because the U.S. was putting pressure on it. Relations with the U.S. and American support are far too crucial for Israel to risk damaging them over this vote.
Now, how much Israel needed to bend in this situation—that’s another question. Why, for example, did South Korea, which is also heavily dependent on the U.S., choose to abstain while Israel voted against? We don’t know the exact nature of the pressure exerted by the U.S. on its allies.
So, assigning any major significance to this vote or linking it to the fate of Russian citizens in Israel doesn’t make much sense. I see no connection at all. This is like trying to hammer a nail into a wall where there’s no wall.
Could Trump Go as Far as Providing Military Support to Russia? Link to heading
Question from Klara Super:
“Could Trump go as far as providing military support to Russia? I wouldn’t put it past him. What do you think?”
I don’t think so. I really don’t.
Trump and Putin’s so-called “alliance” and mutual admiration are largely situational. Yes, they share some common values at a fundamental level, but their interests diverge significantly.
Trump is certainly capable of surprising us, but I believe this is one line he won’t cross.
Recognition Colors on Ukrainian and Russian Soldiers Link to heading
Question from Artem Shevchenko (a sponsor of our channel—many thanks to him!):
“When I watch war footage, I, like many others, notice the recognition colors on soldiers—Ukrainian troops wear blue, while the ‘orcs’ wear red. To me, blue symbolizes water, which is the foundation of life. Red, on the other hand, represents blood, which flows from life when it is taken. My question is: has symbolism always carried such deep meaning in our world? Can you give an example where symbolism was misleading or confusing?”
There are plenty of such examples.
If we look at national symbolism, the most obvious case is flag colors. Red is often associated with blood and aggression, yet Denmark—a peaceful country—has a red flag, and no one considers it bloodthirsty. Red also dominates the flags of Malta, Monaco, and Montenegro—none of which are violent or aggressive nations.
On the other hand, Somalia has a bright blue flag, yet no one would call it a peaceful, stable country.
So, while some patterns exist, the connection isn’t rigid. Many flags feature colors inherited from history rather than reflecting the current character of a nation. Take Kyrgyzstan, for example—its flag has a dominant red background, a legacy from the Soviet era. But Kyrgyzstan today isn’t an aggressive country.
Similarly, many “fierce” animals—like eagles or lions—appear on the flags and emblems of peaceful nations.
So, while symbolism can hold meaning, it can also be misleading, and historical context plays a major role in how these symbols are interpreted.
Will Anti-Semitism Remain an Eternal Problem? Will Violence in International Relations Ever Disappear? Link to heading
Question from Tatyana Chaplygina:
*“Despite centuries of change, shifts in worldviews, and even the battle for artificial intelligence, some problems remain unresolved—anti-Semitism, the dominance of certain races, nations, or dictators over public opinion.
So, two questions:
- Will anti-Semitism always be a problem for humanity?
- Will the struggle for power ever be limited to virtual superiority—without physical deaths—at least in the foreseeable future?”*
I believe anti-Semitism will remain a problem. As for whether it will be eternal—that’s beyond my scope. I don’t deal in eternity. And, in general, the time horizon for any kind of planning or forecasting has drastically shortened in today’s world.
But in the foreseeable future, anti-Semitism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is violence in international relations.
On Trump’s Alleged Recruitment and the Suggestion to Invite Hryhoriy Omelchenko Link to heading
Question from Leonid:
“Hryhoriy Omelchenko claims and provides evidence that Trump was recruited by the KGB. Why not invite Omelchenko to your channel and discuss this topic? It would be interesting.”
Dear Leonid, I understand your interest, but no, I won’t be inviting Omelchenko.
While he is recognized as a Hero of Ukraine and surely has supporters, I personally have no interest in featuring him on our platform.
I remember well how he once spoke about an alleged plan by “international Zionism” to establish a New Jerusalem in Ukraine, relocating five million Jews there, and how representatives of “Jewish capital” supposedly aimed to buy up all agricultural land in Ukraine.
For me, anyone who promotes such conspiracy theories ceases to exist in a serious intellectual space. He may have his admirers, but I find such statements absurd and completely unworthy of discussion.
So, no—he won’t be invited to our channel.
On the Statement by Mykhailo Savva Link to heading
Question from Ana Mojito:
“It seems like you had a bit of a disagreement with Mykhailo Savva. Maybe he meant something else when he said not to listen to Trump? People sometimes express themselves poorly. Of course, I’m on your side—heads of state must be accountable for their words. Trump is just a primitive businessman, not a politician. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has already refuted his claims about $500 billion in aid to Ukraine. I hope this is just the beginning of more official denials from U.S. authorities. What do you think?”
