Trump suggested that Zelensky give the U.S. nuclear power plants, while Putin proposed that Trump divide the planet into three with Xi. Erdogan is eliminating a political rival.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 20. It is now 07:42 in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, the world, Ukraine, and in our souls.
First, a few words about what is happening in the United States of America. This is truly the main source of information today. Although, of course, what is happening on the battlefield in Ukraine may be more relevant to us, the tone is still set by the United States, and they remain the main newsmaker.
Carlson stated that Europe would be better under fascism Link to heading
Tucker Carlson said what he thinks. He suggests that Europe would be better if Hitler had won World War II. It is more or less clear that during World War II, people like Tucker Carlson were on Hitler’s side. Today, he is on the side of Putin and Trump. And they no longer feel ashamed.
So, when my conversation partners say, “No, come on, what fascism? There’s no fascism here,”—no, they are not hiding it. They openly say that they are on Hitler’s side, right? They openly say, “Yes, we are fascists. So what?”
This is just a small detail. After all, Tucker Carlson, despite not holding any official positions, is undoubtedly one of the key and obvious members of Trump’s team—just a little side note.
Trump suggested that Zelensky hand over Ukrainian power plants to the U.S. Link to heading
After Putin, one of the significant events was Trump’s hour-long conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky. One of the key moments in this conversation was the American president’s proposal to the Ukrainian president regarding American ownership. That is, Trump suggested that Zelensky transfer ownership of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants to the United States. This was reported by White House Press Secretary Carolyn Levitt immediately after the conversation ended, during a briefing.
According to her, Trump sees this decision as the best way to protect Ukrainian infrastructure. I will quote what the White House press secretary said:
“President Trump also discussed the issue of power supply to Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. He stated that the United States could provide significant assistance in managing these facilities, using its expertise in the energy sector. American ownership of these plants would offer better protection for this infrastructure and support Ukraine’s energy system.”
This statement was echoed by U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who recently said on Fox News that the U.S. sees no problem in the potential transfer of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants under Washington’s control. “Well, what’s the problem?” he asked. He went on to say that the U.S. has extensive technical expertise in managing such plants and that if achieving this goal—meaning the resolution of the war—requires American management of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities, then “there’s no issue.”
Now, both arguments are quite reasonable: the U.S. has significant experience in running power plants, and ownership would provide protection. But I don’t quite understand why this should stop at nuclear power plants. With their managerial expertise, Americans could probably do a great job overseeing Ukraine’s natural resources, railways, and even waste collection. And as for handling Ukraine’s finances—well, that would be a masterpiece!
So, following this logic (which is, indeed, flawless), Ukraine should follow Canada’s example and become the 52nd U.S. state. Then, any attack on Ukraine by Putin would be equivalent to an attack on the United States. Sounds perfect, doesn’t it? No need for any other solutions—Ukraine should simply integrate into the U.S. completely.
Now, there’s only one question left. Everything else is clear: all countries should become additional U.S. states. But why stop at Ukraine? This is clearly about expanding the number of states—probably to around 200, or even 250, considering that there are roughly 200 countries in the world (192 in the UN, plus the existing 50 U.S. states). So, in the end, we’d have about 242 states. Not bad! Make America Great Again!
Essentially, this would mean creating the United States of Planet Earth. Though, now that I say it out loud, the abbreviation “USPE” doesn’t sound quite right. That needs some work—perhaps it should be rebranded in a way that appeals more globally. But overall, the idea makes sense.
To be honest, I think this is exactly what Trump is aiming for. Yesterday, in a conversation with Stanislav Kucher, the idea was raised that Trump wants to become President of the World. In principle, China is also trying to implement a similar vision, but somehow, it’s not going so well—people keep rejecting it. For some reason, no one seems to like this brilliant idea.
Aftertaste of the Trump-Putin Conversation Link to heading
A few words about the outcome. The aftertaste and some reflection on the conversation between Putin and Trump remain the central event. Before I share my own thoughts on what happened, I want to quote the reactions of two figures who, in my opinion, are quite significant. There’s a huge collection of reactions, but to avoid turning this stream into a 24-hour broadcast, I’ll limit myself to two quotes.
First, Dmitry Medvedev—no need to explain who he is, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council. Here’s what he said:
“The phone conversation between President Putin and Trump confirmed a well-known idea: at the table, there are only Russia and America. On the menu—light appetizers: Brussels sprouts, British chips, and a Parisian rooster. The main course? Chicken Kyiv. Bon appétit!”
