Putin gave Trump a “priceless” portrait of Trump painted by Safronov, while Trump’s friend Witkoff and Tucker Carlson spent an hour and a half lying non-stop about Ukraine, the war, and Putin.
Main Topic Link to heading
Good morning, dear friends! My name is Igor Yakovenko. Today is March 24. It’s 7:40 AM in Kyiv, and we continue our morning reflections on what is happening in Russia, in the world, in Ukraine, and in our souls.
Historical Rhyme Link to heading
On this day, March 24, 1933, President Hindenburg approved the Enabling Act. This law had been passed by the Reichstag the day before. It abolished civil liberties and granted emergency powers to the government led by Hitler. The adoption and approval of this law marked the final stage of the Nazi seizure of power in Germany. In fact, it solidified the Nazi dictatorship. In the first article of this law, the government—that is, Hitler—was granted full powers to enact state laws. The second article allowed such laws to violate the Constitution. Finally, the third article stated that laws would be issued by the Reich Chancellor—that is, Hitler—and would take effect upon publication in a special edition. The fourth article gave Hitler—that is, the government—complete freedom in conducting foreign policy negotiations. In effect, March 24, 1933, marked the beginning of the so-called Thousand-Year Reich, which in reality lasted a little over 12 years. That is today’s historical rhyme.
Ceasefire Was Not Maintained After Trump-Putin Call Link to heading
Let’s move on to the present day. Trump’s National Security Advisor Michael Witkoff stated that the ceasefire on infrastructure targets came into effect immediately after the conversation between Trump and Putin. That happened on March 18. Well, let’s look at how exactly this ceasefire, this end to the war and shelling, has been working, using a few examples.
Due to a drone attack on Kyiv last night, three people were killed and ten others injured, including a five-year-old girl who died. In Kyiv’s Dnipro and Podil districts, debris hit residential buildings. This caused fires in several other neighborhoods. Falling debris damaged vehicles and destroyed the upper floors of buildings.
Also, throughout the day on March 23, Russian occupiers shelled and dropped guided bombs on civilian infrastructure. In the Sukhumi district, a 61-year-old shopkeeper was killed and several others injured. Private homes were destroyed.
So, to sum up, the ceasefire continues. You know, I can’t present any hard evidence. I’m speaking more from a sense—statistics, precise before-and-after data for the 18th, I don’t have. But it seems like fewer people were being killed before Trump and Putin agreed on a ceasefire. At least fewer civilians. So maybe we should somehow bring back the fire under this ceasefire regime. That way, fewer civilians might die. That’s the impression I’m getting.
Talks in Saudi Arabia Link to heading
Yesterday and today in Saudi Arabia, so-called shuttle negotiations took place between the U.S., Ukraine, and Russia. Any substantive outcomes? Yes, there were speeches by representatives of the Ukrainian side, but they were rather routine and general in nature. So I don’t have any substantive results from these talks. Maybe I just didn’t look hard enough, but I couldn’t find anything in the public or open press. So I won’t be saying anything more about these negotiations today.
The Love Between Trump and Putin Link to heading
There are, however, plenty of comments about how the personal relationship between Putin and Trump is developing and deepening. And this relationship, in my view, is so significant that it can only be described as love. Since the lovers are not young, their passion takes on a special, I would say, romantic and even slightly touching character.
Putin, for instance, gave Trump a portrait of him painted by Nikas Safronov. While Safronov himself has yet to confirm authorship, many say it’s clearly his work. The artist of this painting, Nikas Safronov, told Argumenty i Fakty that the portrait is a priceless work of art. He coyly added that in creative circles, it’s not customary to comment on works whose authorship is unclear.
When asked about the painting’s potential value, Safronov said such a piece is likely priceless. And this priceless gift was entrusted by Putin to be delivered to the recipient by Trump’s close friend, Steve Witkoff. According to Witkoff, Trump was very, very moved by the gift.
Witkoff’s Lies to the American Audience Link to heading
Witkoff himself shared his impressions of meeting with Putin along with another remarkable person—Tucker Carlson. For more than an hour and a half, they passionately praised Putin and presented exclusively the Putin version of the history of Ukraine, the causes of the current war, and the situation at the front. In other words, they lied non-stop for an hour and a half.
