Putin thanked Trump and effectively refused a ceasefire. Why is the Middle East envoy negotiating with Russia? Trump continues to infringe on the sovereignty of Canada and Greenland.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 14, and the time is 07:43 Kyiv time. We continue our morning reflection on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Amendment to the Sixth Article of the USSR Link to heading
First of all, I would say that this is not so much a historical rhyme as a reminder of one of the most important events not only in the history of our country but, I would even say, in the history of humanity. This event took place on March 14, 1990, and it predetermined the death of the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviet Union died that day, on March 14, 1990. It just didn’t know it yet, because that’s how it sometimes happens with enormous organisms—dinosaurs and other such giant creatures with massive bodies—that die, but not immediately.
So, what exactly happened on March 14, 1990? A law was passed titled On the Establishment of the Post of President of the USSR and Amendments and Additions to the Constitution of the Soviet Union. People usually refer to this as the abolition of the Sixth Article, but in reality, there was no actual abolition. The article remained in place—only its text changed. In its new version, the Sixth Article of the USSR Constitution now read as follows: The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, other political parties, as well as trade unions, youth organizations, and other public associations and mass movements, through their representatives… and so on, participate in the formulation of state policy and governance. But in fact, from that moment on, the CPSU lost its monopoly on power. A multi-party system was being established in the USSR. And from that point, the Soviet Union was effectively dead.
The Sixth Article had originally been introduced thanks to the efforts of Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev and his 1977 Constitution. Before that, in Stalin’s Constitution, although in practice the party was, had been, and remained the ruling force, this was not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. But Brezhnev inserted it. The fight against the Sixth Article was ongoing. There was always an understanding among dissidents, opponents, and reform-minded individuals that something had to be done about the Soviet Union as a monstrous entity. But the credit for striking at the very heart of the Soviet system belongs to Andrei Sakharov. I remember all of this well—those discussions, those debates. Some talked about state ownership of the means of production, others about the need to do something about the KGB. But it was Sakharov who, with almost genius-level precision, pinpointed the core, the nerve, the vital link. The effort to abolish the Sixth Article, led by Sakharov, became the primary focus of the entire opposition movement at the time, including the Interregional Deputies’ Group. It was the Interregional Deputies’ Group that led the attack on the Sixth Article.
At first, it seemed impossible. I personally remember the atmosphere very well, and I didn’t know anyone who truly believed this attack would end in victory. After all, Gorbachev was categorically against it. I can even quote some of his statements, as I studied this process, including primary sources. He said, in speeches at plenums and Politburo meetings, things like: We must not be soft; we need to hit them in the face. That’s what Mikhail Sergeyevich said. He called the opposition people trying to seize power. He was particularly vocal against the Democratic Platform within the CPSU. His stance was quite rigid.
At the same time, some of the largest protests in Soviet history were taking place, aimed at abolishing the Sixth Article. The largest of them happened on February 4, 1990. It was probably the most massive demonstration in modern Russian history. Just look at what Moscow looked like back then. This is Manezhnaya Square—completely packed with people. Many of us surely remember this. The adjacent streets were also completely jammed. Tverskaya Street, the entire center of Moscow—densely packed with people protesting the Sixth Article. At that same time, a CPSU Central Committee plenum was being held, where the entire party apparatus was united against repealing the Sixth Article.
Ultimately, this battle ended in victory for those in the streets. But I must point out that when democratic forces from that era claim full credit for this victory, we should remember that Mikhail Sergeyevich was actually fighting on two fronts. On one side, he was fighting against us, calling us all sorts of names and trying to preserve the party’s power. On the other side, he was battling the party apparatus, which was largely against him. We must not forget the infamous article by Nina Andreyeva, nor the likes of Yegor Kuzmich Ligachev and other reactionaries within the CPSU. Gorbachev was fighting the party machine.