Essentially, this is a rather Western-style commentary on what Putin is proposing.
And from the other side of the Atlantic, we have a different perspective from historian Timothy Snyder. His reaction was quite predictable:
“It’s entirely expected that Putin rejects Ukraine’s unconditional ceasefire proposal and instead sends Trump on a mission to facilitate Russia’s invasion while denying Ukraine’s sovereignty—all while Trump claims he has achieved something.”
Overall, this seems like a balanced and objective analysis of what is being proposed.
Dividing Planet Earth into Three Link to heading
In reality, Putin keeps making offers to Trump. And why not? After all, they are both imperialists—two men who want to expand their territories. Let’s not bother with minor details like Europe, Ukraine, and so on. Let’s divide the world and invite a third player, because he’s also big and powerful, and he also has nuclear weapons. In the end, we’ll split the world into three.
It’s worth noting that, unlike Putin, Trump is entangled in external constraints—American public opinion, Congress, and people who still uphold certain standards of decency. But overall, Trump has openly expressed similar views both during and after his election campaign. He has spoken about America inevitably taking Greenland. He vowed to reclaim the Panama Canal. He repeatedly insists that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state and regularly refers to the Canadian prime minister as a governor.
Not long ago, when he was still entertaining the idea of relocating Palestinians to Mars, he even suggested that the U.S. could take ownership of the Gaza Strip. In other words, territorial expansion is an obsession for him. The whole Make America Great Again concept is fundamentally tied to expansion. So Putin’s proposal—his style of thinking—is not foreign to Trump at all. The real question is which impulse will prevail in Trump’s mind.
That’s why I believe NATO should seriously consider the possibility that Trump might play along with Putin’s game and attempt to divide the world into three. And China certainly wouldn’t be left out—it’s more than ready to take part in this global carve-up.
For starters, there’s Taiwan. Though small in size, it is a key prize, as it dominates global semiconductor production. Absorbing Taiwan would be a world-shaking event. That’s precisely why Xi Jinping sees control over Taiwan as a national destiny and a core element of China’s historical legacy.
Just recently, in a speech, Xi called Taiwan sacred Chinese territory and declared that the issue can no longer be passed from one generation to the next. He fully understands that annexing Taiwan under his rule would secure his place in history—comparable to Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China.
So, Xi’s fixation on Taiwan might be even stronger than Putin’s on Ukraine. And Putin’s Ukraine obsession doesn’t even compare to Trump’s fixation on Greenland and Canada.
In short, these three seem more than ready to take part in slicing up the global pie.
Strengthening Dictatorship in Turkey Link to heading
And now, another predator worth mentioning. Erdoğan has just begun preparing for the 2028 presidential elections. In those elections, his main opponent will undoubtedly be the mayor of Istanbul, İmamoğlu.
In response, Turkish police raided the mayor’s home, detained and arrested him, along with about 100 of his associates—including businessmen and journalists. All of them belong to the secular camp, advocating for a Turkey without jihadism. Meanwhile, Erdoğan’s regime has blocked social media platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube, completely sealing off the information space. Streets in Istanbul have also been cordoned off to prevent mass protests.
Nevertheless, protests erupted. Let’s take a look at how the people of Istanbul are reacting. And for a fuller picture, let’s watch another video—because these demonstrations are truly massive, a clear response to what is an obvious crackdown.
I won’t go into all the internal details, but it’s evident that the charges against Istanbul’s mayor are entirely fabricated. Erdoğan’s loyalists have even gone so far as to annul his degrees from both the Kremlin and Moscow State University, which he earned back in the 1990s. Under Turkish law, a candidate for president must have a higher education, so this move is nothing more than an attempt to disqualify him from running.
Essentially, Erdoğan’s cleansing of the political field is eerily similar to what Putin did to secure his grip on power. Putin eliminated opponents—sometimes literally—and controlled the flow of information. What’s happening in Turkey right now is strikingly reminiscent of that: shutting down information channels, removing political rivals through brute force.
As we can see, the law of the strong is prevailing in many countries today. Putin, Trump, Erdoğan, and Xi Jinping are all figures who, in defiance of legal principles, are attempting to enforce their own rule through raw power.