Perhaps the most notable lie—and I believe this is important. I understand that some might find this detailed breakdown of falsehoods excessive, but the point is that this is lying aimed at an American, Western audience. It’s what fills the heads of Americans—Trump’s supporters and allies. I think this matters because it eventually affects public opinion.
So, perhaps the most high-profile lie from Witkoff was his statement about the so-called referendums held in the occupied regions of Ukraine. I’ll quote: Witkoff—“Well, first of all, I think the biggest issue in this conflict is the so-called four regions—Donbas, Crimea. You know those names.” Clearly, he doesn’t actually remember the names of these regions. But Tucker Carlson jumped in to help—“Luhansk, yes, Luhansk.” Witkoff clearly doesn’t remember the other two names. “They are Russian-speaking,” he added. “There were referendums where an overwhelming majority of people said they wanted to be under Russian control.”
Tucker Carlson: “Yes?”
Steve Witkoff: “Yes, I think that’s the key issue in this conflict. So it’s the very first thing that needs to be resolved. And we’re having very, very positive discussions. And Russia controls those territories.”
Tucker Carlson: “In fact, from the Russian perspective, some of these territories are now part of Russia, right?”
Steve Witkoff: “Yes, right. But it’s always been that way.”
Well, I won’t digress now. We’ll talk separately about these lies. But to sum it up—congratulations to these two remarkable individuals, Carlson and Witkoff, on their collective lie-fest. Nearly every statement Witkoff made in that dialogue is a falsehood.
Lie #1: The Occupied Regions Are Actually Russian Link to heading
Let’s be specific. First, in reality, Russia claims five Ukrainian regions, not four: Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson. Second, lie number two—based on the results of Ukrainian parliamentary elections, the prevalence of the Russian language in certain Ukrainian regions does not necessarily indicate a desire to become part of Russia or show pro-Russian sentiment.
For example, in the last Verkhovna Rada elections, which took place in 2019, the pro-Russian party Opposition Platform—For Life received around 18–20% of the vote in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. That is clearly not a majority. It had similar numbers in the Kharkiv and Odesa regions, where many residents also speak Russian. So, the Russian language does not at all mean a desire to join Russia.
Furthermore, statistical data disproves Witkoff and Carlson’s claim that the overwhelming majority of the population in these regions is Russian-speaking. The last Ukrainian census was in 2001, and at that time, only about 25% of the population in Kherson region listed Russian as their native language. In Zaporizhzhia region, that number was 49%. Yes, in Donetsk it was 75%, Luhansk 69%, and Crimea 75%. So at least two of the regions Russia is trying to annex—Kherson and Zaporizhzhia—are not Russian-speaking. That is, they are not Russian in terms of population.
Lie #2: The Referendums Were Independent Link to heading
A separate lie is about the so-called referendums. Their legitimacy is not recognized by the vast majority of countries in the world, as well as by international organizations, because all the voting took place after the regions had already fallen under the control of Russian occupiers. And the way Russia tried to imitate these referendums is well known.
Lie #3: Russia Controls All 5 Regions Link to heading
In addition to everything else, another lie is that Russia controls all five of the regions in question. Yes, Crimea is indeed under Russian control, but a significant part of Donetsk region is still controlled by Ukraine—not to mention Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which are entirely under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Lie #4: Ukraine Is an Artificial Patchwork Created by Khrushchev Link to heading
Yet another series of lies—it’s really like some kind of contagion that hits foreigners after they talk to Putin. Every foreigner who’s had the misfortune of speaking with Putin inevitably comes under a massive onslaught of his historical “data” about Russia and Ukraine. He always brings up Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s charter, and without fail, mentions the Pechenegs and Polovtsians. All this “information” has a very peculiar nature and bears no resemblance to actual history.
