Putin tattled on Ukraine to Trump, and Trump was deeply affected

Putin complained to Trump that Ukrainian terrorists were disrupting negotiations, and Trump lost interest in Ukraine and started asking Putin for help with Iran.

Main Topic Link to heading

Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is June 5th. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv right now, and we’re continuing our usual morning reflections on what’s happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.

Number of Losses in This War Link to heading

Before I move on to the main event that I would like to analyze in more detail today, I came across a report by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. This is generally a reputable center that usually doesn’t lie. And it reports that the total military losses in this war have reached 1,400,000 people. These are combat losses, excluding civilians. Russia has lost 1 million military personnel, Ukraine 400,000. In addition, it provides data on a very large number of armored combat vehicles—over 1,000, more than 3,000 IFVs, more than 300 self-propelled artillery systems, and about 2,000 tanks. So the ratio of Russian to Ukrainian equipment losses is estimated at about 5:1. This means that Russia has lost five times more dead in Ukraine than in all Russian and Soviet conflicts since World War II. That’s 15 times more than during the entire 10-year war in Afghanistan, and 10 times more than in the 13 years of war in Chechnya. So, what follows from this report is that this prolonged war, if it continues at this pace, of course, cannot last forever. But the main point is that resources are depleting—material, technical, and human resources. But Ukraine has no other way out. Ukraine does not have the resources or the ability to find some other solution. Therefore, it will continue the war. As for Russia, it has a very simple way to stop this war in an instant. So I think that these figures, although alarming for both Russia and Ukraine, nevertheless, for Russia they are simply a wake-up call.

Trump’s Conversation with Putin - The U.S. Version Link to heading

Now let’s move on to the main event of yesterday: another phone conversation between Trump and Putin. I was curious to compare the version of this conversation presented by Trump and by Putin’s aide Ushakov, since Putin himself didn’t bother to comment. However, on the Kremlin’s website there’s a full post with Ushakov’s comments. Here’s what Trump himself wrote about it on his own social media platform, and I quote: “I just finished a phone call with President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The call lasted about 1 hour and 15 minutes.” Ushakov, meanwhile, says it was one hour and 10 minutes. So, more or less, their statements match. Then Trump writes: “We discussed the attack on parked Russian planes by Ukraine, as well as various other attacks that have taken place on both sides. It was a good conversation.” Well, obviously, what other kind of conversation could Trump have? Only a “good” one. But it was not a conversation that would lead to an immediate peace. President Putin said very firmly that he would have to respond to the recent attacks on airfields. We also discussed Iran and the fact that the time for Iran to make decisions about nuclear weapons is running out, and this decision must be made quickly. I told President Putin that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. I believe we agreed on this. President Putin offered to participate in discussions with Iran and said he might be able to help bring this matter to a swift conclusion. And so on.

So, let’s first pull out some of the key points from Trump’s statement, and then see how this same conversation was responded to by Ushakov. It’s clear that Ushakov is just a mouthpiece. Putin didn’t want to speak directly and delegated it to Ushakov, but it’s unlikely Ushakov was improvising. So, first of all, it’s more or less clear that Trump has finally realized there’s no chance of achieving his mission to end the war, and he’s now trying—though he clearly doesn’t intend to drop out of the negotiating process—to use this very process to periodically talk to Putin and try to get his support on entirely different issues, such as negotiations with Iran over preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Though those negotiations are also deadlocked, since Iran’s supreme leader has already said he’s completely dissatisfied with the U.S. proposal. But that’s another story, which we won’t get into now.

What’s clear is that Trump will try to cling to these negotiations, which have now obviously turned into a suitcase without a handle—completely unnecessary to anyone except Trump and Putin, since it serves as a cover for further aggression. Because as long as these negotiations are ongoing, Trump has a convenient excuse not to push through the Lindsey Graham Act, which is basically ready to go and could potentially deal a serious blow to Russia’s economy—if not destroy it entirely, then at least significantly weaken it. And Trump is now clinging to this negotiating process, supposedly because he “can’t” impose these sanctions while negotiations are underway, even though it’s already obvious that these negotiations won’t produce any results.

It’s clear that for Trump, dealing with Putin—Russia, Putin himself—is infinitely more important than Ukraine and everything to do with this war. So, obviously, in the near future, in the foreseeable future, this Lindsey Graham Act will not be brought up for a vote. This is also evidenced by the statement from Republican Roger Federer that Trump directly asked Senate Republicans not to bring this law up for a vote yet. So, it’s all more or less clear.

I also wanted to add to this analysis the absolutely idiotic statement by Trump’s representative for Ukraine, Kellogg, that Putin’s operation is causing an escalation of the conflict. The degree of idiocy of this statement is truly off the charts, because by that logic, any drone shot down over Kyiv or Odesa is an escalation of the conflict. Any mortar salvo from a Ukrainian trench in response to Russian strikes is an escalation of the conflict. So, to satisfy Kellogg’s and Trump’s demands to avoid escalating the conflict, Ukraine would basically have to stop resisting altogether. That’s total absurdity. But, nonetheless, it was said by Kellogg—a man who until very recently had been showing some reasonable positions on this war. That’s what it means to sell your soul to the devil—to join Trump’s team.

Will the U.S. Continue to Aid Ukraine? Link to heading

So, a separate question is whether military and financial aid to Ukraine from the United States will continue after donor assistance dries up. I think the answer here is obvious: there will be no further aid from the United States. Period. This story is over. The main issue is for Trump to keep—or rather, not to keep, but to sell—American weapons for European money. By the way, the German Chancellor has now gone to meet with Trump, and I think that conversation will be precisely about this: the fundamental change in how support for Ukraine will be handled. It’s clear that this change will go in the direction of reducing or completely ending aid from the United States and switching to selling weapons to Ukraine for European money. In this context, Germany is taking center stage. This is a very important visit, and we’ll be watching it closely.

Trump’s Conversation with Putin - The Russian Version Link to heading

Now let’s look at how the same conversation was interpreted by Ushakov. It’s posted on the Kremlin’s website—Kremlin.ru, if anyone’s interested—and there’s also a full transcript there, or at least the part of Putin’s meeting with his government associates that was made public. It’s pretty interesting material. So how did Ushakov present this conversation? Well, first of all, he reported that Putin complained to Trump about Ukraine, saying that these negotiations, as he emphasized, were being disrupted by Ukraine. I’m quoting Ushakov’s text here, because, he said, there were “deliberate attacks ordered directly by the Kyiv regime against purely civilian targets and peaceful populations.” Naturally, Russia itself has been bombing Ukraine’s peaceful cities regularly for almost three and a half years. All of that, of course, is ignored—it doesn’t matter at all. But Ukraine’s attacks on peacefully sleeping planes and, in particular, on a freight train (there’s a separate story about a passenger train that became a victim of these “accidental” circumstances) are another matter. Well, that’s how it happens in wartime, when a sabotage attack on a military target takes place. In this case, the bridge is a military target because it carries military equipment as well. Unfortunately, a passenger train became a victim in this situation. Again, the countless civilian casualties, civilian facilities—hospitals, maternity wards, schools, pharmacies, playgrounds—none of that counts at all. According to this version, it’s Ukraine that’s the terrorist.

Next, Ushakov declared that these attacks are unequivocally classified as terrorism under international law, and that the Kyiv regime has degenerated into a terrorist organization. So that’s Putin’s grievance to Trump. In conclusion, Ushakov said that Trump and Putin both praised the efforts of U.S. President’s representative Steven Witkoff.

Now, a few things that I personally noted from Putin’s meeting with his cronies in the government. What seems most important to mention is that Putin stated he’s refusing to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, because—well, because, yes, he says he’s a terrorist, basically. I’ll quote: “Ukraine wants a ceasefire for 30 or 60 days, they’re asking for a meeting of leaders. But what is there to talk about with those who rely on terror? Why reward them by giving them a break? We’re dealing not only with people who are incompetent in anything, but who also lack even a basic level of political culture and show open contempt for those they’re trying to negotiate with.” And he also immediately called Zelensky the head of a thoroughly rotten and corrupt regime.

In fact, this statement came right after Zelensky declared that he doesn’t want to continue these kinds of negotiations in Istanbul. Once again, the Ukrainian president proposed a direct meeting of the two leaders in any format—one-on-one, with Trump, with Erdoğan, whatever. But this was rejected. So it’s completely obvious now—obvious that if we’re talking about these Istanbul-format negotiations, they’ll probably just continue out of inertia, because neither Ukraine nor Russia is likely to unilaterally end them, even though Zelensky has openly said they’re pointless.

Further Developments Link to heading

But it’s clear that a meeting between Putin and Zelensky is simply not going to happen. In fact, we’ve been saying this from the start, and every day brings more confirmation of how right we were. As for the negotiations themselves, it’s obvious that they’re pointless. Nevertheless, they’ll probably continue in some form. Although the president of Ukraine said he doesn’t want to go on, I’m afraid that making a unilateral decision to withdraw from these negotiations would complicate things—like the same negotiations that European partners, especially the EU, are conducting with Trump. Trump might just jump ship in that situation. Knowing his capricious character, you can imagine that if Ukraine were to unilaterally withdraw from the negotiations, he might simply stop interacting altogether and even refuse to sell weapons. Even though that would be completely idiotic, considering that Ukraine is currently the biggest weapons customer on the planet—and for the American military-industrial complex, that’s an enormous source of revenue. Billions of dollars could flow into the U.S. defense budget from this. But still, Trump is known for being very good at shooting himself in the foot, as his crazy tariff policy showed.