Mikhail Sergeyevich made a decision. That’s why this law included not only the amendment to the Sixth Article but also the introduction of the presidency. He was counting on the idea that he could establish a personalist regime—his own autocratic rule—since the presidential powers granted were immense and essentially created a system of personal rule. But it didn’t work out because Gorbachev, it seems, didn’t fully understand what the Soviet Union really was. He failed to grasp that the Sixth Article was the very hook on which the entire Soviet system hung. By abolishing it, he pulled that hook from the structure of the USSR, and the Soviet Union died.
So, this is a story with many layers.
Moscow’s Reaction to the Ceasefire Proposal Link to heading
Well, let’s move on to today’s events, as they may also play a significant role in the future fate of Russia. Moscow has openly and unequivocally rejected the joint proposal from the United States and Ukraine for a 30-day ceasefire. This rejection unfolded in two stages. First, Sergei Ushakov, an aide to Putin, made a statement. Speaking on Russia 1, he said that Russia’s goal is a long-term peaceful settlement. However, the steps taken by the United States and Ukraine are, in his words, unnecessary and merely an imitation of peace efforts. He further stated that the proposed 30-day ceasefire is nothing more than an opportunity for Ukraine to regroup its forces.
More significant, of course, was Putin’s speech yesterday. Let’s take a look at a small excerpt from it. “First of all, we agree with the proposals to cease hostilities, but we proceed from the premise that this cessation must lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the root causes of this crisis.” Now, regarding Ukraine’s willingness to cease hostilities—well, the U.S.-Ukrainian meeting in Saudi Arabia may outwardly seem like a decision made under American pressure. However, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side must have urged the Americans to push for this as forcefully as possible, given the situation on the ground."
This brief excerpt contains several important messages. First, these statements were made at a press conference that Putin held jointly with Lukashenko. This was yesterday’s press conference. The key points in Putin’s statements are, first and foremost, the issue of control—who will be in control. Second, he effectively demanded the surrender of the Ukrainian forces located in the Kursk region. He began by showering Trump with gratitude, praising him for not paying too much attention to the settlement process from the outset. Putin said that he agrees with ceasing hostilities, but only if it leads to a long-term peace and addresses the root causes of the crisis.
So, what are the nuances here? First, the issue of Ukrainian armed forces in the Kursk region. Next, the question of how matters will be resolved along the contact line, where, according to Putin, Russian forces are advancing. But the most crucial point, of course, is how to prevent what Putin sees as inevitable—the continued supply of weapons to Ukraine, its ongoing militarization, and its ability to carry out mobilization efforts. From Putin’s perspective, this is unacceptable. However, the fact that Russia itself will continue to arm itself is, in his view, entirely acceptable.
And finally, the fundamental issue—what exactly does Putin mean by “root causes”? From his perspective, the root cause is Ukraine’s very desire to be an independent state outside Russia’s sphere of influence. That is the root cause that must be eliminated, in Putin’s view. This is his vision of the world. Notably, Ukraine has enshrined in its constitution its aspiration to join the European Union and NATO, which Putin sees as something that must be undone as part of addressing the so-called “root causes.” Interestingly, in this regard, Putin partially aligns with Trump, who has also stated that Ukraine will not be joining NATO.
Unsurprisingly, Zelensky immediately responded, calling Putin’s position highly predictable and manipulative. It is hard to disagree with the Ukrainian president on this matter. In reality, as Senator Marco Rubio put it, the ball is now back in Trump’s court.
Nothing Is Known About the Meeting Link to heading
Today, in theory, we should have learned the results of yesterday’s evening meeting between Putin and Trump’s special envoy, Tim Witkoff. But, you know, this is quite a separate story. There are many questions surrounding this meeting, so let’s break it down. This meeting was perhaps the most important event of yesterday, yet almost nothing is known about it. This is a topic that warrants serious discussion. The first question is: why was a Middle East envoy sent by Trump to negotiate on Ukraine? I don’t know—perhaps Trump believes that Russia is in the Middle East. His knowledge of geography and history is, after all, quite peculiar. But on a more serious note, why, essentially?