In his conversation with Carlson, the traces of this Putin-inflicted historical virus emerged in full force. For example, Witkoff spoke at length about Khrushchev’s role in shaping Ukraine. I’d guess that before meeting Putin, this fine developer had never even heard the name Khrushchev. But now he’s “in the know.” He shared the following, I quote Steve Witkoff: “I think we need to clearly establish all the facts and understand the actual situation. The real situation in Russia is that it’s all very complex—and for Ukraine too. It’s a complicated conflict. They’ve been, mind you, in conflict with each other since World War II. In Russia, there’s a feeling that Ukraine is a fake country, that it’s just a patchwork of regions thrown together. That, in my opinion, is the root cause of this war—Russia considers these five regions to have been theirs since World War II.” What WWII has to do with this is unclear. “No one wants to talk about this,” he adds, “but I’m saying it clearly. No one wants to.” Russian television, in fact, broadcasts this every five minutes—practically 24/7.
Then Witkoff goes on: “How are we supposed to resolve all this if we can’t resolve the core issue that defines the whole conflict?” Tucker Carlson tries to show off his knowledge: “Khrushchev, basically, made them part of Ukraine.”
Steve: “Right.”
Tucker Carlson: “Yeah. Khrushchev, I think, was Ukrainian.”
Incredible. Truly incredible. Nikita Sergeyevich was a typical Russian, born in the Kursk region. But alright, let’s put that aside. Once again, congratulations to Witkoff and Carlson for lying—yet again. I’ve lost count of how many times now.
First of all, anyone who grew up in the Soviet Union knows perfectly well that Khrushchev had absolutely nothing to do with the territorial status of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, or Kherson regions, which were part of the Ukrainian SSR from the moment it was created in 1919. Again—sure, it’s understandable that an American journalist or real estate developer might not know the history of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR, or the RSFSR, or Khrushchev’s biography. But the point is—they’ve been infected by Putin. They’re now broadcasting this lie to the entire world.
Another widely spread falsehood is that Khrushchev had some significant role in transferring Crimea to Ukraine. In reality, the decision to transfer Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR was made in 1954, when Khrushchev was already First Secretary of the Central Committee. But this decision was made by decree—not signed by Khrushchev—and he played no key role in it at all.
The transfer of the Crimean region from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR was carried out by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, initiated at a meeting of the CPSU Central Committee Presidium chaired by Malenkov. Just to name real names—those who made the actual decision: Malenkov chaired the meeting; the decree was signed by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Kliment Voroshilov. So Khrushchev played no decisive role.
And one more—I’ve lost count now—third lie: Khrushchev had no ethnic or national connection to Ukraine. He was born in the Kursk region, and his parents were Russian. The fact that he worked in Ukraine for a while is irrelevant—it doesn’t connect him to Ukraine either ethnically or culturally. He never had any relation to Ukraine in that sense.
And so, mission accomplished—infecting American minds with lies about Ukrainian history.
Lie #5: Putin Has No Intentions to Claim Other Ukrainian Regions Link to heading
Then Trump’s special envoy stated that Putin has no intention of claiming any additional Ukrainian regions beyond those already included in the Russian Constitution. What exactly did he say? So, Tucker Carlson asks: “Do you think the Russians want to march through Europe?”
Steve Witkoff: “100% no.”
Tucker Carlson: “Why would they want that? I wouldn’t want those countries. But tell me—why would they?”
So, if he wouldn’t want them, then clearly neither would the Russian leadership. That’s the logic—absolutely watertight.
Then Witkoff continues: “First of all, why would they want to absorb all of Ukraine? For what specific purpose? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine,” Witkoff asserts. “It would be like occupying Gaza. Do the Israelis really want to occupy Gaza for the rest of their lives? No, they don’t. They want stability there. But the Russians already have what they need. They got those five regions back. Got them back.”
Notice the repetition of the lie—“got them back,” “they have Crimea,” “they got what they wanted.” Why would they need more?
Well, let’s congratulate these liars—yet again—for lying. The fact is, before the invasion, Russian authorities repeatedly claimed they had no intention of invading. Indeed, Putin constantly lied about not planning to occupy Ukraine—yet we all know what happened.
Meanwhile, Russian politicians—including Medvedev—have consistently spoken of the need to annex additional Ukrainian regions, including Kharkiv and Odesa. And that’s not even touching on what is broadcast on Russian state television, where they constantly talk about the need to occupy all of Ukraine—and not just Ukraine.