The key issue now is how resistance is forming—both within these countries and among neighboring nations that are trying to push back against expansionism. That’s a separate discussion. But for now, the most important thing is that there is no full-fledged alliance of dictatorships—yet. That remains our main hope. The dark times we are witnessing have not yet given rise to a united Axis of Dictatorships. But the signs are accumulating.
This growing coalition of authoritarian regimes is something we will discuss further in upcoming broadcasts.
Q&A Link to heading
Before moving on to your questions, I want to mention that tonight at 21:30, we will have a conversation with Vitaly Portnikov. I think it will be very interesting—don’t miss it. So, 21:30, Vitaly Portnikov.
Now, let’s move on to your questions.
On the Author’s Anti-Imperialism and His View on Israel Link to heading
Question from Alla Nikolaevna:
Igor Alexandrovich, does your anti-imperialism apply to everyone, or only to Russia? What about Israel with its historical arguments and constant seizures of neighboring territories? While the freedom-loving Syrian people were overthrowing the dictator Assad, Israel grabbed a piece of land for itself. I haven’t heard your outrage about that.
Dear Alla Nikolaevna, let me explain by pointing out two key aspects that I believe will convince you.
First, regarding Israel—I’ll get to that shortly. But in general, imperial ambitions exist in many countries. My anti-imperialist stance is not limited to Russia; it also applies to the United States and China. In fact, everything I’ve just said proves that my criticism of imperialism is not exclusive to Russia. However, I do focus on Russia primarily because I am a Russian citizen. Of course, Russia interests me the most—I don’t hide that. Even though I now try to view the world through Ukrainian eyes, my main concern as a Russian remains Russia. That is why I feel strongly about and am fixated on Russian society. But as you can see, I have also spoken about the imperial tendencies of Trump and Xi Jinping, so my position is not one-sided.
Now, regarding Israel—you are likely referring to the Golan Heights. From the very beginning of its existence, Israel has faced aggression from Arab states. This is well-documented, and I won’t delve into a full historical overview because the facts are widely known. Israel has never been the aggressor; it has always been on the receiving end of attacks and has had to defend itself.
As for the Golan Heights, we can look at history: when they were not under Israeli control, Israeli territory was regularly shelled from that area. Israel did not invade the Golan Heights out of expansionist ambitions; rather, the attacks were coming from the Heights. This high ground provides a strategic advantage, as it allows for easy shelling of Israel’s small and vulnerable territory. To prevent this, Israel took control of the region.
In fact, Israel’s entire history is a response to repeated attempts to annihilate it. Israel does not seek to destroy any Arab state, any Middle Eastern country, or any country in the world. On the contrary, it is Israel that others—especially Iran and its numerous proxies—are trying to eliminate.
So, I believe the situation is quite clear. Israel has no imperial ambitions, while others—such as Iran and Erdogan’s Turkey, with its dreams of reviving the Ottoman Empire—certainly do. Israel’s only goal is survival. There is no expansionist agenda; no Israeli seeks to conquer foreign land. The control over the Golan Heights is purely a matter of self-defense—nothing more.
If you still want to consider Israel an empire, that’s quite amusing. Just take a look at a map—such an enormous empire, isn’t it?
On Justice: What If the Nazis Had Won World War II? Link to heading
Question from Viktor (via Telegram chat):
“You mentioned the triumph of justice, which is based on the concept of measure. But if the Nazi Germans had won, would justice then be on their side? They also claimed that God was with them. They also prayed. Does this mean justice is a relative concept? Does it simply mean that whoever wins gets to define justice? Criminals never admit they are committing crimes—they always justify their actions with lofty ideals. For the Nazis, it was the idea of purifying the Aryan race. That’s why appeals to justice don’t work with criminals—they have their own version of justice. There is no absolute up or down in this world. On a cosmic scale, everything is relative. Whoever wins, celebrates their version of justice, while the defeated gather strength for their own future triumph. And so the cycle repeats. It would be better if it weren’t just a cycle but a spiral—one where morality, compassion, and understanding of others’ suffering gradually grow. Where people develop a broader view of the world, grasp the fundamentals of life, and accept the existence of a subtle afterlife. Maybe then, one day, Earth will truly become a place of justice and light.”
I read this in full because it’s not just a question—it’s more of an argument or a philosophical remark. I think it’s important, so I’ll take a minute or two to address it.
There have been similar comments under my previous morning broadcast—many people share Viktor’s view, essentially asking: What justice are we even talking about when we see what’s happening in the world?