First, dear Ana, I can say with certainty that Mykhailo Valentynovych Savva and I have not had a falling-out. He expressed his opinion, I expressed mine. I disagree with the idea that Trump’s words don’t matter or that we shouldn’t pay attention to them. I believe that’s a mistaken view, and I will continue to stand by my position.
That said, Savva and I maintain respectful relations—at least, I hope the respect is mutual—and our cooperation remains intact.
As for your question about official denials—yes, they will continue, at least as long as these officials remain in their positions. But right now, we’re witnessing a purge of U.S. institutions—the so-called “draining of the Washington swamp.” Where this will lead is still uncertain. The “swamp” is resisting fiercely, because, in reality, the Washington swamp is the U.S. government itself. And what we’re seeing now is an attempt to dismantle that government.
How will this battle between the neo-fascist Trumpists and the American state end? I can’t predict.
Yesterday, I spoke with Mark Feygin, and he offered an optimistic perspective—he believes the American state is strong enough to defend itself. I sincerely hope Feygin and others who share this view are right.
Are There Forces Capable of Stopping Trump? Link to heading
Question from Margarita:
“Is there anyone who can actually stop Trump? What he’s doing—and what he plans to do—is terrifying for both ordinary people and the few remaining reasonable politicians. The mere thought of a potential Trump-Putin alliance is horrifying. Could it be that the criminal Putin will end up portraying himself as the winner of this bloody three-year war? And who will actually help Ukraine? Even strong Germany seems to be shifting toward Russia after the Bundestag elections, while Russia continues its systematic destruction of Ukraine.”
Dear Margarita, I’m not sure where the idea comes from that Germany is shifting after the elections. As far as I can see, Germany is actually moving in the opposite direction. The victory of the Christian Democrats strengthens Germany’s potential as a leader in European support for Ukraine. So, I believe Germany is not the problem here.
As for who can stop Trump—there is a viewpoint I agree with: right now, Trump’s biggest mistakes are political. But the moment his actions start seriously affecting the economy, it won’t just be the “deep state” resisting him—it will be the deep people.
And the American “deep people” can stop Trump, for one simple reason: in the United States, citizens have the right to bear arms. That alone ensures that no dictatorship can suppress the country to that extent.
On the Statement by Yuri Shvets Link to heading
Question:
“Yuri Shvets considers Curtis Yarvin the main puppet master and ideologue of Trumpism. What do you think about that?”
Curtis Yarvin is indeed a rather ominous figure. He is a blogger and, alongside philosopher Nick Land, one of the key figures behind the Dark Enlightenment movement—an anti-democratic, anti-liberal ideology.
The Dark Enlightenment (a term coined by Land) essentially promotes the reversal of Enlightenment ideals. The goal is to dismantle democracy and replace it with another system—one that closely resembles fascism.
Yarvin criticizes the current structure of power in the U.S., arguing that democracy is essentially an illusion. He refers to the Cathedral—his term for an informal network of universities and mainstream media that shape public opinion. His ideology calls for dismantling this system and replacing it with an authoritarian model.
Now, as for his actual influence:
- He is highly regarded by some key Trump allies—J.D. Vance, for instance, has referred to him as a mentor or guru.
- He was invited to Trump’s inauguration, suggesting he has real influence in those circles.
Initially, when I first heard about Yarvin, I assumed he was something like Russia’s Alexander Dugin—a self-proclaimed ideologue who wants to be seen as Putin’s mastermind but isn’t actually taken that seriously. Just another fringe extremist.
However, after seeing the level of access Yarvin has—his invitation to Trump’s inauguration, his influence on Trump’s inner circle—I now believe he is a more significant figure than Dugin ever was in Russia.
How much of Trump’s policies will follow Yarvin’s blueprint? That, I can’t say for certain. I’m not an Americanist, and I haven’t conducted specific research on the spread of his ideas. But one thing is clear—Yarvin is a deeply dangerous figure.
Why Doesn’t Trump Implement a Marshall Plan in Gaza? Link to heading
Question from Ilya Ignatov (a sponsor of our channel—many thanks to him!):
“Why doesn’t Trump apply a Marshall Plan to Gaza, like the one used in Germany in 1945?”
Dear Ilya, let me ask you this—can you name any similarities between post-war Germany and Gaza in terms of governance, society, or economic structure?
The only thing they have in common is that both were bombed. Beyond that, the nature of the societies, their histories, and their capacities for rebuilding are entirely different.