Now, two additional updates that, in my opinion, characterize what’s going on. First, I think it’s very important to mention yesterday’s statement from Pistorius. Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, announced that in the coming weeks, Ukraine could receive the first long-range systems as part of a joint project between Berlin and Kyiv. This is about joint production. It’s a fundamentally new development—a new form of military-industrial cooperation between Ukraine and Germany. And without a doubt, I think it has huge potential. In fact, it’s probably even more important than just supplying weapons, because it involves joint production, and these are long-range weapons without restrictions. I think that’s very important.

On the other hand, Shoigu has gone to Pyongyang. Formally, the stated purpose of his trip is to meet with Kim Jong Un and to honor the memory of Korean fighters who helped liberate the Kursk region. But of course, the real purpose is to beg for more weapons—more and more fighters. Once again, Russia’s got its hand out to North Korea. Will they give it? Probably. How much? Who knows? But they’ll give something. So that’s the situation: Ukraine is getting help from Europe; Russia is getting help from North Korea. The effectiveness of these respective sources of help will be judged by military experts, but to me, it’s clear that European weapons are more advanced and precise. So Ukraine’s connections with Europe likely give it an advantage over Russia’s links to North Korea.

Voting on the Channel Link to heading

So, those are the things I wanted to mention before moving on to answer your questions. I also gave in to some pressure from the audience—a few people asked me to conduct a poll on religiosity, on belief in God. They wanted to count, so to speak, how many of us are unbelievers, how many are atheists, and how many are agnostics. So I did that simultaneously on our YouTube channel and in the chat of our Telegram channel. After we finish our conversation, I’ll share the results of that poll.

Answers to Questions Link to heading

So, let’s move on to answering your questions.

Are Public Broadcast Negotiations Between Ukraine and Russia Possible? Link to heading

Another question comes from a viewer, who asks: Is it possible to have negotiations like the ones in Istanbul broadcast live, publicly? It’s not usually done that way, or are there other reasons? It seems to me that Ukraine would completely expose Russia’s position in such a broadcast, especially if truth is on its side. It would also be very cynical but fitting if someone suggested to Trump—who loves a show—the idea of live negotiations between Zelensky and Putin. Or at least to publish the secret recording of the Istanbul negotiations to show Russia’s true position.

You know, dear colleague, I think all these proposals run into a very simple fact: Russia would not tolerate it. It wouldn’t allow it. So, Russia would absolutely not agree to this. If, as you suggest, there were a leak, there would be denials and a scandal. I think all these ideas are very interesting, but Russia would definitely try to block it any way it can. After all, how could you force them? You just can’t.

Will Russia Ever Pay Reparations to Ukraine? Link to heading

Lena Smetanova. Let me skip the kind words. Thank you, dear Elena, for your kind words. So, what do you think: will Russia ever pay reparations to Ukraine? If utility bills included a line for reparations to Ukraine, it would be a vaccine for society to not start another war.

You know, dear colleague, I would certainly love for things to be as you describe, but we simply don’t know how, when, and with what this war will end. What you’re talking about is possible in only two scenarios. One is absolutely fantastical: the war ends with the signing of a full and unconditional surrender in Moscow. Like the end of World War II. So, Putin and Gerasimov are standing there signing it. Or maybe by then Putin has poisoned himself, and Gerasimov is standing and signing, while someone else is sitting and signing this pact of complete and unconditional surrender. That scenario is fantastical—let’s be honest, it’s not going to happen.

The second scenario is less fantastical, but still unlikely. It would require some major shift in Russia—like a military defeat that forces a change in government to something like a hypothetical Mishustin government, for example, with a pairing like Mishustin and Sobyanin. These are people who clearly wouldn’t want to wage war on their own, though they’re currently supporting it under Putin’s rule. Such a government might indeed be willing to pay some reparations in exchange for lifting sanctions and so on. From my perspective, that scenario is also very close to fantastical, but it’s at least possible. It’s really the only scenario under which what you’re describing might happen.

As for a more realistic scenario, that would be if the war ends with Russia’s collapse and there’s basically no one to impose sanctions on. The only exception would be if that collapse is partial—some republics break away but some part of Russia remains that can still claim political and legal continuity. In that case, yes, reparations might be possible in exchange for relief from sanctions. So I think there are some chances, but honestly, I wouldn’t bet on it. Although of course, justice demands that these reparations be paid. It all depends on how and with what this war ends.

About Orban’s Speech Link to heading

Next, regarding Orban’s speech. I wonder where he made that speech? It wasn’t in Europe, probably somewhere in Hungary. It’s high time to reveal his bribery by Mogilevich before the elections. Could you please tell us where exactly this servant of Putin made his speech?

Well, that’s very simple. He gave the speech on Facebook about a day ago. I don’t know exactly where—probably somewhere in Hungary, yes, but it was posted on Facebook about a day ago. You can find it there. His name on Facebook is Viktor Orban (written in Latin letters), and the post is called “Почему Украина” (Why Ukraine). So you can see it for yourself.

Trump’s Reaction to Operation “Spider” Link to heading

Now, Abu Bakr Chagaev is asking: Regarding Trump’s reaction to Putin’s “Spider” operation. Okay, well, I’ll quote it completely: I’m asking because it’s a very interesting fact—why and for what reason did Trump shit himself, pardon my French, at the UN in connection with the destruction of Russian strategic terrorist aviation by Ukraine’s SBU? How could this have such a depressing effect on the U.S. president, who lives across the ocean? This is something worth pondering for anyone.

You know, I’d actually strengthen your question a bit here. The fact is, the Ukrainian SBU, even though it’s a relatively small agency, actually did a huge favor for the United States of America. Because all those planes are Soviet-era bombers that are part of the nuclear triad. Their main purpose is to fly to the United States. So they’re not meant for a war with Ukraine—they’re meant for nuclear war against the United States. So essentially, this strike on the nuclear triad significantly weakens the threat to the United States itself.

So, strengthening your thesis, the reason for Trump’s lackluster reaction—or even, as you put it, some kind of regret, though that’s more of an assumption on our part—can be summed up as follows: it shatters his worldview. He’s always said that Ukraine has no cards to play, that Ukraine is losing, and that if not for him, Putin would already be in Kyiv. This completely breaks his narrative. And in this new reality, he doesn’t know what to do. That’s why he’s sort of confused and silent—he just doesn’t know how to process this information.

It turns out Ukraine can actually win. Ukraine can actually destroy part of Russia’s nuclear triad. And it doesn’t even matter whether it’s 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%—the point is, it’s the start. It’s a demonstration that it can go further. And not necessarily by the same method—Ukraine’s ingenuity has already been shown in the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet and now in the partial destruction of the nuclear triad. That’s what’s really important here. So, Trump simply has nothing to say. It just doesn’t fit his worldview.

Pressure on Putin Link to heading

So, Denis Lipsitz asks: Regarding the negotiation item, could Russia’s unwillingness to meet some demand from the Ukrainian delegation—like ending the torture of children, stopping psychological experiments on abducted children, or allowing them to be examined in Turkey or Saudi Arabia—cause people on the planet to feel disgust toward Putin? This isn’t about some specific brilliant negotiation point, but about the possibility of changing how people who don’t know the reasons for this war view it. Is that possible?

You know, dear colleague, dear Denis, just look: we were just talking about the impossibility of public negotiations. Of course, if these negotiations were public—if they were broadcast live to the entire world—then it would be possible to do such things. But since it’s all happening behind closed doors, and since everyone then interprets these negotiations however they want, I think it loses its meaning. Sure, if everything were public, like U.S. presidential debates—completely open to the public—then yes, the Ukrainian delegation could really trample Mitinsky and the rest of that scum. But since it’s all behind closed doors, it just doesn’t work.

On Criticizing Ukraine Depending on Circumstances Link to heading

So, Andrey Mus writes: Again, regarding my refusal to criticize Ukraine. Let me clarify: do you explain your position as a moral choice—like, as a citizen of an aggressor country, you don’t feel you have the right to publicly criticize the victim? But doesn’t this raise an important question—if an analyst deliberately excludes part of reality from consideration, even for ethical reasons, doesn’t that become a form of activism or positioning, rather than analysis in the strict sense? After all, your audience sees you as an analyst who lives honestly and shows the full picture. In your view, where is the line between moral modesty and professional responsibility? Would you consider changing your position if, for example, there were serious mistakes by the Ukrainian authorities? Or is it a principle for you—never to criticize? Is the victim of aggression for you always beyond criticism, regardless of what happens?

Dear colleague, here’s how I see it. I do see what’s happening in Ukraine too, and so far I don’t see any mistakes by the Ukrainian authorities that would fundamentally affect the situation. Let’s just take a look at the people who don’t limit themselves in this kind of criticism. Who are they? Let’s name them instead of speaking anonymously.

There’s Arestovych, for instance, who’s been criticizing everything to the hilt for several years now. He’s been writing that Ukraine should replace its current “project” with another one—one that doesn’t treat Russia as an enemy. But that’s an absurd idea, because Russia is Ukraine’s enemy, simply by the fact of Ukraine’s existence. Anyone who understood Ukraine before 2014 knows that Ukraine was never anti-Russia—it had pro-Russian parties, Russian TV channels dominated there, and in opinion polls, Putin and Lukashenko were the most popular leaders. Ukraine never represented itself as anti-Russian until Russia attacked Crimea.