Viktor has formulated a classic skeptical perspective, one that I’d call total relativism. But before addressing that, I want to point out one small detail: the Nazis were actually quite skeptical about religion. Yes, they didn’t outright ban it, but they had no problem imprisoning Catholic priests. So, the idea that they prayed—while not entirely false—shouldn’t be overemphasized.
Now, to the core argument about relativism—the claim that everything is relative, that justice does not exist, and that in the grand scale of the universe, there is no “up” or “down”.
If we’re talking about the universe as a whole—galaxies, cosmic phenomena—then yes, obviously, there is no justice in that realm. Justice is a human concept. Before humans existed, there was no such thing. Was there justice in the age of the dinosaurs? In the earliest moments of life on Earth? Of course not. Justice exists only because humans exist. That’s a key point.
The second issue is historical change. Justice, like freedom, is a value—a concept of what should be. And values evolve. Just as ideas of truth, goodness, and beauty change over time, so does the idea of justice.
For example, in antiquity, justice did not mean equality for all. Slaves had one fate, free men another. Men, women, and children were seen as entirely separate categories. The very concept of universal justice simply did not exist then.
So yes, justice is historically variable. But that does not mean it is nonexistent.
Now, let’s go further. In every era, there is a consensus about justice—what is considered just at that time. That consensus gets embedded in law and morality.
For example, today, we have a global consensus that everyone should be equal before the law. In practice, this principle is often violated—inequality before the law is rampant. But that doesn’t mean the principle itself is meaningless. Over time, through the work of judges, activists, and civil movements, justice is gradually enforced.
In countries where the rule of law is absent—like Russia—this failure has long-term negative consequences. Societies that fail to uphold justice lose their competitiveness on the world stage.
Interestingly, justice has been studied scientifically, even from a biological perspective. Neuroscientific research shows that specific parts of the human brain are responsible for the perception of justice. Throughout human evolution, societies that upheld justice gained a competitive advantage.
Why? Because fair societies have more harmonious interactions, fewer internal conflicts, and lower levels of violence. In evolutionary terms, justice is an adaptive trait that has been reinforced over time because it makes societies more stable and successful.
If we compare countries today, this principle holds. In places where justice is upheld—where equality before the law is real, where workers receive fair wages, where corruption is controlled—societies thrive. Look at Western Europe. Now compare that to Haiti or Yemen—places where justice is weak, the rule of law is nearly absent, and life is dramatically worse.
So, despite the critiques from thinkers—whether extreme libertarians like Friedrich Hayek or others—justice is not just an illusion. It is a fundamental social institution that helps societies survive and prosper.
This is a huge topic, and I regret that my colleague Alexander Vasilyevich Skobov and I never got the chance to conduct our planned discussion on leftist ideologies and their misconceptions. His sharp intellect would have been invaluable here. I still hope we can have that discussion in some form.
For now, though, I’ll wrap this up. The conversation about justice could go on forever—even in monologue, let alone a debate. Perhaps we should organize a dedicated discussion on this topic, with a well-matched opponent for a real debate. It might be an interesting format.
But to summarize: societies that uphold justice—where laws are respected, where people are paid fairly, where rights are protected—succeed. Societies that ignore justice decline. That is the real, measurable impact of justice in the world.
On the Signs of Fascism and Its Causes Link to heading
Question from Yulia.
You have often said that a classic sign of fascism is hatred and intolerance toward liberalism. In your opinion, what are the reasons for this? Are they opposing poles, a threat of power change, or perhaps simply fear of goodness? What do you think?
The reason is simple. Liberalism is one of fascism’s two main enemies. Historically, one enemy was liberalism—the primary enemy. The second enemy, though somewhat less dangerous, was nonetheless a real one: communism. I emphasize again that, historically, these were the two enemies. But in reality, today, since communism no longer exists as an enemy in the West—or is in a significantly diminished state—the main enemy now is liberalism. If Hitler had two enemies, then for today’s fascists, there is only one: liberalism, as the main enemy and primary competitor that must, in effect, be destroyed. There is nothing irrational about this—just cold calculation. Liberalism is the chief adversary and principal opponent.
Did Navalny Ever Call for Not Giving Weapons to Ukraine? Link to heading
Serafim Lozhkin. Question from Serafim Lozhkin.