There’s a wealth of information suggesting that Putin indeed has ambitions to occupy what is referred to as “Novorossiya”—that is, roughly half of Ukraine, including Odesa, Mykolaiv, and so on.
And beyond that, Europe—unlike these two Trump allies—clearly understands the threat. European leaders have openly stated that other European countries could very well be Putin’s next targets after Ukraine.
Lie #6: Ukrainian Troops Are Encircled Near Kursk Link to heading
Well, since we’ve begun analyzing all this lying, I can’t skip over the falsehoods about the state of the front lines—specifically, the claim about Ukrainian troops being encircled near Kursk. Witkoff repeatedly echoed this standard Kremlin lie that Ukrainian forces are allegedly surrounded in the Kursk region.
Here’s exactly what he said, quote: “There are conditions that the Russians need for a final ceasefire, because a final ceasefire is complicated. There’s Kursk, where Ukrainian troops are encircled.” At this point, Tucker Carlson tried to show off his knowledge and noted, “Kursk is in Russia.”
Steve Witkoff confirmed: “Kursk is indeed in Russia. The Russians took it back.”
Now, I won’t nitpick, but just to clarify: Kursk has never been taken by Ukrainians—they never set that as an objective. Yes, some parts of Kursk Oblast were hit by Ukrainian strikes, but in Witkoff’s version, Kursk had been occupied by Ukrainians and was then recaptured by the Russians—yet another lie.
Witkoff continued: “They have people trapped there. President Trump doesn’t want everyone to be killed. That’s an important condition on the battlefield that needs to be resolved.”
At this point, I’m honestly tired of congratulating these two professional liars—liars yet again.
In reality, both Putin and Trump have repeatedly claimed that Ukrainian forces were encircled in the Kursk region. Trump even allegedly asked Putin not to kill them, while Putin responded with posturing, saying they had committed crimes.
But there is no encirclement of Ukrainian troops in the Kursk region—this has been confirmed multiple times not only by Ukrainian sources but also by the CIA and several U.S. intelligence agencies. These findings were reportedly shared with the White House.
As usual, though, Trump doesn’t believe his own intelligence community—he only believes Putin, who has claimed that Ukrainian troops in Kursk have only two options: surrender or die. This lie, too, has been repeated by Trump.
Lie #7: Putin Is Trump’s Friend Link to heading
And finally, the most important lie—about love. About how Putin prayed for Trump and gifted him a portrait. Here’s what Witkoff said: “During my second visit to Russia, everything became very personal. President Putin commissioned a beautiful portrait of President Trump from a leading Russian artist, gave it to me, and asked me to deliver it to President Trump—which I did. It was written about in the newspapers. But it was such a touching moment.” And here’s more, from Witkoff: “Putin told me that when Trump was shot at, he went to his local church, met with a priest, and prayed for the president. Not because he was the president of the U.S. or might become president again, but because they have a friendship, and he prayed for his friend. Do you understand what I’m saying? Can you imagine what it’s like to sit there and hear that?”
“I came back home,” Witkoff continues, “delivered this message to our president and brought him the painting. And he was clearly moved by it.”
The style of this whole thing kind of resembles the lives of saints. There’s a whiff of incense about it—truly. Again, quoting: “That’s the kind of connection we were able to restore through a simple word called communication. Many might say I shouldn’t have had that connection, because Putin is a bad guy. I don’t think Putin is a bad guy. The situation is complicated. This whole war and all the elements that led to it…”
So, to sum it up—that was a 90-minute-long interview.
Lie #8: Putin Wants Peace Link to heading
Witkoff also gave an interview to Fox News, which aired yesterday. I won’t comment on it in detail, but I can say this: the main takeaway from that interview was, “I feel that he wants peace. You know? I just feel that Putin wants peace.” That is perhaps the very essence of the interview that aired yesterday on Fox News.
Surkov’s Interview Link to heading
I had the intention—I won’t hide it—I had big plans for today’s talk. But after having to analyze everything in that conversation between two professional liars, Trump’s buddies Witkoff and Tucker Carlson, it all just became so revolting that I no longer have the strength for the rest of the agenda.