So this is nonsense. Arestovych’s main idea is that everything would be fine if you just replace Zelensky with Arestovych. But with a position like that—no thanks.

There’s also Alfred Koch, who in every single one of his posts can’t resist calling everything Ukraine does a mistake. The military leadership’s raids into Kursk region? Mistake. Zelensky’s statements and trips? Mistake. Everything’s always a mistake. The only time he’ll maybe grudgingly praise something is if it fits his narrative. Otherwise, everything’s a mistake.

Or Shariy, same story. Everything Ukraine does, everything Zelensky does—it’s all nonsense, year after year. And yet, Ukraine keeps resisting and successfully defending itself against an enemy many times stronger.

Or Babchenko—another critic who can’t mention Zelensky without calling him a clown and other nastier insults. Everything Zelensky does is a mistake. Of course, if it were Poroshenko instead, maybe Ukraine would have already won—at least in Babchenko’s view. But for four years now, every decision of Zelensky’s is supposedly a mistake.

And yet, despite all these supposed “mistakes,” Ukraine—outgunned and outmatched—somehow holds on. So I don’t want to slide into that position. I don’t see any major, fundamental errors.

I’m in constant contact with a number of people in Ukraine. I know perfectly well about the challenges with mobilization, corruption, and everything else. But there are professionals there who are dealing with these issues. Why would I interfere where I don’t belong?

So for now, no. My position is firm: I’m not going to criticize.

On the Renaming of Streets After the Collapse of the USSR Link to heading

A question from Musk Knight. The meaning is: why after the collapse? The question is, why after the collapse of the USSR was there no mass renaming of streets and dismantling of Lenin monuments, or renaming of metro stations? So many streets are named after ghouls like Lenin, Dzerzhinsky, and so on. And why is that? And also, why are there so few streets named after famous Russian women?

Well, let me start with the second question. Well, because, because, so to speak, Russia is a male-dominated society. In Russia, there is undoubtedly clear gender-based discrimination. It exists, despite some formal equality, but nevertheless, Russia is a man’s world. So everything is pretty obvious here. As for why streets named after ghouls have not been renamed — well, because the break with Stalin, with Lenin, and with the Soviet Union was very much cosmetic. That is, the people at the top of the country remained the same ones who, in fact, carry these ideas that the Soviet Union should be restored in one form or another. What do you expect, renaming, streets no longer bearing the names of ghouls, when the head of the country is a former — although there are no former ones — KGB officer who dreams of compensating for the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the collapse of the Soviet Union? And what do you expect when now, so to speak, Stalin’s bas-relief is being installed in the metro. This is, so to speak, phantom pains. So, just look at who is in power.

On How to Address Scoundrels Link to heading

So, here’s a question from Slava — that’s how the author of the question introduces themselves. Yesterday, you tried to explain why you think it’s normal and appropriate to call scoundrels like Putin, Hitler, Stalin, Chikatilo, Beria — and the list of bastards is long — by their names. Like many of your listeners, I get infuriated when I hear respectful forms like “Vladimir Vladimirovich,” “Vissarionovich,” “the executioner,” and so on. You said you weren’t going to teach me Russian. Do you feel the intonation? Unfortunately, I only hear a respectful tone when you and many of the speakers I respect — sometimes even Ukrainian ones — call these scum like that. But today, I’m listening to your broadcasts, and you mentioned these scoundrels and listed Beria, Yagoda, Yezhov by their full names. So the question is, which of these three do you respect? Do you acknowledge any of them? Or not? How can we catch the intonation here? You said “Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria,” so does that mean he’s cooler, more respected, or the opposite? Sorry for returning to this topic, but it really infuriates me when such inhuman scum as Khuylo is called with deference. I’d be happy to hear your response.

Dear Slava, or more precisely, Vyacheslav. You see, I really like the Ukrainian football fans’ chant, where they sing that word “Khuylo” in different ways with wonderful vocals. But I don’t have such a resonant baritone as the Ukrainian football fans, so I won’t sing that song on air. Not because I don’t like it — I do — but it’s just not my style, you understand? And in general, in principle, to show my attitude toward Putin, Chikatilo, Hitler, Stalin, and so on, by calling them names, or calling Stalin “Stalin,” as people like to do, or Putin “Putin,” and so on, or even just limiting it to that — well, you see, everyone has their own style. Dear friends, if you don’t feel, to some extent, the emphasized distancing when I say “Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin,” then we have a bit of a linguistic incompatibility. Well, maybe “incompatibility” is too strong a word — we have, let’s say, a bit of a mismatch. That happens. If you can, please bear with me. But I can say for sure that I’m not going to change my language, my style of expression. There’s nothing I can do about that. For me, this is a way of expressing distance. If you don’t feel it, well, I don’t know what to do about that. There are people who have no sense of humor; there are people who have no sense of style. I’m not accusing you of that — maybe it’s me who has no sense of style? Possibly. But everyone has their own style. So what can I do? Either bear with it, or try to understand. There are two options — or, if not, then it’s just not meant to be. But there’s absolutely no deference. You’re mistaken. There’s no deference in me calling the scoundrel Putin “Vladimir Vladimirovich.” Trust me on that.

On Country Names Link to heading

So, Nail Vakhitov Why is it that normal countries don’t have names like “people’s democracy” and so on, while we have the DPRK, LPR, and DPR? Surely there are many countries without people or democracy. It’s impossible to imagine England called the Monarchical Democratic Republic of England. It sounds ridiculous and jarring. What do you think about that?

This, it seems to me, is a very good, very good question. You see, Great Britain doesn’t need to call itself a democratic country, and the Federal Republic of Germany doesn’t need to call itself a democratic country either, nor does Sweden. They don’t need to label themselves democratic, free, and so on. The adjectives “free,” “democratic,” are precisely there to cover up a totalitarian dictatorship. But that’s obvious. So I think it’s very simple — those who already have freedom and democracy in their constitutions and in practice don’t need to call themselves “free.” There’s just no need for it.

On the Possible Development of Humanism Link to heading

Igor Stil Is further development of humanism possible, given that humans themselves are just another species on the planet? Haven’t we reached our humanitarian limit? Doesn’t everything eventually hit a dead end, considering the rather aggressive nature of humans as a biological species? After all, humanism is an acquired skill that is easily lost in any more or less serious cataclysm. An era of universal abundance and prosperity is clearly not in sight.

You know, for now, I don’t see any limits to the development of humanism, because for now, despite everything, I understand that right now, when there is a war, when people are being killed, all this might sound like rose-colored glasses. But if we look at a longer stretch of time, we’ll see that yes, humanism is growing, expanding. It’s clear that there was a period when humanism only applied to adult, free, white, wealthy men. Then there was an expansion. All people, it meant, fell under the concept of humane treatment. Then women, then children, then, so to speak, people of different nationalities, different religions. All of this happened. These were all processes of resistance. I think I’ve even quoted this several times. But I’d need to pull out some cheat sheets, cheat sheets — a quote from a British lord when the question of women’s rights was raised, and the indignant lord said, “Well, at this rate, we’ll reach the rights of animals!” And, well, he foresaw it. So there was always this serious resistance — children’s rights, women’s rights, the rights of people of different nationalities, different races. There were also debates about whether to consider Native Americans human — whole famous debates. And they’re there, they’re published. And this is all the expansion of humanism, the spread and deepening of the understanding of humanism as an attitude, the rights of minorities, and so on. But right now, the latest broad movement is the movement for animal rights. Not just preventing cruelty to them, but the rights of animals — a serious, very serious expansion of humanism, changing its very concept. As for how it will develop further, I don’t think it will just be this extensive expansion; there may be deepening, too. It’s an unstoppable process. Can anything oppose this process? Well, we don’t know how things will turn out. How will the future of humanity unfold? Are catastrophes possible? Yes, they’re possible. Could there be a third world nuclear war? Most likely, yes. Would that be the end of humanism? Yes, probably. But if there are no such catastrophes, I think the movement to expand and deepen humanism will continue.

On the Abduction of Ukrainian Children and the “Russian Nation” Link to heading

A question from… I. “Not a Shaman.” Dear friends! Once again, I ask you to sign your questions, because otherwise I’m forced to read them as they’re labeled by YouTube’s system. So, the question from this person: At present, Russia is stealing Ukrainian children and naturalizing them. The Soviets did almost the same thing, except not kidnapping children, but rather forcibly Russifying other peoples. The question is whether there is a Russian nation, or if it’s just those who have lost their national identity and were naturalized as another example. If, hypothetically, China stole 10,000 Russian children and terrorized them, would they become Chinese? So, does a Russian nation exist?

Dear colleague, there are Russian citizens. That’s one type of identity. That is, a person sees themselves as a citizen of Russia. There are also nationalities — so a person sees themselves as a citizen of Russia while also seeing themselves as Tatar, Jewish, Russian, and so on. These are, so to speak, parallel identities — citizenship and nationality. But there is no Russian civic nation. Do you understand? That’s the fundamental difference between, for example, the French and Russians — the French, no matter what color their skin is, will call themselves French. They might also say they’re Arab, but there is this civic nation — they’re French. Similarly, an American, regardless of skin color, regardless of whether his roots are German, Polish, British, and so on, is an American. In Russia, there’s no civic nation. In Russia, there is citizenship — Russian citizens — and there are Russians, Ukrainians living in Russia, and so on. But a civic nation called “Rossiyane” doesn’t exist. That’s the story. I could give a whole separate lecture on why that is, but that’s another question entirely.