The Marshall Plan wasn’t just about throwing money at a problem—it was about supporting an industrial economy. In Germany (and even more so in Britain and France, which received the bulk of Marshall Plan funds), this aid helped rebuild production, industry, and infrastructure. Germany, in particular, was able to restore its heavy industry and develop into an economic powerhouse.
Now, ask yourself—do you see any realistic possibility of industrial development in Gaza, even with massive financial injections? It’s extremely difficult to imagine. The socio-economic structure is entirely different.
This isn’t about considering one group of people “better” or “worse”—it’s simply about history. Gaza’s trajectory has been radically different from that of post-war Germany, and a Marshall-style plan just isn’t applicable in the same way.
Would Novodvorskaya or Vysotsky Be Trump Supporters Today? Link to heading
Question from Serafim Lozhkin:
“I listened to Trumpophrenia 1, thank you! But I’m not sure that Novodvorskaya wouldn’t have been a Trump supporter today. Maybe even Vysotsky. What do you think?”
Every time we try to guess what a deceased person would think today, we engage in a flawed mental experiment. But still, based on what I know…
I never personally knew Vysotsky, but I was well acquainted with Novodvorskaya. We weren’t close friends, but we had a friendly relationship. So, I can say with confidence:
Novodvorskaya might have initially supported Trump, especially in the early stages—purely because he was against the left. She hated leftists, so it’s possible that, for a brief moment, she could have thought, “Well, better Trump than those people.”
But this would have been very short-lived. The moment Trump fully revealed himself, Novodvorskaya would have unleashed the full force of her rhetoric against him. That, I can say with 100% certainty.
As for Vysotsky—he was, above all, a cultural figure. And while artists’ political views do matter (and sometimes even disappoint us when a favorite singer or actor supports something abhorrent), I don’t believe Vysotsky would have sided with Trump. I think his innate wisdom—evident in his work—would have guided him otherwise.
That said, I’m less certain about Vysotsky than I am about Novodvorskaya.
With her, I know the answer.
On the Situation at the Front, Insufficient Military Aid, and a War Forecast Link to heading
Question from Vladimir Savoysky:
“Since the liberation of Kherson in November 2022, Ukraine has barely reclaimed any territory and has been slowly retreating on various fronts. This has happened alongside a constant shortage of military aid from partners. Now, the biggest and most resourceful of those partners—the U.S.—has effectively dropped out. The Ukrainian leadership is betting on continued fighting, hoping for European support. But we’ve seen what three years of European aid look like—one phrase sums it up: ‘very insufficient.’
Now, military aid will likely decrease further. Europe can provide funding, but it can’t suddenly supply Ukraine with massive amounts of shells and equipment.
What is your strategic vision for the outcome of this war? Given these circumstances, do you still believe a turning point is inevitable? We’ve seen Europe act cautiously for three years—what makes you think they will suddenly switch to an all-out war strategy?”
Frankly, I’m not entirely sure what the question is here, because much of what you’re saying is factually correct. I don’t really disagree with your observations.
However, my strategic vision is this: Ukraine has no choice.
There is no alternative. Putin will not sign a peace agreement that allows Ukraine to continue existing as a sovereign state. If there were even a possibility of negotiating Ukraine’s survival, we could discuss options. But there is no such possibility.
Putin’s ultimate goal is for Ukraine to cease to exist. Not necessarily in terms of borders, but as an independent entity. This is his core ideology, and it is evident in everything he does.
So, what does that mean? Ukraine cannot afford to lose. And I do not believe it will.
For one, Russia itself is also exhausted. And despite all the setbacks, aid to Ukraine is still ongoing.
- The claim that U.S. assistance has already disappeared is simply not an established fact. That hasn’t happened yet.
- Europe is indeed preparing to increase its support. If they lack weapons, they are prepared to buy them from the U.S. and elsewhere.
So, while the situation is difficult, I see no reason for panic. The war is far from over, and the final outcome is still undecided.
Where Is the Axis of Evil Now? Link to heading
Question from Elza, Perm: “Where does the Axis of Evil run now?”
You know, it shifts. It’s not fixed.
At times, it runs along the Moscow–Pyongyang line.
At other times, it’s more like Moscow–Washington (depending on who’s in power in the U.S.).
It changes. We live in unpredictable times.
On Voting in Germany Link to heading
Question from Viktor Khripun:
“You’ve probably seen the voting map in Germany. Only the former East Germany (GDR) voted for the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Scheidelman suggested that this is because the GDR, which was occupied by the USSR, was never truly ‘disinfected’ from Nazism. In contrast, West Germany purged its institutions—teachers, police, administration—and removed those with Nazi ties from key positions. Many were prosecuted even after the Nuremberg trials. They were taken on tours of mass graves, forced to exhume the victims of Nazi crimes. This gave West Germans a so-called ‘immunity’ to Nazism, which East Germans never developed. Do you agree with this theory?”