You see, Trump has a designated envoy for Ukraine and Russia—Keith Kellogg. He also has a special envoy for the Middle East—Steve Witkoff. So why is the Middle East envoy handling issues related to Russia and Ukraine? The likely reason is this: first and foremost, Steve Witkoff is a billionaire, a diplomat, and a developer—essentially, a real estate mogul whom Trump trusts as much as he trusts himself. As is well known, Trump doesn’t trust generals very much. And in fact, Witkoff has already proven himself in negotiations with Putin. Notably, he played a role in the talks that led to the release of U.S. citizen Marc Fogel, who was exchanged for Russian citizen Alexander Vinnik. So he has experience in successful negotiations with Putin.
Additionally—and this is just speculation—since Witkoff is a billionaire with extensive business negotiation experience, it’s quite possible that part of the discussions involved certain personal preferences or deals for either Putin or Trump. But that’s just guesswork. What seems crucial here is that, despite all these negotiations, there was no official statement from anyone—neither from Putin nor from anyone else—about what was discussed.
Moreover, this morning, just before our conversation, I was trying to find any mention of Putin’s meeting with Witkoff on the Kremlin’s website—and that’s why I was a bit late. But there is no record of this meeting. There is a lengthy transcript of Putin’s meeting with Lukashenko, filled with extensive commentary. But as for a meeting between Putin and a U.S. representative? Nothing. Furthermore, reports emerged that Witkoff, who had flown in specifically for this meeting, was kept waiting for several hours while Putin was busy talking with Lukashenko.
During this meeting, Lukashenko entertained Putin with his typical rural humor, joking that if Putin and Trump came to an agreement, it would spell disaster for Ukraine, the U.S., and Europe. The entire hall burst into laughter, enjoying this shared moment of camaraderie. Meanwhile, Trump’s envoy was left waiting—likely in some corridor.
I don’t doubt that a meeting between Putin and Trump’s envoy did, in fact, take place. Most likely, it did happen. But what was discussed remains unknown. As for the U.S. National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, he gave a brief comment—he didn’t say much, only that Witkoff had informed him about the talks with Putin and that the U.S. maintains “cautious optimism.” We’ll see how things unfold. My guess is that Putin didn’t engage in any serious discussions with Trump’s envoy, considering him not important enough. The real negotiations will likely take place in a direct meeting between Putin and Trump. That’s the story.
Trump Himself Acts Like an Aggressor Link to heading
Now, regarding Trump—this is directly relevant to our topic because the person negotiating with Putin is simultaneously trying to resolve the conflict… well, not just a conflict, but a monstrous, bloody war that Putin is waging in Ukraine. At the same time, this so-called peacemaker is openly engaging in aggressive actions—so far without bloodshed, but hinting at the possibility of violence—against Greenland and Canada.
Recently, at a meeting with the head of NATO, Trump stated that he is indeed preparing to annex Greenland. In his comments yesterday, there were even suggestions that he is willing to use NATO in the process of integrating Greenland. The reaction from Greenland’s outgoing prime minister was extremely harsh. As you know, elections were recently held in Greenland, and power has changed hands. The outgoing prime minister said that the President of the United States has once again brought up the idea of annexing Greenland and that it’s enough already. The new leader of Greenland, Jens Frederik Nielsen, who heads the party that won the parliamentary elections on Tuesday, also reacted very negatively. He stated that Trump’s comments were unacceptable and only reinforced the need for Greenlanders to stand together in such situations. Clearly, Greenland is not going to succumb to Trump’s pressure.
Yesterday, I also looked at public opinion polls, and the data shows that the overwhelming majority of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S., while at the same time supporting independence from Denmark. Additionally, Trump made another statement yesterday, claiming that Denmark should become the 51st state of the United States. He also reiterated his demand to regain control over the Panama Canal.
So, you see, this “peacemaker” Trump is, without a doubt, an aggressor—so far without bloodshed, without deploying troops. However, he has stated that the U.S. may send military personnel to strengthen its dominance over Greenland.