On a Survey About Foreign Agents. The Link Between a Person’s Appearance and Their Views Link to heading

Yulia — she has three questions, yes? Well, Yulia, as always, is very prolific with questions. So, did you watch the latest episode of the street survey about foreign agents in Moscow? That one where a fat man in red suggests hanging all the foreign agents. Reading the comments on this video, I noticed that many people agree that the more unkempt and scruffy a person is, the more hate they have for the agents — and vice versa. What do you think, is there really such a link? Personally, I’ve noticed that if a person is naturally quiet or a bit sad, they don’t approve of the war. Is there any connection between appearance and position?

You know, of course, there’s a certain correlation. If a person is unkempt, if there’s generally an unkempt look, poor taste — like that red jacket, that’s certainly poor taste — it often correlates with their values, absolutely. Quiet and sad — well, maybe, yes, maybe that’s a thoughtful person. So, probably, yes, there’s some kind of correlation. Although, you know, appearances can be deceiving. So, Lomroso’s theory — Lombroso, Lombroso — well, it’s still not fully scientific, although, in general, there is some correlation.

On Love Link to heading

Second question from Yulia How would you characterize the concept of love? My feeling is that love is a force that tries to engulf and dissolve everything around it.

You know, I’ll be banal, but — love is a very intense, deep attachment, a drive toward another person or object. It’s a deep, very intense, profound sympathy, an extreme degree of affection. And in general, love is the most important thing in life — simply the most important. So, if you ask me what the main thing in life is, for me it’s long been clear that it’s love. That’s it. For me, it’s very simple.

Request to Conduct a Survey Link to heading

Third question from Yulia. The question, of course, yes, this is indeed a question. A question about the question we’re already conducting. So it’s not very relevant here. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to conduct a survey about whether your subscribers believe in house spirits, mermaids, the properties of Thursday salt, or the powers of the waistband of a dead man’s underwear.

Well, okay, that’s a joke, fine. Now, as for how many of us are atheists, how many are believers, how many are agnostics — I’ll answer that question at the end of our stream.

On Timestamps Link to heading

A question from Madonna I’m addressing the team members of the respected Igor Alexandrovich — is it really so difficult to add timestamps to almost three- or four-hour-long streams, as is done by many others?

Dear Madonna, I understand completely. I share your frustration. I bow my head in shame. It’s just that the people who work with me on these broadcasts are people too. They sometimes face emergencies, they get sick, and we do our best. I hope that today there will be timestamps.

On Exchange in Israel and in Ukraine Link to heading

So? A question from Mario. The problem of political prisoners is a problem of democracy, not of military conflicts, don’t you think? Or do you believe that Israel should exchange Iranian political prisoners for Hamas and Hezbollah militants? With all due respect. Once again, your logic fails you when it comes to your own people — probably to call for the exchange of the innocent for the guilty at the expense of the victim is not a completely moral act. In general, probably, this could be recognized.

You know, it’s actually your logic that’s failing you here. Because the exchange of the innocent for the guilty is 100% a common practice. You know, Israel, for example, exchanged one of its innocent corporals for more than a thousand oh-so-guilty terrorists, fierce terrorists. Ukraine does exactly the same thing — it exchanges guilty ones for innocent ones because it exchanges its completely innocent defenders of the homeland and releases 100% guilty occupiers. So, the exchange of the guilty for the innocent is standard practice. So in this case, it’s your logic that’s failing you.

On Muratov Link to heading

Alright, Sad Donkey, You, Igor Aleksandrovich, when answering questions about Muratov, often mention the “editorial cemetery” as one of your anti-Putin arguments — that, look, in the uncompromising struggle against Putin, dozens of Muratov’s like-minded friends and colleagues were killed.

Well, you’re lying for some reason. Only eight people were killed. So I don’t know why you’re putting on this sort of mockery.

Yes, as I understand it, writes Sad Donkey, most of the murdered journalists were killed for investigating not Putin himself but completely different people — investigations into Nazi formations, military corruption, Chechen authorities, and so on. The question is: If Muratov is such a fierce anti-Putin figure — let’s accept your argument that the editorial cemetery is the work of Putin — then, after all this, Muratov especially should not be in Russia, by all objective factors. Either he’ll be killed as a fierce anti-Putin leader, considering his murdered subordinates, or his hatred, after everything Putin has done to his people and to Ukraine, on an animal level wouldn’t allow him to remain in Russia. But what do we see? Not only is he not exiled from Russia, not only is he not even arrested for years of fierce anti-Putinism, as you say, he freely travels around the world, entering and exiting Russia without any problems. And the second question on this topic: Do you know who Alexander Lebedev is? I’m sure you do — an FSB man, a highly dubious billionaire, apparently planted by Moscow in the West to promote its interests. One of the prominent figures of the Putin regime, sanctioned by the West for directly enabling Putin’s war against Ukraine. And, oh miracle! It turns out he’s also the owner of Novaya Gazeta — the direct boss of our dear comrade, the fierce anti-Putin fighter Muratov. A masterpiece, isn’t it? Postscript: There will definitely come a time when we will have undeniable proof of how many seemingly decent people — including in emigration — were actually working for the Kremlin. I’m almost 100% sure that Muratov will be among them. One must be blind and deaf, sticking their head in the sand, not to see the mountain of indirect evidence clearly pointing to Muratov’s work for the regime. That he does it under the liberal label, but only to cultivate his own little patch — nothing surprising. Solovyov has his, Sobchak has hers, Muratov has his. And yes, his many years of demonstrative friendship with all sorts of regime scum, regime minions like Venik and Minkin. Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are. That says — if not everything — a lot, no doubt.

Well, here’s this long, devastating post from Sad Donkey. So let’s go point by point. This is a serious post, serious accusations, including against me. So let’s sort it out.

You know, Sad Donkey, your text about most of the murdered journalists having been killed not for investigating Putin but other people is a clear example of what’s called lying. Let’s take at least two examples from those killed in the editorial office — people I personally know. Eight people were killed in the editorial office for their professional work. Let’s take Yury Shchekochikhin, for example. He was killed for the Three Whales case. That was a massive corruption scheme that reached personally to Putin, the FSB leadership, the Prosecutor General’s Office, and the customs service. That’s not about Putin? That’s not about the regime? This was a case that, back in the early 2000s, really struck at the very foundations of Putin’s regime, the FSB, the Prosecutor General’s Office, customs, and so on. That’s why he was killed.

Then there’s Anna Politkovskaya, who spoke out very harshly against Putin, against Kadyrov, and so on. You know, this kind of devaluation — “so what, only eight people killed in the newsroom, it’s unclear why” — is, to me, just revolting. What more can I say?

Another common argument is that Muratov is neither killed nor arrested, so something must be up. You know, I personally react very sharply to this, Sad Donkey, because I’ve often gotten similar accusations myself when I was still living in Moscow: “Why haven’t they killed you? Why haven’t they arrested you? You’re always speaking out against Putin — there must be something fishy about you. You’re probably an FSB agent or somehow not fighting the regime properly — you’re alive and free!” I heard the same thing about Nemtsov, about Navalny: “Why haven’t they been killed or arrested yet? Must be something wrong with them.” And you know what? After Nemtsov was killed, after Navalny was imprisoned, I never once heard any of those people who used to hurl these accusations feel even a shred of shame.

I imagine that if Muratov is killed, you’ll also sit under your oak tree and say, “Well, maybe that’s just them covering up their agent, you know?” That’s also an absolutely disgusting position — “Why isn’t he dead or imprisoned? Must be an agent.” I don’t even want to comment on that.

The Putin regime is not like the Chinese regime, which doesn’t care at all and can imprison Nobel laureates and world-famous human rights defenders. The Putin regime is more dependent. I don’t rule out that’s exactly why Muratov is not touched — especially after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In some ways, the regime just doesn’t want to deal with it because it’s dependent on the outside world in ways that China is not.

As for your trump card — Lebedev — look, when people are watching this from the outside, but you know the situation from the inside, you realize how absurd these accusations are. I remember very well when Muratov made the decision to bring Lebedev in as a co-founder. By the way, when Novaya Gazeta closed — it’s closed now, let me just clarify — 76% of the publication was owned by the editorial collective. 14% was owned by Alexander Lebedev. 10% by Gorbachev. So your claim that Lebedev was Muratov’s boss is just an ordinary lie. Lebedev was not Muratov’s boss.

What happened was that Novaya Gazeta was completely starved of resources, practically forced to the brink of being unable to publish. It was a newspaper with a huge circulation, a real, large readership. I, as someone who studied advertising, knew perfectly well that Novaya Gazeta was a valuable advertising platform. But there was no advertising in it because the regime that Novaya Gazeta fought against — and for which its journalists were killed — created a situation where any advertiser who tried to place ads there would be immediately visited by inspectors and so on. So no entrepreneur, no advertiser would risk it. Novaya Gazeta had no funding at all.