One of the things I had planned to discuss was Surkov’s interview with the French magazine L’Express. The main idea there is that Russia will expand in all directions—as far as God wills. Well, that’s perhaps a bit much. There were also several other interviews that Western outlets conducted with completely odious Russian figures.
Answers to Questions Link to heading
If I have the energy next time—before moving on to answering your questions—I want to mention that today is Monday, and at 8:00 PM I’ll be speaking with Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy. With him, I want to discuss, among other things, the mysterious story about the pipeline and the raid into Belgorod Oblast. Now, moving on to your questions.
On U.S. Sociology and the Popularity of Trump’s Ideas Link to heading
A question from Ilya:
Mikhail Sheitelman, in one of his broadcasts, cited American polling data on support for war, tariffs, and the annexation of Canada, Greenland, etc. It turned out that these brilliant Trump ideas are supported by a whole 1% of Americans. Are you interested in U.S. sociology? I’d be interested in your overall comment. Who is this imperial rhetoric from Trump aimed at today? If I’m not mistaken, in the campaign there was no talk of a 51st Canadian state or the like.
Dear Ilya! Since you’re a frequent interlocutor, I naturally don’t want to question your quote from Sheitelman, but something here seems off. Sheitelman is, as far as I can tell, a serious person, and it’s unlikely he would report only 1% support.
The fact is—as you correctly noted—I do indeed follow some sociological data from the United States. And I can cite a recent poll from a research firm: according to that survey, 65% of Americans opposed the annexation of Canada, while—not 1%—but 20% supported the idea. So it’s clear the overwhelming majority, two-thirds, are against it, and only a fifth are in favor. That means Trump’s idea clearly lacks support, but it’s definitely not at the 1% level.
As for Greenland, 56% were against its annexation, and only 22% supported it. So it’s fair to say that most Americans do not support Trump’s adventurous proposals. But one certainly can’t say support is only at 1%.
Who is it aimed at? Unfortunately, I don’t have detailed analytics on this. I don’t know how many Trump voters supported these ideas—that’s an open question. This rhetoric seems aimed at Trump’s core electorate. So yes, Trump finds his support base—but overall, the ratios are: 65% against annexing Canada and 56% against annexing Greenland.
On Propaganda and Facts Link to heading
Vladimir Savoysky:
When you spend several minutes of airtime on Ukraine’s Channel 24 discussing whether Witkoff really waited 8 hours for Putin, and whether Trump also had to wait an hour and a half for a phone call—don’t you think you’re engaging in propaganda? This information hasn’t been confirmed by either the American or Russian side. But since you have a negative attitude toward both presidents, you savor and dissect what are, in fact, just rumors.
You know, dear Vladimir, I have to say a few things. First, I’m not discussing rumors—I’m discussing facts. And I’ll mention those facts in just a second. As for neither the Russian nor American side confirming the wait—well, just take a moment to think, Vladimir. These facts or assumptions, whether it was Putin making someone wait 8 hours or keeping Trump waiting for an hour and a half—do you really think the American side would publicly confirm such a humiliation of Trump?
Put yourself in their shoes. Should the American side make a scandal over it? If they confirm it, they’d have to explain it to their voters. So what, they’re supposed to admit that Putin basically, pardon the expression, peed on Trump’s shoe—and everyone is supposed to acknowledge that? Of course not. Neither the Russian nor the American side would admit that.
Now, regarding the facts. What I personally saw with my own eyes is a publicly available video—footage of Putin’s conversation with Shokhin during that very same meeting of the Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, which caused Putin to delay his call with Trump. In the video, Shokhin says, “According to Peskov’s reports, you were supposed to have already been on a call with Trump.” Clearly, that’s official information: Putin had a scheduled conversation with Trump. And during that scheduled time, Putin was sitting and chatting with his hand-fed oligarchs.
Putin responds, “Oh, Peskov, don’t listen to him, he talks nonsense—it’s his job.” So it’s perfectly clear: the call was scheduled during a time when Putin was enjoying his leisure chatting with his flunkies.