I don’t just agree with this theory—I think it’s completely valid. I’m familiar with the post-war situation in Germany and the stark differences in how de-Nazification was carried out (or, in the case of East Germany, largely not carried out).
However, I’d go even further. In the GDR, the lack of de-Nazification was compounded by decades of Soviet rule. This combination created a unique mindset among East Germans—one shaped by both an unaddressed Nazi past and the psychological and social impact of living under Soviet authoritarianism.
The result? A political and cultural phenomenon unique to East Germans—one that persists to this day.
So, I’d say Scheidelman’s argument is correct, but I’d strengthen it by factoring in the long-term effects of Soviet occupation.
Could Putin Have Kompromat on Trump? Link to heading
Question from Kristina:
“If Trump isn’t a Kremlin agent, could Putin have kompromat on him?”
Dear Kristina, I don’t know. Really, I don’t.
Here’s how I see it:
Whenever people talk about Trump being a Kremlin agent or Putin having kompromat on him, the first question is—what kind of kompromat?
Trump already has more accusations against him than a stray dog has fleas. He’s been accused of everything—sexual misconduct, infidelity, shady financial dealings—you name it. Nothing sticks. He has a Teflon reputation.
So, what could be so terrible that it would actually work against him? I don’t want to speculate.
The second point is more practical: if there were real kompromat or a history of recruitment, U.S. intelligence agencies would likely have uncovered it and made it public. I take American intelligence seriously, and I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t have caught something if it truly existed.
At least, that’s my view.
Suggestion to Discuss Project 2025 with an American Expert Link to heading
Question from Larisa:
“Could you discuss Project 2025 with an American expert on your channel? Is it just Trump’s campaign platform, or is it a broader governance strategy for the U.S. Conservative Party?
I’ve lived in America for 24 years and never paid much attention to politics because I believed that, while imperfect, American democracy could protect the country from dictatorship. But now, the more I read, the more I see that techno-fascists have seized power, posing a threat not just to America but to the entire world.
This takes the discussion beyond internal U.S. politics—it directly impacts global security. I’d really like to hear an American expert’s perspective on this.”
Yes, I think this is an important and highly relevant topic.
At the moment, I’m not entirely sure who would be the best expert to invite, as many specialists in this field are currently under pressure or hesitant to speak openly. But thank you for the suggestion—we will definitely arrange this discussion.
On Shchedrovitsky’s Methodology Link to heading
Question from a user named “Khren Tam”: “Are you familiar with Shchedrovitsky’s methodology—the concept of systems, and so on? If so, do you use any of its tools in your work?”
I can immediately say—no, I don’t use it. Let me explain why.
Initially, the Logical Circle created by Shchedrovitsky included some truly outstanding thinkers—Merab Mamardashvili, Ilyenkov, Zinoviev, Grushin. But over time, this group evolved into something I personally see as a sect.
Now, I understand that by saying this, I might upset many Russian intellectuals for whom Methodology (as Shchedrovitsky’s followers call it) is akin to sacred scripture.
At one point, I even engaged with the methodologists’ community, but ultimately, I distanced myself. Here’s why:
Shchedrovitsky’s school never truly abandoned Marxism—and that’s the key issue. Marxism is very persuasive to those who believe in it, but it completely fails to convince anyone who isn’t already predisposed to accept it. In that sense, it functions like a religion.
The methodologists, in turn, developed a branch of Marxist thought that emphasizes social engineering—but of a very specific kind. Their idea is that society can be reshaped not through democratic institutions, not through engaging with the people, but through an elite circle of insiders who manipulate the system from above. This is an extreme form of social constructivism.
We’ve just discussed the influence of techno-fascist ideas on today’s U.S. political landscape (Dark Enlightenment, Curtis Yarvin, etc.). Similarly, Shchedrovitsky’s methodologists left their mark on the Kremlin—particularly in the early 2000s.
Who were some of the key figures influenced by this sect?
- Gleb Pavlovsky (one of Putin’s early spin doctors)
- Sergei Kurginyan (though to a lesser extent)
- Vladislav Surkov (who practically embodied the political technology state with his managed democracy approach)
This led to a period in Russia where political technologists—rather than politicians—held real power. The belief was that society could be altered not through democratic engagement, but through manipulation from the top down, using information control and staged political dynamics.