That’s why Muratov had to turn to someone, and at that time — this was in the 2000s, before Crimea was even an issue — he turned to Lebedev. Yes, Lebedev was a former military intelligence and FSB operative — first department of the FSB, military intelligence — so you’re right, that’s true. You’ve got your trump card there, Sad Donkey. But Lebedev was also a very mixed figure, not exactly a hero of my novel. I’m not going to defend him. For example, he founded a publication — I think it was the Moscow Correspondent — which was the first to investigate Putin’s alleged mistress, Alina Kabaeva, and that newspaper was immediately shut down. So it’s hard to call him a “regime lackey.”

Regarding your claim that Lebedev is under Western sanctions: yes, the only country that included him on their list is Canada. I think that’s a mistake. And I remember some of Lebedev’s publications in Novaya Gazeta as a co-owner — he had the right to do that. He used that right a couple of times, and I wasn’t thrilled about it. I’m not here to defend Lebedev. But after he lost all his assets in Russia and was effectively exiled, I think it’s wrong to call him a Putin regime collaborator.

I’m sure if Muratov had found a way to survive without Lebedev’s help, he would have done so. But it’s very easy for you to sit there — I don’t know where you’re fighting the Putin regime from, maybe from the front line, or maybe you’re heading to the Kremlin with some tool — but to imagine that it was possible for Novaya Gazeta to survive in the Putin regime without compromise is naive. You needed some sort of dribbling, some sort of maneuvering, to keep publishing.

And it would have been worse if Novaya Gazeta hadn’t existed — it was a tuning fork for many people, a real source of independent information, investigation, exposure, analysis.

As for my relationship with Muratov — it’s very complicated. I’m definitely not Muratov’s lawyer. My relationship with him has had a complicated evolution, and I’ll have a chance to talk about that in another context — I’ve already written down a question about it. But I’m not Muratov’s defender. Your assessments, though — in my opinion, they’re just revolting. Absolutely revolting.

As for your confident statement that Muratov works for the regime and that it will definitely come out one day — well, you know, I start from a simple principle. Unlike you, who’s ready to suspect everyone and everything, I start from the presumption of innocence. Because otherwise, you could analyze your own statements and say, “You know, there’s something suspicious about Sad Donkey — maybe he’s also a snitch.” But I would never say that.

And you know what stops me from saying things like that? There’s a small device in the soul — it’s called conscience. Conscience stops me from saying such things about people.

So, Muratov — like anyone who not only spoke out against the regime but also built a structure, an editorial office, created the infrastructure that allowed journalists like Shchekochikhin and Anna Politkovskaya — and you have no conscience to speak ill of them, who were killed for their stance. Muratov created the conditions for them to speak. I know the inside of Novaya Gazeta very well — I know how Muratov begged Anna Politkovskaya not to go to Chechnya, how he tried to protect his employees who were killed right before his eyes.

Again, my relationship with Muratov is complicated, and I’ve often cursed him out. But I’ll say again: what you wrote about Muratov is filth. I’m allowing myself to use strong language here because what you wrote is just revolting.

About Shenderovich and his stance on the special operation with the train Link to heading

Here’s another very pressing question about Shenderovich. Galina writes: What is your attitude towards this statement by Shenderovich? I’ll quote the statement in full so that it’s clear what we’re talking about. Today is the fifth, yes? This was the day before yesterday on Khodorkovsky Live. Current date: June 3rd. Elena Malakhova and Viktor Shenderovich. I’m quoting in full. Sorry it’s long, but it’s important to be objective. By the way, what he means is that at first the Russian authorities declared it a terrorist attack, then they hushed it up, basically cancelled the topic of the terrorist attack. Shenderovich says they don’t want it; they’re suppressing the public resonance. The resonance, in particular, lies in the fact that apparently Ukraine has nothing to do with it, that it’s really some sort of, God forgive me, partisans, that it’s Russians reacting in this way, that this is a sort of sacred, festering sore. It turns out it’s a disagreement with the party line, which can’t be changed in elections? You can’t say it out loud. That means you can’t go to court, you can’t change the government. There are no political levers, no judicial levers, no public levers, nothing can be done. The energy of protest, my friends – well, it’s a history textbook, just a Russian history textbook. The energy of protest unpredictably flows into the illegitimate field. If reforms are impossible, then someone must be blown up. And people do blow up, and when things blow up, people die. Only the Narodnaya Volya tried to blow up the Tsar, and peaceful people also died, but at least they were part of the Tsar’s entourage. But a huge number of peaceful people died in these attacks in a predictable manner, predictably. I’m quoting Shenderovich here. And I want to say, I’ve written about this before, but it bears repeating. Blowing up a train – if the train was actually the target, if they tried to blow it up so that it would fall on a passenger train – that is, of course, a crime. We need to call things by their names; it’s a crime. And those in my Facebook comments, joyfully from the Ukrainian side, someone even wrote to me that God was punishing the Russians. You have a strange God. He punished this 30-year-old woman, a doctor at a children’s hospice? She’s the guilty one. They couldn’t get to Putin, so they got to her. Congratulations, you killed her. You killed this 30-year-old hospice doctor and crippled others, who are still fighting for their lives in Moscow. Well, okay, she’s guilty because she’s the same age as Putin’s government. She was practically born under Putin. She’s guilty because Putin unleashed a war on Ukraine, because she didn’t overthrow Putin. She’s guilty, and a five-month-old baby is also being punished for that? Because he couldn’t… This five-month-old infant, he couldn’t overthrow Putin. Why are we killing him? This is a crime. We just need to say it in plain Russian. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff, to call things by their proper names. Putin’s military operation is a brilliant military operation, absolutely legitimate, absolutely lawful from both a formal and moral point of view – it’s a military operation during a war. But blowing up a train, if we’re talking about a passenger train, is a direct crime. My God, dear friends, at least read “Crime and Punishment,” will you? It’s all been studied for a long time. You go to kill the old woman, and along the way you also kill the saintly Lizaveta. We’re not the first people to live on this earth. It’s all been written about, all been studied. Well, read it, at least. That’s what I want to say to those who are rejoicing, to those who say that God sent this. There is no God. Let me share a secret with you: there is no God. There’s us, who use this God to the hilt, to serve our own interests, calling our own will God’s will. And I just want to say: God willing, that five-month-old baby will survive. But if he doesn’t, the death of that baby or any other Russian child killed in the course of this score-settling in no way compensates for the death of a Ukrainian child. And don’t tell me about the deaths of Ukrainian children. It’s just that there are now more murderers and more murdered. It’s not a chess game. And so on. I’ll skip a bit because it’s very long. Putin is a war criminal. Russians are representatives of the aggressor country. That’s not up for debate, it doesn’t change because of what happened. That also needs to be remembered. And the bigger picture, of course, is the young woman who was killed, her children crippled as part of, apparently, what the bombers believed was a struggle against Putin. End of the story.

So, here’s my conclusion. Naturally, from my point of view: what Shenderovich is right about and what he is definitely wrong about. Let me start with what he’s definitely wrong about. The thing is, he initially assumes that the aim of this sabotage was to blow up the passenger train itself, that this was sabotage by the Security Service of Ukraine. It’s likely the Security Service of Ukraine, although they’re not named, but nonetheless, it’s clear that it’s sabotage by Ukrainian special services. That’s unlikely to be a coincidence. But Shenderovich somehow assumes that the passenger train itself was the target. I don’t want to bring in the results of investigations here. They’re available and published. In reality, the passenger train was definitely not the target. This was an accidental convergence of circumstances. The act of sabotage was directed at destroying the bridge and the communications over which military equipment was moving toward Ukraine. In one case, as we know, in the Kursk region, a freight train carrying military equipment was destroyed. In the other case, the passenger train was the victim. You know, it’s absolutely obvious – a tragic accident. This sort of thing happens in war. There is no war in which civilians don’t die. And this war is no exception. Yes, it’s a tragic accident. Can Ukraine be so passionately accused here? Of course not. And this is where Shenderovich is 100% wrong. He got it wrong, he didn’t figure it out, he was too hasty. That’s his mistake, definitely his mistake. But what is he right about? He’s right about the inappropriate gloating. This inappropriate joy – like that of Babchenko, his famous “Let it burn!” after the tragedy in Kemerovo when children suffocated in a fire. Babchenko jumps out and dances on the graves of those children, who had absolutely nothing to do with the Putin regime. Children burned alive, suffocated, died painful deaths. Babchenko jumps out and starts dancing: “Let it burn! Let it burn!” It’s disgusting. That’s all. So in this case, Shenderovich is definitely wrong for accusing Ukraine of intentionally blowing up the passenger train. Although that’s what happened – it’s what’s called an accident, undoubtedly. Or rather, not even an accident – it’s an unfortunate confluence of circumstances. There are specific investigations that show how this happened. It’s a mistake. He didn’t sort it out, he was hasty, he was swept up by those first gleeful shouts about how “God punished them,” and so he just kept going, writing that this was a terrorist attack, and so on. But yes, that is clearly Shenderovich’s mistake, in my view. But to use that as a pretext to say, “So let’s rejoice!” – well, go ahead and rejoice.