People are trying to convince me that Navalny allegedly called for not giving weapons to Ukraine. Is this fake, or did it actually happen?
It happened 10 years ago. Yes, that’s true—it was in 2015. Since Navalny was such a prominent and highly visible figure, I followed what he said and remember 2015 well. How do I know this for sure? Because at that time, a year had already passed since the beginning of Russia’s war against Ukraine.
Ten years ago, Navalny expressed doubts—it wasn’t a firm demand, but rather a reflection and hesitation—when he said that supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine wouldn’t change the situation. He believed that a military victory for Ukraine over Russia was impossible. He also argued that such arms deliveries would reinforce Putin’s false narrative that he was fighting not against Ukraine, but against America.
Navalny’s main idea was that instead of providing weapons to Ukraine, the focus should be on hitting Putin’s oligarchs. He was strongly fixated on corruption—this was very important to him. His belief was that if the West struck at Putin’s oligarchs, Putin would stop the war. This was a clear mistake—one of Navalny’s obvious mistakes, though not the only one.
Why did I specifically emphasize that this was 10 years ago? Because once the full-scale war began, Navalny never said anything like that again. To be fair, by the end of his life and political career, Navalny was a supporter of arming Ukraine. So his views changed.
On Genis’s Statement in Rodionov’s Program Link to heading
Nadezhda Kotik
Nadezhda is a sponsor of our channel, for which we are very grateful. I only heard Alexander Genis’s conversation with Vadim Rodionov on Grime. And one idea struck me: democracy triumphed in America because the people have always hated their government and therefore sought to change it. I finally understood us, Ukrainians. We, too, are constantly dissatisfied with our government—sometimes we outright hate it. And I now think this feeling is more positive than negative. Even in Tsarist Russia, when Ukrainians were annexed, our people rebelled and refused to recognize the tsar. The history is long, but that’s another topic. I’d like to hear your opinion on this, if possible.
Of course, you can. Dear Nadezhda, there’s only one thing. That is, I completely agree with everything you said, but you are referring to Genis’s conversation with Rodionov on Grammy—I haven’t seen this conversation. However, based on how you describe it, I agree with everything except one point.
I believe that when Ukrainians rebelled within the Russian Empire, they were not rebelling against their government but against a foreign government. Because, of course, the power of the Russian emperor was foreign to Ukrainians. That’s the only remark I would add to your reasoning—everything else, I fully agree with.
The absence of a sense of authority as something inherent is a very important difference between Ukrainians and Russians. There is no sacralization of power. For Ukrainians, power is not sacred—just as it isn’t for Americans, by the way. And this is a crucial component of freedom and the rejection of dictatorship.
On the Budapest Memorandum and NATO’s Article 5 Link to heading
Vladimir. A very long question, which I have shortened.
Vladimir addresses two topics: the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine’s accession to NATO, specifically Article 5 of the treaty. He then explains that he has studied these documents and found no mention of any binding obligations. Meanwhile, the media and the public talk about certain “guarantees.” And? Article 5 of the treaty does not explicitly state that in the event of an attack on one member country, other countries must immediately enter the war.
Well, to be honest, I don’t know what there is to comment on here—everything you said is correct. Your analysis of these documents is valid. And yes, there are no actual guarantees in them. The text states that in the event of an attack, it should be perceived as an attack on all member states, and all are expected to provide support—including military support, but not necessarily military intervention. Nowhere does it say that they must immediately enter the war. This is a well-known fact, and perhaps it’s worth reminding people of it once again.
Proposal to Invite Political Analyst Vadim Karasev Link to heading
Question from Maxim Lebedev
Would it be possible to have an interview with the popular Ukrainian political analyst Vadim Karasev, or is he not a good fit for your channel?
Dear Maxim, this is not about the format. Let me put it this way—two key points. First, I want to emphasize once again that I do not evaluate Ukrainian politicians, journalists, or political analysts, and I don’t want to deviate from this rule—except in very rare cases. As a general principle, I try to avoid commenting on them.
As for Vadim Karasev, I remember him not as a participant in Ukraine’s domestic political process, but rather as someone who frequently appeared on Solovyov’s shows as a so-called “Ukrainian on demand.” Perhaps I haven’t followed his evolution as a political analyst, but what I do recall doesn’t particularly interest me. You see, he was one of those invited to Russian TV programs essentially to play the role of a scapegoat. That doesn’t interest me.