Will Putin Be Able to Sway Trump? Link to heading
You see, Putin and Trump are undoubtedly kindred spirits. The question here is how successfully Putin can persuade Trump not to take any serious measures against Russia—how well he can present his position by saying, “We support establishing a 30-day ceasefire, but there are nuances.” The key issue is whether Putin’s “nuances” will be convincing to Trump, given that Trump holds similar views regarding Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal.
We will likely find out the answers after a direct meeting between Putin and Trump. But first, let’s look at what has already happened. Essentially, based on everything that took place yesterday, it seems that Trump’s special envoy for the Middle East, after traveling to Russia, has now realized that Russia is, in fact, not the Middle East. These are the events from yesterday that I believe are important for us to reflect on together.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
Moving on to answering your questions. So…
What Will Happen in 30 Days If Putin Agrees? Link to heading
A question from Inferno:
Suppose Putin agrees to a 30-day ceasefire. Hypothetically, those 30 days pass—then what?
Well, as I understand it, the plan developed jointly by the United States and Ukraine in Saudi Arabia envisions that during these 30 days, negotiations should take place on the conditions for a lasting peace. That’s the idea, at least in theory.
In reality, I believe that throughout these 30 days, there will be multiple violations of the ceasefire—just as a matter of fact. Yesterday, I explained why I think so. But we’ll see. Right now, dear colleague, we are essentially discussing the skin of a bear that has not yet been hunted.
As for the idea itself, if we analyze it critically, it is structured in a way that these 30 days should be used for serious negotiations on what a future peace should look like. After that, either the ceasefire is extended, or some more substantial truce is reached. However, I personally see the likelihood of either outcome as negligible—but that is just my assessment.
Of course, I would be very happy to be proven wrong. Every single day of peace, every day without fighting, is an immense blessing. The only question is: how realistic is it?
Do Russian Intelligence Agencies Influence Trump? Link to heading
Cape Horn:
After reading Trump’s statements in Austria—particularly his absurd remark about Greenland—I suspect that Russian intelligence is brainwashing him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he relies on their information. What do you think?
Well, I’m not sure Trump even needs Russian intelligence to have his brainwashed. I think he has plenty of his own advisors, and his mind is, let’s say, already quite thoroughly “washed” with his own cleaning products. So, I don’t believe Trump requires Russian intelligence agencies to say what he says and do what he does.
On the Idea That “A Politician Shouldn’t Say What They Really Think” Link to heading
Ilya:
Your comment about how a politician shouldn’t say what they truly think caught my attention. Could you elaborate on this idea? If that’s the case, why should people believe and support them? After all, Churchill, for example, was honest with the British people in 1940 when he spoke about “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Does a politician have to be a populist to appeal to voters? Because no one would vote for blood, toil, and tears, right?
Dear Ilya, here’s the thing. Churchill, of course, told his people the truth about blood, toil, and tears. But I highly doubt that when he spoke with Stalin, he told him exactly what he thought of him. I really doubt that.
You see, for me, politics is about necessity. I’ve had some experience with it myself before running away from it, and I understand that politics often requires things like going to Zyuganov to negotiate his support for a bill or persuading Zhirinovsky to back something. And in doing so, you can’t tell either of them everything you truly think about them. That’s just how it works.
Yes, Churchill spoke the truth to his people at certain moments. But when dealing with international partners, he clearly had to bite his tongue and say things quite different from what he actually thought. He even paid Stalin compliments—I doubt he genuinely meant them. Since Churchill was mentioned, I’ll use him as an example, but the same applies more broadly.
And honestly, elements of populism are necessary in politics—there’s no way around it. Politics is often described as “the art of the possible,” and that directly applies to the ability to always tell the truth. In politics, that’s simply not realistic. It’s absolutely impossible.
Proposal to Invite Igor Eidman Link to heading
Ulanova:
Is there a chance to hear Igor Eidman on your channel? You and he share many similar views. It would be interesting to listen to your conversation.
Dear Lana, I should mention that Igor Eidman was on our channel relatively recently. It was his first time, but I don’t think it will be his last. He is indeed a fascinating person—an interesting publicist and sociologist. We do share many common views, though I can’t say if it’s on everything. In any case, I believe he will continue to appear on our channel from time to time.