About Assessing Images of Destroyed Aircraft Link to heading

Fausta UN. This is from the Telegram channel chat. The question I ask you to comment on within the framework of the useful reviews of “vatnik liberals” or liberals. As an option, the eternally gnashing teeth at any success of Ukraine. So what? Nikolay Mitrokhin, a regular military observer at Mail.ru. Quotation marks open, and then Mitrokhin’s text, looking at the analysts’ images, counts the losses of Russian aviation from the Ukrainian army. I think only one thing: how many of those planes in those pictures are quite intact, burned, literally a drop in the ocean. Fyodor Krasheninnikov quotes his favorite observer and adds: This is the problem. Even the most convenient sabotage actions will not win the war, and it is impossible to scale sabotage attacks so that they cause fatal damage. I suspect, based on the results of the operation with the trucks, the system is learning and it won’t be possible to repeat them. Therefore, the question is not whether they are needed or not. The problem is that without a breakthrough at the front, they cannot have a decisive impact. No breakthrough is in sight. Quite the opposite. And so on and so forth. So, the author of the question on Fausta, Fausta writes: Since it devalues the devaluation, this is the most Kremlin-like cannon. It’s important to analyze such norms. They, alas, are widely spread.

You know, I have nothing to answer your question because I agree with every word. You know, it’s from the same series—why I try not to criticize the Ukrainian authorities, the Ukrainian military-political leadership. It’s from the same series, you see, the devaluation. If we really start to engage in such devaluation, we deprive people of hope. This is wrong. And well, you know, in physics, there is—there is the law of the observer effect. It is impossible to remove the observer from the physical system. That is, the observer exerts an influence, as is well known. And here it’s the same thing: we have an impact, we do so with our texts. Yes, it’s important here to stay on the edge, not to turn into manipulators, propagandists, and so on. But we do exert an influence. And therefore, if we devalue, yes, we deprive people of hope, including the devaluation of these special operations that, indeed—well, listen, they—they create a perspective. Today so many aircraft are destroyed, tomorrow even more will be destroyed; the Black Sea Fleet of Russia has been effectively completely eliminated as a combat unit. Is that not a result? There was a Black Sea Fleet, and now there is none. That’s all. In exactly the same way, I see no particular obstacles to similarly destroying the Russian Aerospace Fleet. I don’t know if this will happen or not, but at least the hope for this exists. Why does this need to be devalued? Why do we have to keep gnashing our teeth and say that no, it won’t work? Right? Well, what’s next?

About the Invitation of Travin Link to heading

Question from Denis Is it possible to invite Dmitry Yakovlevich Travin and an expert on historical sociology to your wonderful channel?

Dear Denis, yes. TRAVIN—he would be a very interesting guest. The fact is that, unfortunately, I am not personally acquainted with him, and that is, so to speak, very unfortunate because he is indeed a very bright and interesting expert. And of course, well, the fact that I am not personally acquainted with him is apparently the reason why it has not worked out. My colleagues have reached out to him, but he did not seem to show much enthusiasm. Well, it happens, you know, not everything works out. But it would be—it would be good, it would be interesting.

About Those Signing Contracts in the Russian Army Link to heading

Galina Richard asks two questions.

The first question is: what happens to a normal person who signs a contract with the Russian army? In one of his lectures, Filonenko told about a priest who asked his students the question “what happened?” A very long story. Asking myself the same question, I saw many things differently. So if we ask this question to Russians going to war, to those supporting it - what happened in the life, in the head of this specific person? He had a family, work, home, education, values, life. And then he signs a contract, takes a weapon and goes to kill people just like him, people who have the same kind of life. And they have no connection to his life whatsoever. Just yesterday this specific person condemned killers and maniacs. And today he gouges out eyes, rapes children, enjoying the pain and suffering of people just like him. The Russian opposition has been saying the same thing for many years - everyone is to blame except our boys. But something happened to each specific person.

You know, I don’t think that… That yesterday this specific person condemned killers and maniacs, and today he gouges out eyes and so on. I don’t think so. I think that war, of course, it intensifies the worst qualities, but it doesn’t create them from scratch. I think that even the very fact that a person signed a contract is already… But yes, that’s it. It’s one thing when someone is forced, tortured and so on. It’s another thing to sign a contract. I don’t think that a person who didn’t initially have these qualities laid within them would, first of all, sign a contract, and secondly, would do what you’re talking about. I don’t think so. That is, of course, war intensifies everything worst that exists in a person. Especially when we’re talking about an occupying army. But it doesn’t create them from scratch.

About the toolkit Link to heading

And my second question: if possible, could you explain using a single example how your toolkit is organized? I have a vague idea in general, but I’m not sure if I understand it correctly.

Well, I’ll try to be as brief as possible, since our streams already run to three hours each. So, look. Here’s a concrete, if somewhat sketchy, example. Let’s say we need to research a particular medium, a media segment, or some media situation in the country. From there, I start gathering the tools I need for this research. I pull down from the shelf Nicholas Luhmann, an outstanding German sociologist, and his 10 criteria for turning events into news—an excellent tool. I grab several other tools as well. This is one part of the research. Then I pull down from the shelf Pierre Bourdieu, an outstanding French sociologist, and his Zhdanov Law. I’ve spoken many times about what this law is, which allows you to analyze how different types of media react to political pressure. I also use his broader field theory, his sociological field theory, and his analysis of how the fields of politics, social sciences, and journalism interact and shape one another. So I take these tools, and this allows me to create some working model—at least I think it works. In fact, I’ve done quite a few of these studies, sometimes even inventing my own tools, but of course always based on and analogous to what’s already out there. In some cases, I’m helped by other authors. Max Weber, for example, is often very helpful. And, yes, the ancients can be useful too, as is often the case for me. So that’s roughly how I showed with a concrete example how you can build a sociological model or solve a specific research question by drawing on what’s already in the—well, forgive the cliché—treasure trove of human knowledge.

On Teaching Link to heading

So, Leonid Tsoy and Alexander Ficha a couple of years ago I wrote to you on Facebook trying to ask to become a sociology student of yours. And you even replied; a lot has happened since then. I have a sudden idea now. I suspect I’m not the only one interested. Maybe it’s possible to organize something like an online seminar. At the moment I’m very interested in the topic of corruption, consciousness, and the gradual slide of individuals toward fascism. I’d like to write something on this, apparently at the intersection of sociology and social psychology, but I have little idea how to approach the topic, what to read, and so on. I can’t think of anyone better than you as a supervisor. Maybe you could jot down some ideas? And what do you think about the seminar idea? For example, meeting once a month to discuss texts with others, their discoveries and the struggles of their souls?

Dear Leonid! When I moved to Lithuania, I spent some time hoping I would be able to organize and continue my teaching activities, but. Unfortunately, right now, all my energy is taken up. My YouTube channel, my Telegram channel to a lesser degree—but there just aren’t enough resources, physical or time resources. That’s the situation. And besides, you know, just recently I had a conversation with a highly esteemed colleague, a gloomy figure who launched an attack on Dmitry Muratov. You see, of course, I don’t have a newspaper with dozens of staffers; I have a relatively small channel, but I understand that resources—including financial, time, and human resources—have a huge impact. I don’t have many resources. I don’t ask for money from oligarchs, I don’t ask for money from any state. I don’t, I don’t seek grants. Well, I don’t do this on principle, because, in principle, I probably could reach out to some people and ask for money. But I don’t think that’s right. I believe that if the channel is needed, it should exist on the strength of its own existence, without any appeals. That’s the situation. It’s the same with the possibility of teaching. If something comes up, I still hope we’ll somehow take off and there will be? There will be resources, then I’ll have some free time, then I’ll be able, so to speak, to free up my time for teaching work. Maybe then it will work out. For now, no. It’s not working out, alas. I remember our conversation, dear Leonid. I really did say that we’d try to do something. But, well, you know how it is. I couldn’t. It didn’t work out. And it’s a great pity, a real pity. I still hope that somehow I’ll be able to return to teaching.

On Contacts with Former Students Link to heading

So? A question from Irina. Do any of your students ever thank you for the education they received back when you were teaching at MGIMO?

Dear Irina! Well, you see, the thing is, our paths… I have a certain number of my students, and not necessarily just from MGIMO. Recently, I’ve been maintaining fewer and fewer contacts. There’s a small number of students from MID, the Moscow Institute of Railway Transport Engineers, where I taught. There are two or three people I used to correspond with for a while. But recently, you know how it goes—life has scattered us all over. Especially since I’m essentially no longer active on Facebook. Back when Facebook was around… you see, it was this kind of communication environment that still maintained ties from those days. But now everything’s different. Now, I’m basically not on Facebook at all, so even when something does come up, we’ve pretty much all lost track of each other. So, no, in recent times, I haven’t been receiving any particular thanks.

How did people end up on this planet? Link to heading

So? A question from Oleg. You said that you don’t agree with the idea that people were settled here by someone from outside. So how, in your view, did people end up on this planet? I’ll say right away that I think the theory of evolution is rather questionable. But the same can be said about the history of the construction of the pyramids and much else. Unfortunately, we’ll probably never find out where it all came from. What do you think?

Dear Oleg, you know, let me start with the construction of the pyramids. I remember being very inspired as a teenager—my mother and I went to the movies and watched, I can’t remember the name of the film, but it was a kind of docu-fiction about all sorts of wonders, about how the pyramids were these inexplicable things. And those statues from Easter Island—clearly the work of aliens, because a primitive person couldn’t possibly build that. And so on. There were some other South American structures—also stunning. All of this. Well, it was a kind of logical nonsense, but it did make an impression on me. I remember we watched it when I was in about seventh grade. Back then, yes, it made an impression on me. Like, yes, maybe people really couldn’t build it.