I find this ideology completely alien.
Yes, there are some interesting ideas within this school, but I do not incorporate its tools into my work, because I consider them fundamentally flawed.
Elections in Ukraine After a Ceasefire Link to heading
Question from Olya: “Let’s conduct a thought experiment: imagine the front line is frozen, and the next step is for Ukraine to hold elections. It’s clear that all of Ukraine would vote either for Zelensky or Luzhny. But Trump and Putin would demand elections in the occupied territories as well—after all, Ukrainians still live there. And naturally, they would stage a victory for someone like Medvedchuk or, at worst, Boyko. What then?”
Dear Olya, I don’t think this scenario is realistic.
Russia considers the occupied territories its own, meaning it would never allow elections there for Ukrainian authorities. There is simply no logic in holding elections there under Ukrainian law—it’s completely out of the question.
So, this particular threat does not exist.
The real issue is that if the front line is temporarily frozen, Ukraine would likely maintain martial law, meaning elections wouldn’t happen at all. No war—no elections. But also, no elections during a war.
So, the concern you raise doesn’t seem like a real danger—for the reasons I just explained.
On the Verkhovna Rada’s Votes Supporting Zelensky Link to heading
Question from “Gorny Chelovek” (Mountain Man):
“Yesterday, Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada failed to pass a resolution supporting the continuation of Zelensky’s powers. But today, for some reason, they voted again and passed it. I understand your position on not commenting on Ukraine’s internal affairs. But hypothetically, if the exact same situation happened in Russia with Putin and the State Duma, how would you interpret it?”
My modest experience in parliamentary work—having served in the Russian State Duma—taught me that situations like this happen all the time. Pushing votes through the system, negotiating behind the scenes—it’s all part of parliamentary politics.
If Trump were right and Zelensky were a dictator, the Verkhovna Rada would have voted unanimously on the first try—standing at attention and weeping tears of joy at their leader’s presence. But that didn’t happen.
So, was there some pushing? Probably. If someone dislikes the Ukrainian government, they might call it “pressure.” If someone supports it, they might call it “persuasion.” Officials explained the stakes, and some MPs reconsidered their positions—this happens in every democracy.
Back in the 1990s, when I was in the Duma, I saw similar situations. For example, when Georgy Satarov, Boris Yeltsin’s representative in parliament, needed to get a Kremlin-backed bill passed, he actively worked with different factions to build support. This is normal parliamentary process.
Now, let’s flip the hypothetical: Could this happen in Russia?
No. In Russia, the first vote would have passed instantly, with a near-100% approval rate. That’s the key difference.
This is why applying the same logic to Russia doesn’t work—because Russia is a dictatorship, while Ukraine is not. Yes, Ukraine currently has a high concentration of power in the president’s hands due to the war. But this very vote shows that there is no dictatorship. If there were, the Rada wouldn’t have debated it in the first place.
On Dark Enlightenment Link to heading
Question from Alena Yakovleva: “Can you share your thoughts on Dark Enlightenment and how their insane ideas are now being implemented in U.S. politics? Their followers are in power, and so far, everything seems to be going their way. It’s terrifying—war in our country isn’t enough, now all of Europe and democracy itself are under threat.”
I’ve already touched on this topic, but I’ll say it again:
Dark Enlightenment is a reactionary, neofascist movement that outright rejects the ideas of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment—everything associated with freedom, equality, and democracy. It denies the fundamental principles that shaped modern democratic societies. In short, it is pure neofascism.
So, what’s my stance? There can be no neutral attitude toward such an ideology—it’s dangerous.
The only real question is to what extent Trump is directly influenced by it.
There’s no doubt that many of Trump’s actions and rhetoric align with Dark Enlightenment ideas. Maybe he hasn’t personally read Curtis Yarvin’s essays, but some of his key allies clearly have.
Now, is Dark Enlightenment Trump’s official ideological doctrine—the way Dugin’s ideas claim to be for Putin? Or is it just something loosely attached to him? That, I don’t know.
I’m not an Americanist. I can analyze the ideas of individual thinkers and see how they align with current trends. But as for whether Dark Enlightenment has become the guiding ideological platform of Trumpism? That’s beyond my expertise.
However, based on what we see, it does look like its influence is growing. How far that influence will go remains an open question.
On Mikhail Veller Link to heading
Question from Olga Grigoryeva:
“I stopped listening to all the Trumpists long ago, but Veller—five exclamation marks! Forgive me, but I’m losing my mind. Please, I beg you, start with Veller. My self-esteem is plummeting into the abyss.”
Dear Olga! We’ll save your self-esteem together.