Why Is Radzinsky Silent About What’s Happening in Ukraine? Link to heading
Katerina Zuckerman:
In your opinion, why is the well-known historian Radzinsky silent about what’s happening in Ukraine? He writes books about repression and Stalin, yet he remains quiet about the most important issue.
You know, all I really know about Edvard Radzinsky is that he is no longer in Russia. I’ve come across mentions of him saying that he left the country. But in recent years, as far as I’m aware, he has rarely appeared in public, partly due to severe stress following a high-profile fatal car accident in 2011. As I understand it, a 24-year-old passenger died in that accident, and it seems that after that, he significantly reduced his public activity.
Once again, I’m not Radzinsky’s biographer, so I might be mistaken about some details. But this is what came to mind in response to your question.
Why Are There So Few Objective Analysts? Link to heading
Ivan Vasilyevich asks:
For many years of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, aside from blatant propaganda, society has also received information from experts, analysts, and political scientists. But almost all of them are biased due to their personal views on one side or the other. Why are there so few objective analysts, and why are those who do exist not very popular? This artificial division of society into two camps, as you put it, leaves people with no alternative—either you are for or against. Everyone talks about peace, but for that, there must be mutual repentance and acknowledgment of mistakes. Instead, the opposite is happening. Why is this being done, and who benefits from it?
Ivan Vasilyevich, there are two key points here that I’d like to reflect on with you.
First, you call this division artificial, but I don’t see it that way. To me, it is a completely natural division. There is a war going on. And since there are two sides fighting—one being Russia, which is the aggressor that attacked Ukraine—some people support one side or the other. You are either on the side of the aggressor or on the side of the victim. This is not an artificial division; it is a natural one. What exactly is artificial about it? Has someone externally forced me to take a position? I stand with Ukraine, I am against Russia—not just against Putin, but against Russia as the aggressor in this war. No one made me do this. So where is the artificiality? It is simply a choice between two sides in a war.
Second, you talk about “mutual repentance.” But why should the victim of aggression have to repent? What exactly should Ukraine and Ukrainians repent for? For the fact that they were attacked? Should we apply the logic of victim-blaming—that Ukraine was “walking through a dark park in a short skirt”? Is that it? I do not accept that. I understand this argument, but I fundamentally disagree with it.
Now, on to the more important question—objective information. In my view, there is no contradiction here. Can someone take a side and still provide objective analysis? I believe they can. And here’s why: every person, every analyst, is a carrier of certain specialized knowledge—whether in history, military affairs, political science, or other fields. In that capacity, they can (and should) analyze events as they are.
At the same time, no one is performing a lobotomy on analysts, political scientists, or economists to remove the parts of their brains responsible for political opinions. A person can hold political views while still striving for objectivity. It is entirely possible. Yes, it requires effort, but it can be done.
For example, I support Ukraine in this war—without a doubt. But that does not mean I will deny reality. Right now, Ukrainian forces are clearly withdrawing from the Kursk region. Eventually, the occupiers will push them out completely—not immediately, but over time. My support for Ukraine does not mean I will pretend this isn’t happening.
That’s my point. Sympathy for one side does not automatically turn someone into a propagandist who must lie. No. One can be on one side of a conflict and still tell the truth. These things are not mutually exclusive.
About Those Who Abuse Animals Link to heading
Margarita:
I want to ask about animals since I know how you feel about them. Do you think that those monsters who torture animals are capable of anything? I have a dog, and I feel physically sick knowing that animals suffer and cannot defend themselves. Where does this cruelty even come from? Here in Finland, even cats rarely roam freely. If someone sees a well-groomed house cat or a dog wandering alone, people immediately report it, and the owner usually finds their pet quickly. I’ve never seen a stray dog here. I also thought about how, if animal abusers are sent to war, what horrors they might commit there. But then again, history has shown the opposite—take Hitler, for example, who killed people but was kind to animals.