Same goes for the story that Witkoff waited in the reception room while Putin was enjoying tea with Lukashenko—that’s well-known. You see, these aren’t rumors—they’re facts. And the fact that neither Russia nor the U.S. acknowledges it? Well, it would be strange if they admitted to such a disgrace.
A Request to Ask Portnikov About Skobov Link to heading
A question from Alexander. Alexander is a sponsor of our channel, for which we thank him very much. Indeed. Alexander writes—though he says it’s not necessary to read it on air, he wouldn’t mind the courtesy. I didn’t quite understand what I’m being asked not to refuse, but just in case, I’ll read it.
So, please ask Portnikov when you get the chance. Here’s the matter: please ask Portnikov why there isn’t a single word on Ukrainian sites about the sentencing of Alexander Skobov? About his act of courage? The man is dying for Ukraine. Why ask Portnikov specifically and not your other guests like Fesenko, Vlasenko, or Kurbanov? Because Portnikov promotes the idea that all Russians are genetic slaves who deserve only a crocodile-filled moat, that for centuries they’ve been trying to destroy Ukraine—while Skobov and others suffering in Putin’s dungeons for Ukraine don’t fit into that narrative.
You know, I’m not going to ask Portnikov anything, because I have my own information. For example, one of the major Ukrainian media resources—say, Pravda Gerasymenko, with half a million subscribers—that very Telegram channel with half a million followers—has indeed published information about what happened to Skobov, his statement, and so on. So yes, this is on Ukrainian sites. I have my own sources of information. There’s absolutely no need to waste time asking Portnikov to verify such things.
On the Author’s Citizenship Link to heading
Alina Kozlova:
If my question seems too personal or inappropriate, please feel free not to answer. Are you considering obtaining Lithuanian citizenship? Or do you wish to keep your Russian one?
No, why not—I’ll answer. I don’t think it’s such a personal question. It’s a question related to my public position. Citizenship is not a personal matter—it’s tied to my professional activity.
But as of today, it’s not an easy question to answer, because I currently have no realistic chance of obtaining Lithuanian citizenship, so there’s no real reason to think about it. However, if we imagine a hypothetical situation where I did have the opportunity to receive Lithuanian citizenship, I might consider it. You see, for me, getting a passport isn’t just a technical issue or some sort of aid to make life more comfortable in a country—it comes with certain responsibilities.
And honestly, I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the idea of taking on another country’s citizenship. I would, in principle, need to become a Lithuanian journalist. That changes things. It’s one thing to view myself as a Russian journalist living in Lithuania, focusing mostly on topics related to Ukraine, Russia, and everything in between. But if I became a Lithuanian citizen, then as a journalist I’d be expected to focus on Lithuanian issues. That’s a different story, you understand?
Yes, I’m extremely grateful to the Lithuanian state for offering me shelter—that’s wonderful. But I’m not yet convinced it’s the right thing to do—to become a Lithuanian journalist. I’m not sure.
And then there’s the language issue. I do plan to learn Lithuanian to understand everyday conversations and communicate on a basic level. But becoming a Lithuanian journalist would mean having a completely different level of fluency.
By the way, I don’t really know of any successful Russian political émigrés who have become successful German, French, or even Ukrainian journalists. You see, it’s one thing to run a YouTube or TV channel in Russian and understand spoken Ukrainian—but it’s quite another to write professionally in Ukrainian. I don’t know of any Russian journalists who can write in Ukrainian at that level. Same goes for French. Maybe such people exist—but that’s a separate story.
So for now, no. I think that yes, holding a Russian passport today is a major problem—but it’s a problem I have to live with.
Closing Words Link to heading
Dear friends, this concludes our morning talk for today. And once again, I remind you that at 8:00 PM today we’ll have Serhiy Maratovych Hrabskiy. There are many interesting topics I’d like to discuss with him. Please take care of yourselves. Glory to Ukraine! Freedom to Alexander Skobov, to all Russian political prisoners, and to Ukrainian POWs! All the best to you.
Source: https://youtu.be/WDT5GNN-WVw