Hold on until Saturday—I’m planning to release the second episode of Trumpophrenia, and Veller will definitely be one of the key figures discussed.
I also hope to prepare a solid analysis of Illarionov’s latest moves.
Veller—for sure. And maybe a couple of others as well.
On the Reports Musk Is Demanding from Government Employees Link to heading
Question from Galina: “Can you talk about the reports Musk is demanding from government employees? It reminds me of the secret teacher reports in Russia.”
Oh, the number of parallels I could draw here! As someone who lived most of my life in the Soviet Union, I immediately recognized the Soviet spirit in this idea of Musk’s. It’s reminiscent of personal “comprehensive work plans” and other bureaucratic absurdities of the USSR.
I had actually planned to discuss this in the main part of my stream, but I felt I was running over time. Since you asked, I’ll explain.
Right now, three major institutions of the so-called American deep state—the Pentagon, State Department, and FBI—have publicly rebuked Musk’s demand. They even sent an internal memo instructing their employees to ignore him completely.
Musk took this personally and responded that if the reports weren’t submitted by noon, everyone would be fired.
This is idiocy.
And why did Trump immediately jump to Musk’s defense? He claimed that government agencies are full of lazy bureaucrats who don’t even show up for work. But come on—let’s use some common sense.
Let’s assume hundreds of thousands of federal employees submit reports detailing their weekly work. What exactly is Musk supposed to do with all this paperwork? Is he planning to personally read these reports?
What if an employee writes:
“For two days, I watched birds. For two more days, I picked my nose. The last two days, I drank heavily. Signed, Government Official So-and-So.”
Then what? Will Musk read it and decide this employee wasn’t serving the interests of the United States?
It’s nonsense.
The ineffectiveness of this kind of micromanagement has been proven over and over again. What matters isn’t monitoring daily activity but measuring results.
Each government agency has a defined function. The only meaningful way to evaluate its performance is by assessing whether it fulfills that function. If the agency is tasked with reducing crime, the metric should be crime rates, not whether employees filed some pointless paperwork.
Internal audits exist for a reason. External oversight should be based on outcome-based metrics, not daily behavior reports.
What Musk is proposing? It’s pure amateurism. These people simply have no clue how to run a government.
Can the U.S. Develop Natural Resources in Russian-Occupied Ukrainian Territories? Link to heading
Question from Vladislav Klochkoff: “Do you think the U.S. could develop natural resources in Ukrainian territories that are temporarily occupied by Russia—perhaps even in cooperation with Russia?”
Vladislav, I was about to answer your question when I noticed a great response from Almaz Sadykova—a very active participant, by the way (thank you, Almaz!).
Here’s what she wrote:
“What resources? Who would be developing them? Will Trump and Musk show up with shovels? Natural resources are developed by private companies in stable regions with infrastructure and logistics—where resource extraction actually generates profit, not losses. This whole rare earth metals frenzy is just a meaningless distraction for the average American. Forget it.”
I’ll just add my two cents.
The occupied Ukrainian territories are active war zones. Bombs are falling, artillery is striking—who exactly would be running these resource operations?
No private company is going to invest in mining under constant shelling. Just look at the current state of these territories—it’s obvious that such development is impossible under these conditions.
On Likes, Donations, and Monetization Link to heading
Question from Vladimir, Hannover, Germany: (Skipping the kind words about the channel—thank you for your support!)
“Every YouTube channel—except Russian ones—receives monetization from YouTube, which is fair. But lately, all channels have been discussing Trump as a businessman who only cares about money. That’s true, but how are these channels any better when they run paid Q&As, restrict streams to Patreon supporters, or beg for likes and subscriptions in the first few seconds of a video—repeating it over and over again? It makes me want to go on eating binges I can’t physically handle.
This doesn’t apply to your channel, but I see it all the time with so-called ‘fans’ and ‘patriots.’ I personally donate 15-20 euros monthly to organizations that provide annual reports on where the money goes. I’ve even sued two organizations that spent two-thirds of their budget on salaries and only one-third on actual causes—and I won both cases.
YouTube creators never report their income to anyone. Isn’t this just another Trump-style business? I’d love to discuss this on your channel.”
Dear Vladimir,
Let’s put the dots over the i’s.
As you know, my team is tiny—it’s just me and two other people in Ukraine, plus a guest editor and a designer. That’s it.
I made a personal decision not to interrupt substantive discussions with constant reminders to “like, subscribe, and donate.” My donation links exist, but they stay in the video descriptions. If people notice and want to contribute—great. If not—so be it.