You know, there is definitely a correlation between how someone treats animals and their overall character. Let’s be clear: all animal abusers are despicable, but not all animal lovers are necessarily good people. That much I can agree on.
Now, as for the root of this cruelty—there are two main factors. First, inherent sadism. Since harming children, for example, carries serious consequences, some people turn their cruelty toward animals instead, thinking it’s “safe.” That’s why sadism and a lack of empathy—traits that are highly valued in the Russian army right now—are so prevalent among those who abuse animals. These people are in high demand for precisely that reason. This is well-documented in the crimes we plan to investigate in an upcoming special program titled Tribunal.
What’s the Point of Analysis? Can an Analyst Change the World? Link to heading
Irina Medvedeva:
What’s the point of all this analysis? Are you—or are we—able to influence future events in any way?
Dear Irina, what’s the point of reading books at all? What’s the point of following the news? People can’t change everything, so why do they read the press or listen to the news? Should we just bury our heads in the sand and passively wait for whatever happens to us?
I don’t believe that our conversations and attempts to understand what’s happening are completely useless. First, understanding events helps people avoid panic, feel less isolated, and be prepared. Beyond that, people shape their own destinies—they make decisions, sometimes very concrete ones.
Let’s be clear: much depends on a person’s specific situation. If someone is in Russia, they need to understand the dangers of the regime’s transformation. They need to grasp that they may have to leave or, at the very least, take measures to protect themselves—maintaining personal safety, avoiding complicity with the regime, and so on.
For those abroad, there are ways to make a tangible impact—whether by influencing voters, providing aid to Ukraine’s armed forces, helping refugees, or engaging in informational efforts. These are all practical aspects of what we discuss.
But most importantly, these conversations matter to people. Talking with others is a fundamental human function. That’s why I believe what we do is not only important but has real effects. Above all, it matters to people. And people need to be heard.
Why Russian Soldiers Don’t Defect to the Enemy Side Link to heading
Pan Stepan,
Why is it that in the current war in Ukraine, we don’t see the kind of large-scale defections that occurred during the Russian Civil War, when significant numbers of soldiers switched sides and then fought for their former enemies? At one point, this was the main way the White Army replenished its ranks, and some soldiers even changed sides three or four times. It’s clear that most rank-and-file soldiers back then weren’t fighting for an ideology. But I’m convinced that even now, the majority of Russian soldiers have no ideological motivation whatsoever. And yet, we don’t hear about large numbers of defectors. Or is it that the Ukrainians are deliberately refusing to incorporate them into their forces? Shouldn’t this issue be reconsidered, given Ukraine’s shortage of soldiers?
Dear Pan Stepan,
First of all, I believe—and I think you’ll agree with me—that your analogy with the Civil War is fundamentally flawed. What is happening now on Ukrainian territory, and not only there—take the Kursk region, for example—is clearly not a civil war. Do you see what I mean? Back then, in the last century, it was indeed a civil war because it was fought between citizens of the same state—the Russian Empire. But today, this is an aggressive war waged by one state against another. And that’s a fundamental distinction, which also manifests itself in the processes you’re referring to.
You see, in a genuine civil war, switching sides happens more or less naturally. It was like that back then—after all, they were all still Russians. So what difference did it make which side they fought for? But that’s not the case here. This is not a civil war. And that, I believe, is the key flaw in your analysis.
Secondly, I don’t have quantitative data on how many Russian occupiers have actually defected. It’s clear that they surrender in large numbers, but how many of them have subsequently joined the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—I don’t know. I think part of the issue is that the Ukrainian military is understandably wary of “Trojan horses”—they worry that those who ostensibly switch sides might still be hiding a metaphorical grenade under their coat, ready to strike.
As for Ukrainian soldiers defecting to the occupiers—since you mentioned that during the Russian Civil War, soldiers switched sides both ways—well, perhaps there have been isolated cases, but I haven’t heard of any significant numbers. Even Russian propaganda channels report cases of Ukrainian soldiers surrendering, but not about them defecting to fight for the occupiers. So it simply doesn’t happen. And the reason for that is precisely that this is a war, but not a civil war.