I assume he has likely changed his position in some way, but I’m not sure. Maybe it would be worth taking a closer look—perhaps he has become more interesting. I don’t know. But for now, my perception of him remains tied to that role.
Proposal to Invite American Studies Expert Alexandra Filipppenko Link to heading
Question from Vera.
Would you be interested in inviting Alexandra Filipppenko to discuss various American-related topics?
Would I? Absolutely. Alexandra Filipppenko—without a doubt. I’ve heard her speak, and I personally know her to some extent. She is certainly an interesting conversationalist.
There is a certain group of political analysts and experts who interest me, and with whom arranging an interview is mostly a matter of logistics. This is something our team handles. I believe Alexandra Filipppenko will definitely be a guest on our programs—at least, if she’s willing, of course. So, we’ll see.
On Panasenkov Link to heading
Anna Winter.
I’m curious to hear your opinion on Panasenkov. Is he just a Trumpist, or is he skillfully working for the Kremlin?
Dear Anna! My usual answer to such questions is: I don’t know. You see, what he does really does look a certain way—aside from being a Trumpist and so on. I’ve dedicated several programs to him. But to say that he works for the Kremlin? Well, it looks very much like it. Very much.
However, is this simply an expression of his political views, or is it actual Kremlin work? I don’t know. In such cases, I typically say, “I don’t know.” Many people accuse me of being naive—that I need some kind of paper evidence to be convinced. Well, sorry, but this is a serious accusation that needs to be proven. Either there are undeniable pieces of evidence, or there aren’t. There have been cases where there was clear proof that someone was an informant, an agent of the KGB or FSB. But in this case, I have no such proof.
This is like the question of whether Donald Trump is General Krasnov—a popular belief among some. I don’t know, I’m not sure, I have doubts. Despite how things may look, I still doubt it—and I’d say “probably not” rather than “probably yes.” When it comes to Panasenkov, the ratio of “yes” to “no” may be different, but even so, I can’t support this claim—because I simply don’t know.
Is the Finnish Scenario Possible for Ukraine? Link to heading
Pan Stepan,
If, by some incredible means, Trump and Putin manage to reach a full agreement, the solution they will strongly propose to Ukraine will obviously be the Finnish scenario. Russia would abandon the idea of taking over all of Ukraine but keep the territories it has managed to seize. There is no justice in this—just as there was none in Finland’s case in 1940. But the war would end. Do you think Ukraine should agree to peace on such terms? And another question—would Ukraine even want to agree to peace on such terms?
Dear Stepan! Pan Stepan, I would reverse the order of these questions. For me, the crucial issue is whether Ukraine would even want to agree to peace on such terms. It depends on what those terms are. The thing is, Putin is demanding a whole package of conditions.
First, he insists that Ukraine must stop receiving military aid. Second, he demands control over all occupied territories—not just the ones Russia has already taken. I believe that a ceasefire and, eventually, a peace agreement along the current front line would be something Ukraine might accept. That’s my assumption. But as for Putin’s full proposal? No.
Putin is demanding Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which are currently under Ukrainian control. Ukraine definitely won’t agree to that—I am sure of it. But if we’re talking about the current front line, I think Ukraine might consider it.
As for your question about what I would advise—well, I won’t and can’t advise Ukraine on this. I will accept whatever decision Ukraine makes, and that’s all there is to it. It is not the place of a citizen of an aggressor country to tell Ukraine what to do.
As for the hypothetical question of whether Putin would even make such an offer—he won’t. Because Putin, in reality, is still demanding almost all of Ukraine. At the very least, he wants full control over all four regions within their administrative borders—which is impossible.
How the Halt in Military Aid Affected Ukraine Link to heading
Alexei
Perhaps I missed it, but you didn’t ask Sergey Grabsky specifically about how Trump’s decision to stop military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine affected the situation on the Kursk front.
Dear Alexei! I did ask this question, and Sergey Maratovich answered that it had no impact whatsoever. His response was: It had no impact. That’s it.
Closing Remarks Link to heading
Well, dear friends, that concludes today’s morning stream. A quick reminder: at 21:30, we have a conversation with Vitaly Portnikov—I think it will be interesting. With that, I bid you farewell.
Glory to Ukraine! Freedom for Alexander Skobov, Russian political prisoners, and Ukrainian captives! See you at 21:30—please take care of yourselves.
Source: https://youtu.be/c8sv4Vc1NRo