Am I losing potential channel growth and revenue because of this? Absolutely. But that’s a price I’m willing to pay.
This isn’t about me being better than those who push donations—it’s just a different approach. They do their thing, I do mine. They grow bigger audiences, while I maintain a different kind of relationship with my viewers.
Everything in content creation is about choices.
For example, I had to choose between producing higher-quality, well-researched content or publishing more frequently. I chose quantity—because I see this as an information war, and I believed it was better to “fire a machine gun” than to take one perfect sniper shot per week. Was I right? I don’t know.
The same goes for monetization. Yes, constantly asking for engagement works—channels grow faster. But I’m just not comfortable with that approach.
So, I understand your frustration, but I don’t condemn those who do it. It’s just a different way of running things.
On Trump Link to heading
Question from Miley Long:
“If Trump decides to start a war, will Americans follow him just as enthusiastically?”
I don’t think so.
And more importantly, I don’t think Trump will start a war. It’s not in his interest, and it’s not in his nature.
Curtis Yarvin Link to heading
Question from Svetlana Gunko: “Have you heard of Curtis Yarvin, an ideologue close to Trump’s inner circle? He’s been mentioned on Stanislav Kucher’s channel and by Shvets.”
Yes, I’ve already answered this question. I’ve heard of him, read about him, and looked into his ideas.
Suggestion to Invite Yury Rashkin Link to heading
Question from “Captain Obvious”: “What do you think about inviting Yury Rashkin as an expert on American politics and Trumpism? Or is that not an option?”
First, he wouldn’t accept the invitation. Second, I don’t want to invite him.
Why?
Well, I didn’t respond to Rashkin’s rather rude attack on me, which happened after my exchange with Yury Shvets.
If you recall, Shvets once claimed that I was funded by… who was it again? Oh yes—Yermak! At least, that’s what he said in one of his rants. (Of course, Mikhail Mykhailovych Podolyak does not fund me either, but Shvets confused the names.)
By now, I’m completely lost—some claim I’m funded by Biden, others say it’s the KGB, and now apparently, it’s Yermak. Meanwhile, I look out my window—no, still Vilnius. I check my bank account—nope, no secret payments. So where exactly is all this money supposed to be coming from?
Anyway, after I responded calmly and in detail, pointing out that Shvets was wrong, Rashkin suddenly jumped into the conversation uninvited and dedicated an entire stream to attacking me.
Now, unlike Shvets—who, despite saying many foolish and nasty things, at least made specific accusations—Rashkin didn’t even bother with that. He just ranted.
That’s one reason I have no interest in inviting him.
The second reason? I don’t find his criticism of Trump particularly substantive. Yes, he opposes Trump—which is great—but I don’t see serious analysis from him.
On the Verkhovna Rada’s Vote Link to heading
Question from Raisa: “How do you comment on the fact that the Verkhovna Rada did not support extending Zelensky’s powers? This was known by the morning of the 25th, but you didn’t mention it. Was it not that important?”
Dear Raisa,
First of all, the Rada has already supported it.
And honestly, my experience in parliamentary work told me this outcome was inevitable. The President’s Office was always going to work with MPs to secure the votes, and that’s exactly what happened.
That’s why I didn’t see this as a major issue and didn’t comment on it initially—because it was just a matter of time. Nothing extraordinary here.
On the Path to Russia’s Collapse Link to heading
Question from Valery Nesterov: “Igor, do you support the collapse of Russia as the most effective path to achieving peace? And what is the current state of this process?”
Let me use an analogy.
As I’ve mentioned before, I worked for two years at a Zoological Museum, where I gained a fair amount of knowledge in geology and mineralogy. I often had to break apart large chunks of granite and other minerals with a sledgehammer.
Some rocks would shatter with a single blow. Others would withstand hundreds of strikes before finally cracking. But with each hit, tiny fractures would begin to form—some visible, others microscopic.
What’s happening in Russia today is exactly this—a gradual accumulation of cracks. In geology, there’s a term for this: fractures in rock formations or minerals. These fractures emerge under external pressure until, eventually, the entire structure collapses.
Russia’s fragility is already evident, even if it’s not visible to the naked eye. Open calls for sovereignty or secession are rare because of the harsh prison sentences for such actions. But beneath the surface, the process is underway—like a peat fire smoldering underground, waiting for the moment it will break through.
So, the current state? The fractures are forming.
On Trump’s Alleged Recruitment—Again Link to heading
Question from “Vesely Dachnik” (Cheerful Gardener): “I have a question about your skepticism regarding Trump’s recruitment by Russia. You keep insisting that since there’s no ironclad proof, it means it didn’t happen.