That’s why I believe that while cases of Russian soldiers joining the Ukrainian side do exist, they are naturally far fewer than during the Civil War—because this is not a civil war. Here, the two sides are outright enemies, enemies by nationality, enemies in a war between two distinct states. In a civil war, many people—especially the majority of the peasantry, since the Russian Empire was still largely a peasant country—didn’t even fully understand what they were fighting for. That’s why soldiers switched sides so often back then.
But here, everything is clear. It’s clear who the aggressor is. You don’t even need propaganda to explain what’s happening.
So the main reason is that this is not a civil war.
Why the Author Opposes TNR Link to heading
Question from Yulia.
I was surprised, writes Yulia, that you are against TNR. I remind you that this stands for trap-neuter-return. Yulia is outraged—why am I so involved in this issue? I clean five apartment buildings in different areas in Israel. In places where the cats are sterilized, they have their ears clipped. The animals look more or less okay. But there is one building in the city of Kolon, on Salem Street, where there are a huge number of unsterilized animals. It is especially painful to see nursing mothers—they look like skeletons. You once mentioned that you were struck by the cats in Jerusalem. Maybe in the central streets of big cities, they are taken care of, but here in Israel, I see that the problem is huge. The waiting lists for sterilization last for months. By the way, when I started feeding the cats, the managers watched me on the cameras and were outraged. The landlord warned me not to do it. So why do you think TNR is bad? The animals don’t reproduce, they don’t give birth to sick and skinny kittens. Yes, I also support changes in legislation so that animal rights are closer to human rights. But in a situation like Israel’s, is TNR really evil?
Dear Yulia!
It seems that either I have a problem with my diction, or you weren’t listening carefully. When I said that I am categorically against TNR, I was specifically talking about TNR for dogs. For dogs. Because—let me clarify—I clearly stated that I do consider TNR for cats to be acceptable. Acceptable.
However, there are nuances. You see, Israel is a warm country, and TNR for cats in a warm climate is fine. TNR for cats in a northern country, where basements are sealed up and they have to endure freezing temperatures, is a different issue. A serious issue. But at the same time, I clearly said that TNR for cats is at least somewhat acceptable.
For dogs, though, it’s a real problem, because dogs released back onto the streets after TNR form packs, and they can become a threat. Although I believe that the hysteria about stray dogs being a danger is exaggerated, the concern itself is valid.
I truly consider love for animals to be something like a quasi-religion for me. But even I have found myself in situations where a large pack of big, aggressive stray dogs posed a real danger. And while someone with experience handling animals might be able to prevent a tragic outcome, not everyone has those skills. Not everyone knows how to deal with large, wild, hostile dogs. That is a serious problem.
So, TNR for dogs—categorically no. TNR for cats—well, if there’s no humane alternative, then it’s a viable option.
Could the Withdrawal of Ukrainian Soldiers from the Kursk Region Be the Result of a Deal with Putin? Link to heading
Natalia Savva,
Do you think the withdrawal of Ukrainian soldiers from the Kursk region could be part of an agreement with Putin—not necessarily to exchange territories, but to reclaim them later? Perhaps this would be followed by a successful counterattack, for example, in the Japanese direction, allowing Ukraine to regain its territories in the Kharkiv region.
Dear Natalia,
I think this is another joke that’s a bit too subtle for our circus, and I don’t believe it. I don’t think there was any such agreement.
You see, the idea that Ukraine’s military or political leadership—Zelensky, for example—would be making deals with Putin? Or that Gerasimov would be negotiating with someone about the withdrawal from the Kursk region with a further plan in mind? I don’t know—it seems a bit far-fetched to me. Either that, or I’ve completely missed the depth of the strategic plan here.
So, if I were to answer your question directly, Natalia, I’d say no.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning stream. Please take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Ukrainian prisoners of war, and all prisoners, including Russian political prisoners. Wishing you all the best! Take care! Have a great weekend. See you soon. All the best.