But let’s come back to reality: the pyramids. If we really looked at the Pyramid of Khufu, standing alone in the desert, and we knew nothing about the history of ancient Egypt, it might indeed feel that way. But once we know a bit more, that impression disappears. We know that during the first dynasties—before these gigantic pyramids—there were special houses called mastabas, burial structures with underground chambers and stone buildings above. If we trace this evolution, first there were mastabas—clear first steps toward pyramids—then, over time, there’s the famous step pyramid, which is basically a stacked, tiered structure. You can see how they were built. No aliens there. Then came the step pyramid itself, then a whole series of intermediate steps, and finally you get the huge monster that is the Pyramid of Khufu. You realize this was built by people. It’s the product of the development of Egyptian civilization, growing ever stronger. The pharaohs competed in vanity, in the height of their pyramids, in their perfection, in the labor of their workers. And truly, this is a breathtaking monument made by people.

When you don’t see only the Pyramid of Khufu but also the mastabas, the step pyramids, and other structures—I’m not a historian, I can’t give you a full lecture on the history of the pyramids—but I know they got there step by step. And you realize that it’s no aliens, it’s the work of ancient Egyptian civilization.

As for how people ended up on this planet—I’d say pretty much the same way cockroaches did, or cats. I don’t really understand what bothers you about the theory of evolution. Is it the large number of so-called gaps? But often this criticism of evolution sounds like the old “letter to the learned neighbor” story: if you think we came from monkeys, why don’t we have tails and wild howls? Well, in general, I think ufology is pseudoscience. We’re locals, not visitors.

On the Big Bang Theory Link to heading

So? Bobrov, Bobrov, Kyiv. Igor Yakovenko, do you believe in the Big Bang?

You know, dear colleague Bobrov, I don’t “believe” in the Big Bang. What I know about the Big Bang theory convinces me that this theory is probably true. And here’s why. Of course, I’m not a physicist, I’m not an astronomer, and I’m not a mathematician. But I am someone who’s interested in these sciences and who, to some extent, can tell what’s nonsense and what isn’t.

We know that back in the late 1920s, there was empirical observation of the expanding universe. That’s the so-called Hubble law—I can’t remember exactly when in the late 1920s. And since then, it has been confirmed many times that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds that increase proportionally with distance. So, yes, this amazing Big Bang theory is fascinating because the Big Bang isn’t like a grenade exploding at a single point. It’s a fundamental change in spatial parameters, with expansion happening at every point. That’s an amazing story.

But it seems to me that the Big Bang theory, in general, more or less adequately describes what’s happening with our universe. As for believing or not believing—well, you know, that’s up to someone else.

On Latynina. On Guteontov, Bogdanov Link to heading

Alexander, two questions from him. Alexander is a sponsor of our channel, and for that I never tire of thanking him. About Latynina—I feel like that question isn’t really important. My gripe is just that your and Latynina’s audiences don’t overlap much anymore, so she shouldn’t be in the morning stream, only in broadcasts like Mediafrenia and so on.

Well, that’s fine, I’m willing to gradually agree with you. In fact, I think Latynina will indeed migrate to those so-called broadcasts. I agree with you.

Now a question from Alexander: I was struck by that nasty letter someone named Pavel Guteontov wrote about you. Could you briefly explain what happened? He seemed like a normal journalist, no particular scandals—definitely not Minkin, not even Radzikhovsky, just quietly writing his historical essays.

Well, yes, this relates to the Muratov question and why my relationship with him was never quite smooth. As they say in such cases: it was 2008, and it felt like the Kremlin was breathing down my neck. And I truly believe this was the Kremlin’s doing and that the FSB managed to squeeze me out of the Union of Journalists and out of Russia altogether. It’s a long story that dragged on for 10 years, but 2008 was when they finally succeeded. They managed to organize a split in the Union of Journalists of Russia at a congress. There were two positions: mine and the chairman’s. I was the general secretary, and the chairman was Bogdanov. Bogdanov’s position was: “We love the authorities.” I’m quoting him. “We love the authorities. We love both Medvedev and Putin. We love them all.” My position was that, actually, loving the authorities is a perversion, and the Union of Journalists of Russia should be an organization that provides services to journalists and media and earns money for that.

When I came to the Union, it was basically a hospice—people just sat around doing nothing and earned money solely from renting out office space. That’s it. There was also a brothel, a place called “Orban Down.” There were other structures, including a restaurant that was essentially a private business. I started putting things in order—removing vodka traders who occupied floors of the Union of Journalists building. I tried to create structures that provided services to journalists and the media. I created a national circulation and audience audit service. I created an Institute of Public Expertise to research media issues. A giant project, fantastically complex: we negotiated with the world’s leading software producers—Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, and so on—to offer discounted products to Russian media.

Why was this important? Because one tool used to crush independent journalism was the so-called “K Department” raids, where they’d show up at newsrooms and find counterfeit software. The newsroom would be shut down instantly. These raids were widespread, and my project had huge support. It helped bring many Russian newsrooms out of the gray zone. I won’t list everything, so it doesn’t sound like bragging, but there were around a dozen and a half different structures working to provide these services. Journalism schools were created, including a school of authorial journalism.

This provoked huge resistance from people who were used to getting money from the authorities. Unfortunately, Guteontov ended up on their side. At the time, I don’t know how Pavel feels now, but back then he was a completely collapsed, broken man, totally drunk. He sided with Bogdanov and wrote a vile piece in Novaya Gazeta slandering me—claiming that everything I was doing was thanks to Savva, when in reality, whenever I dealt with the Microsofts and Adobes of the world, the Union of Journalists affiliation was more of a minus than a plus—nobody understood what journalists had to do with it.

But Pasha outright slandered me, wrote nasty things, and that publication was one of the foundations for further spreading of these slanders. On that basis came the defamation from Vladimir Solovyov and scum like Lurye, who accused me of corruption, of having castles all over Europe and around the world. You can see this in a couple of my streams and videos on our channel—“Answer from the Cesspool,” “Answer from the Cesspool Two,” and so on—where I go into detail about this defamation. I suggest: let them find even a square centimeter of property or even a single account with the money I supposedly stole. It’s a direct lie and slander.

As for Dima Muratov’s role—he called me when that vile letter by Guteontov was published and said: “You know, Pasha Guteontov published this piece—if you want to respond, you can.” I replied with an expletive because I consider it a betrayal and still do, though overall I continue to see Muratov as a basically positive figure. But in terms of his personal betrayal toward me, I’ve closed the door on communicating with him. That’s the story. These things happen. But in general, I still regard Muratov fairly positively.

What’s happening now with Putin and all that—I just don’t know, and frankly, I’m not very interested.

One more question from Alexander: While writing this, I was reminded of a completely different name, someone totally different and definitely a decent person from the “Forgotten Names” series. What can you tell me about Igor Golembiovsky?

Well, that’s indeed a completely different person. Igor Nestrovich—I worked with him for a time when I was general director of the Russian Courier publishing house, and he was the editor-in-chief of that paper. Nothing but good things to say: a very decent person, a talented journalist, and an editor-in-chief who knew how to bring together interesting, dynamic people.

About Elvira Vikhareva Link to heading

So? A question from Polly. This is from the chat. I have a question about Elvira Vikhareva. A couple of weeks ago on the morning stream someone asked you why there haven’t been any more joint broadcasts with her, and whether you know what’s going on with her. Based on her latest posts on Facebook, you replied that she hasn’t invited you and you haven’t seen her posts. I wrote to her on Facebook after reading those very posts about her situation—she’s in a severe psychological and material crisis. None of the so-called opposition responded to her requests for help or work, even though she apparently reached out to everyone, directly and specifically. But Elvira told me that Yakovenko is well aware, which is awful. You said you didn’t know anything. Since I’ve been listening to you for several years and have never once heard you say anything knowingly false, especially in such a sensitive situation, I’m asking again: do you know anything about her distress? If not, why do you think you might not have heard about it, if you’re on Facebook, where she’s been writing about it for six months already? And of course, it’s being reposted by people in your circle.

Dear Polly. Well, now I know. Moreover, let’s dot the i’s once and for all: for a while, Elvira Vladimirovna Vikhareva used to invite me to her broadcasts every Friday, and we did about an hour-long program in the format of a conversation. At first it was more like an interview, but gradually it evolved into more of a conversation. And then, at some point, I just stopped receiving invitations from her.

You know, these kinds of relationships often involve people who don’t really know each other. I’ve never once met Elvira Vladimirovna offline, outside the internet. There’s never been any kind of personal relationship between us. So I didn’t start asking questions—this happens. Sometimes I also stop inviting people, though generally I value experts and try to stay in touch with them. But it’s not the only time people have stopped inviting me, or shifted to inviting me irregularly. That also happens, for a wide variety of reasons. Occasionally, it’s tied to some personal or vague conflict. That also happens. But that’s not the case here. Neither of us has ever spoken a bad word about the other. Period.

As for Facebook, unfortunately, some time ago I essentially withdrew from Facebook. It’s not for any political reason, but I only use it now to post materials from our channel. That’s it. I basically don’t write there anymore, and that’s a big problem—my personal problem. But I live with it. So Facebook is not a source of information for me. Period. Now I know.

Moreover, I’d heard at some point that Elvira Vladimirovna was undergoing treatment at the Charité clinic in Germany, if I’m not mistaken. For some reason she was dissatisfied with how things were set up there and went back to Russia. Honestly, I don’t know why she reacted so sharply to your comments. I don’t know how you presented my information, but in any case, I see no reason for such harsh words from her. What’s going on with her, what kind of help she needs, from whom—I don’t know.