I don’t insist that it didn’t happen. What I insist on is that I don’t know—and neither do you.
“But just look at his actions! We don’t need hard evidence—it’s obvious to any reasonable person. Putin is a war criminal who should be tried and sentenced to the highest punishment. And what does Trump do? What benefit has the U.S. gained in the past month? Nothing. He has alienated allies, gutted support for Ukraine, flushed everything down the drain. For what? For Putin. And what economic advantage has Washington gained? None. Isn’t this proof that the U.S. president is recruited by Moscow? There’s plenty of evidence—you’re just deliberately ignoring it!”
Dear colleague,
Again—I don’t insist that Trump wasn’t recruited.
What I am saying is that everything you describe can be explained by other factors.
-
Trump’s ideological affinity with Putin—This is a fact. We’ve already discussed Dark Enlightenment and its influence on Trumpism. Trump and Putin share a fundamentally authoritarian worldview, which does not require a recruitment scenario to explain their alignment.
-
Trump desperately wants “a deal.” He believes that negotiating a ceasefire—any ceasefire—will allow him to present himself as a “master dealmaker.” That’s why he grovels before Putin. This is a perfectly rational explanation that does not require him to be a Russian asset.
Now, why am I not fully convinced that Trump is recruited?
Because if he were, then how could 18 U.S. intelligence agencies have missed it?
Are we supposed to believe that the CIA, NSA, FBI, and every other major U.S. security body have been asleep at the wheel for years? If Trump had direct recruitment links to Russia, it’s highly unlikely they wouldn’t have uncovered and exposed them by now.
So, I repeat—I am not ruling it out. Maybe he was recruited. Maybe he wasn’t. But I have not seen convincing proof either way.
And the arguments you present—while understandable—are not conclusive evidence of recruitment.
On Israel’s UN Vote Link to heading
Question from Alexander Alexandrovich: “Do you not consider the possibility that Israel voted this way not because of U.S. pressure, but simply as payback for Ukraine’s vote against Israel on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?”
Dear Alexander,
I really hope that Israeli politicians are not like children in a sandbox—“Oh, Petya took my candy last time, so now I’ll pour soup on his head.”
If Israel’s decision was purely an act of petty revenge, that would be deeply disappointing.
I prefer to believe that Israel voted the way it did because the United States twisted its arm. That explanation at least allows me to maintain respect for Israel as a state caught in a difficult position, rather than seeing it as engaging in childish score-settling.
If it was just “payback”, then… well, that’s just sad.
On Weller’s Analysis Link to heading
Question from “Oduvanchik” (Dandelion):
“Is Weller suffering from full-blown Trumpism too?”
Yes, he is.
I hope we’ll discuss this in more detail on Saturday.
Is Trump Concerned with “Saving Face” for Putin, or Is It Just a Side Effect? Link to heading
Question from “Frukt” (Fruit):
“Is Trump deliberately trying to help Putin save face, or is that just a side effect?”
I think it’s an intentional goal, because Trump clearly has a personal admiration for Putin.
However, the main objective isn’t just saving Putin’s face—it’s about Trump’s own triumph. He wants to be seen as the great peacemaker, the Nobel Prize-worthy dealmaker who “ended the war.”
So, the primary motivation is self-glorification.
Saving face for Putin? That’s just a bonus.
On Zelensky’s Pre-War Speech About Nuclear Weapons Link to heading
Question from Lyudmila Chernikova: “Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Zelensky started talking about nuclear weapons for Ukraine. And you don’t consider that a provocation?”
Dear Lyudmila,
Zelensky mentioned nuclear weapons at the end of the eighth year of Russia’s occupation of Crimea and Donbas.
You say “before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” But Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014.
This larger war—the full-scale invasion of 2022—is just one phase of a war that began eight years earlier.
So, cause and effect are completely misplaced here.
Zelensky’s comments in 2022 weren’t some random provocation—they were made after eight years of Russian aggression.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning broadcast.
A quick reminder:
- At 11:00 AM – Mykhailo Podolyak
- At 1:00 PM – Dmitry Oreshkin
I believe both discussions will be very interesting.
Glory to Ukraine!
Please take care of yourselves.
Freedom for Alexander Skobov!
Thanks to his wife, we are now publishing his Prison Notebooks on our Telegram channel—powerful and deeply intellectual reflections from behind bars. These are not just political slogans, but the thoughts of a true thinker, and they deserve to be read.
Freedom for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian captives!
Take care, and see you at 11:00.
Goodbye.
Source: https://youtu.be/PFN4Y-3ude0