So, once again, I want to stress that now, thanks in part to you, I’m aware that she does indeed have problems. What kind? Well, probably the same problems that come with living in Russia and being an anti-Putin person—it’s tough. Why she lives in Russia, why she left Germany—that’s another question. And one that’s not really for me.

About Russians and Slavs Link to heading

So, a question from Yura Bandera Igor, you say that Russians are Slavs. But why is it that around the capital, from Moscow to St. Petersburg, there used to be non-Slavic tribes like the Merya, Ves, Pechora, Muroma, Chud, Moksha, and others like the Ugro-Mari, Udmurts, Komi, Karelians? There are lots of non-Slavic ethnic groups. And even the name of Moscow is of Finno-Ugric origin. The river names aren’t Slavic either. When Muscovy captured and destroyed Great Novgorod, that was Slavs against Slavs. But you can’t really say that Russia is Slavs, right? I have nothing against Finno-Ugric or other peoples. But it turns out Putin says Russians and Ukrainians are one people, and you’re basically trying to latch onto that, aren’t you?

With all due respect. You know, dear Yura Bandera, it’s funny—me, Igor Yakovenko, trying to latch onto you? Don’t you find that a bit amusing? Well, let’s get serious. About this “latching on” idea—so, who are the Russians? How can we assess whether the Russians belong to some larger ethnic group—Slavs, Finno-Ugrics, Germans, or someone else?

First of all, there’s language. What are the criteria? Language. And then there’s genetic analysis, which is very popular and widespread now. First, language. The Russian language is a classic East Slavic language, part of the Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family. It has no connection to Finno-Ugric languages. If you take Finnish or Hungarian—there’s nothing in common with Russian, absolutely nothing. So, on this basis alone, you can firmly say that Russians are, of course, Slavs, not Finno-Ugrics.

Next, about place names. Let me ask you—where do the names of the American states come from? I want to let you know that the names of the United States, as you know—50 states—25 of them have names that came from Native American languages. For example: Iowa, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Kentucky, and so on. Twenty-five! Go look up the etymology of state names. So does that mean Americans are Indians? Biden, Kennedy, Trump—typical Indians, right? Well, you see how your argument is based on a huge misunderstanding.

I could add a third point—this is simple enough too. Look at genetic analyses of which group Russians belong to. They belong to the Slavs. Genetic analysis clearly shows that Russians are Slavs.

I understand, dear Yura Bandera, the big desire to push away as far as possible. It’s understandable. It’s a real misfortune that Ukraine’s neighbor is Russia, and there’s a huge desire to separate. But you can’t separate physically because of geography—no moat with crocodiles, since crocodiles don’t live in permafrost. Now there’s a war, and there’s a huge desire to separate. Someone says Russians are Mongols—well, you can also do an anatomical analysis, and so on… but it doesn’t work. Russians are Slavs, yes? That’s just a fact—a misfortune of geography and ethnicity.

As for the idea that “Russians and Ukrainians are one people”—that’s nonsense. Just like Czechs and Poles, also Slavs, aren’t the same people as Russians or Ukrainians. There’s a real difference there.

So the distance between Putin’s statement that “we’re one people” and my statement that both Russians and Ukrainians are Slavs is enormous. Putin’s claim has clear political interests and consequences. My claim has no political interests or consequences. And I’m not trying to latch onto anything. It would be easy enough for me to do so, being Yakovenko, but let’s not be silly or dishonest. I get why you want to push away as far as possible. It’s understandable. But as Alexander the Great said, why break chairs over it? Why twist objective reality just because you want to?

About Shtefanov Link to heading

So, a few comments. You didn’t give them. A comment about Dmitry Demushkin. A fragment of Demushkin was in your last broadcast with Ekaterina Stolyar-UN at around 14:09. Demushkin looked very different with a big beard, so maybe you just didn’t recognize him.

Maybe. Honestly, I don’t remember right now, but I don’t think I could have said that. I really doubt I would have said specifically about Demushkin that he supports the war in Ukraine. Well, I don’t know, maybe I’ll go back and check that broadcast, but I doubt it.

And my question about Shtefan—you still haven’t answered it. Is there a chance we’ll see Shtefan on your channel? Even though he’s got very different views, you said a year ago that he’s someone you could talk to.

Oh, dear Giorgio! That’s just like Zhvanetsky himself—pure Zhvanetsky! Too bad we didn’t get to hear the head of the transport department speak. Well, yesterday—yesterday I was talking about this, I was answering questions. That’s the thing—yesterday’s stream was 2 hours and 40 minutes long, and we didn’t have time codes. I understand. But yesterday I answered about Shtefanov in detail, point by point. Well, I guess I didn’t really answer, did I?

About Orban, Ukraine, and the EU Link to heading

So? Yes. A couple of questions from Max. I liked Orban’s statement. I wouldn’t call it fascism, more like 80th-level populism—so cartoonish and excessive it’s hard to take seriously. I don’t think Ukraine’s entry into the EU is some kind of ultimate task. The real top priority now is to preserve the state; everything else can come later. Ukraine is part of Europe, both geographically and in how its citizens think, and no political body can change that.

Dear Max! I always read your comments with great interest, and usually we see eye to eye. But here I find it hard to agree, because this isn’t just some lone blogger’s position—this is the position of a head of state, a member of the EU and NATO. And he has a very real influence, including on the situation in Ukraine. So we have to take him seriously, unfortunately.

Wargaming Link to heading

And also regarding this company, there’s a clarification about Wargaming. Until 2022, Lesta was part of their marketing. After 2022, they decided to leave Russia and Belarus, and there was a six-month separation process for the company. Lesta continued making “ships” (World of Warships) in Russia, while tanks and other projects in the civilized world continued under Wargaming. These were essentially different companies from then on. Wargaming really did support—and still does support—Ukraine. One of their offices is in Kyiv. Those who wanted to stay, stayed in Lesta. And so on.

You know, yes—I honestly didn’t know these kinds of details. But I just want to say that the real joy and approval, as some expressed about the fact that the leadership of this FGU (Federal State Unitary Enterprise) was labeled as agents or traitors, well… what’s there to be happy about? These were people who genuinely supported Ukraine.

As for Lesta, despite the fact that, yes, they tried—at least as far as I know—to appease the regime by saying they supported the war and were for Putin in general… the fact remains that one of the biggest businesses of this kind, with, if I’m not mistaken, a capitalization of a billion or profits—I don’t remember exactly, but around 400 million dollars—was forcibly taken away. That, in fact, is yet another sign that normal people simply can’t exist in Russia.

So, I wouldn’t be celebrating this, personally.

About Slavs Link to heading

So. And the third question from Max is about religiosity. Well, I’ve already been conducting that survey, so it’s a bit late. So, Lyuda, I always listen to your streams. I’m always in solidarity with you, especially regarding your position on animals. Today, though, I was more disappointed—no, rather frustrated—by your statement about the Slavic origins of the Russians. And so on.

Well, I’ve already answered this question, you understand? We’re not Finno-Ugric. The language—Slavic. And the genetics—Slavic. You can’t push it away. And your references to “look into the matter,” “read reputable historians”—there aren’t any reputable historians who prove that black is white. You won’t succeed in proving that Russians are Finno-Ugric. They’re not Finno-Ugric, you understand? Just like you can’t prove that because of the Native American names of states, Americans are Native Americans. They’re not. You understand?

So, I completely understand your desire to separate from the Russians as much as possible. That’s something you can do, but you have to win. And I’ll do everything I can to help, including materially supporting those who are fighting against these same Russians at the front. But twisting science to suit political interests—I wouldn’t do that.

Dear friends, we’re going to wrap up today’s conversation here. But still, you see, we managed to make this stream a little shorter than usual.

Results of the channel polls Link to heading

Now, I’d like to summarize the results of the polls. There are two. One of these polls was on our YouTube channel. The question was: do you believe in God, including belief in a higher cosmic intelligence? Yes, I believe—49%. So almost half of our audience, you and me, believe in God or a higher cosmic intelligence. 49% are staunch atheists. 30% are people who say no, I don’t believe—atheists. And finally, agnostics—21%. This is in response to those who say we have a cult of Yakovenko here. I turned out to be in the minority, you see—I’m in that third group, the 21%. Meanwhile, 49% believe in God or in a higher cosmic intelligence.

Now, let’s see how it went in the Telegram chat. The total number of participants in the poll was 4,800. A big, representative group of not so many participants. The chat itself is very small—62 people voted. Going forward, I think I’ll do polls not in the chat, but in the Telegram channel itself, which has almost 13,000 people. So, 62 people voted: 42% believe, 32% are atheists, and 26% say they find it difficult to answer—agnostics. That’s the result.

So, let’s put it this way: I will stick to my decision. I’m probably going to stop discussing religious topics—unless there’s something especially interesting or a question that really requires serious analysis and commentary. But just conversations about “no, you really should believe in a cosmic intelligence”—I won’t be answering those questions anymore. But I do invite you to engage in conversations if there’s an interesting topic.

Closing Remarks Link to heading

With that, I’ll wrap up today’s morning stream. Glory to Ukraine! Please take care of yourselves! Freedom for Alexander Skobov! Freedom for all Russian political prisoners and Ukrainian prisoners of war! See you soon! All the best!

Source: https://youtu.be/sCVlGf7Ihvs